Introduction
Think about the last piece of content you wrote. Maybe it was an email to your boss, an annual report, or an update to a website. Who was it for? Why did you write it? And how did you know your message was understood? Ideally, content creators can answer these questions before sharing content with their audience. However, technology makes content creation easier than ever. Sometimes, the strategy behind the content gets overlooked.
Using content strategy to create new or update old content needs to be easy, repeatable, and scalable. The content strategy framework we present is an easy-to-remember, five-step process: documenting the content’s audience, goal, value proposition, validation, and measurement. This process will help keep your content appropriate, useful, user-centered, clear, consistent, and concise (Kissane, 2011). Much like writing user stories or defining requirements for a software project, applying this content strategy framework allows you to take a step back, consider the purpose of the content before drafting it, and align on the content’s purpose.
This content strategy framework was adapted from an approach our web team at Harvard Library learned from vendor partners during a website redesign project. Since then, we have used it for all types of content including a web page about the research lifecycle, a report summarizing the work of library grant projects, and an internal staff portal. While it started as a framework for writing content for a single web page, we have reviewed, edited, and iterated it so you can use it in almost any kind of professional content. Libraries, organizations, and individuals can use it to focus on what’s needed to deliver the most concise, informative, and helpful content.
Literature Review
Halvorson (2009), a passionate advocate for content strategy, defined the concept as “the practice of planning for the creation, delivery, and governance of useful usable content” (p. 32). Content strategy can also guide how you define the content management lifecycle at your organization (Bailie, 2011). Employ content strategy to “develop content that is valuable to your audiences and deliver it where and when they need it” (Frick & Eyler-Werve, 2014, p. 4).
Casey (2015) wrote, “Organizations and practitioners tend to jump into designing content before defining a strategy that clarifies what content users need and how it should support business goals” (p. 185). Employing a content strategy framework allows single contributors and groups to decide why they create, update, or delete content. Halvorson (2011) wrote, “We must work to define not only which content will be published, but why publish it in the first place” (p. 23).
Taking the time to consider the context and scope of the content through the lens of an agreed-upon strategy makes for a better final product, whether it be a website, email newsletter, digital sign, or paper flier. For a website in particular, it’s essential for everyone working on it to understand the purpose, goals, and audience relevant to the content (Blakiston, 2013). A framework for content strategy also helps make your content more flexible and consistent across platforms (Wachter-Boettcher, 2012).
In libraries, staff create a significant amount of content. Library websites “provide access to locally curated web content that promotes, explains, and instructs users about various services and resources” (Blakiston, 2013, p. 175). Chapman and Demsky (2015) wrote that library websites are a primary “place” where all different types of users “access materials, resources, and services.” (p. 23) And beyond the basic website are LibGuides, WordPress project sites, social media, and other online outreach content (McDonald & Burkhardt, 2019). Really, “everything is content” (Lovinger, 2007, para 6). Adding to the complexity is that in many libraries, multiple authors are working on the same content. You may have a dedicated team of writers, editors, and stakeholders for your web content, or you may be on your own, wearing multiple hats (Barker, 2016).
Library professionals have grappled with how to approach all this content as well. Datig (2018) wrote about using a content audit, personas, vision statements, and a delivery channel strategy to organize content work. McDonald and Burkhardt (2021) explained the usefulness of a content management system, especially in large content teams, and governance rules to help keep content consistent. Chapman and Demsky (2015) described the benefits and drawbacks of different approaches to content strategy as “checks and balances, wild west, and specialist-led.” In the checks and balances approach, authors have a lot of creative freedom, but there is a review process for publishing new content. In the wild west approach, authors can publish content without any barriers to publishing. And in the specialist-led approach, communications professionals take the lead on authoring content, resulting in cohesion in the writing tone but slower times to publication.
In addition to content written for the library website, content strategy can help inform communications and research services practices. In particular, it is helpful for focused planning for email newsletters (Kumar, 2008) and library guides (Logan & Spence, 2021). Logan and Spence (2021) wrote that there was little adoption of formal content strategy for guides at most libraries. They recommended considering guides as part of the overall user experience, not separate entities. Their research indicated that a holistic approach to content strategy could strengthen all kinds of electronic content libraries produce.
A field closely related to content strategy is user experience (UX) writing, which is “the practice of writing carefully considered information that addresses people’s contexts, needs, and behaviors” (Kaley, 2024, p. 1). UX writing differs from content strategy: whereas content strategy encompasses all types of content, UX writing focuses more on text-based content, including aspects like visual design, word placement, and word choice. In UX writing, a writer needs to take a design and writing mindset: a design mindset to consider what terms users are familiar with or what happens next in their journey, and a writing mindset to consider how to describe an action or what terms are already being used (Metts & Welfle, 2020). Podmajersky (2019) argued that words need to align with users, and if not done correctly, words would not work to move a user through a digital experience.
Content strategy is distinct from UX writing because content strategy informs content goals, page layout, and components. In contrast, UX writing is related to the choice of words and other content with the users in mind. UX writing and content strategy work together to improve a user’s journey through content.
With these different delivery tools, authors, and approaches, working with clear guidelines provides a unified understanding of the content’s purpose. Using a framework with guidelines for each piece of content makes it easier for multiple creators to think about their content’s purpose before the writing begins. McDonald and Burkhardt (2022) wrote that “distributed content creation, in which authorship is undertaken by numerous parties across the organization, generally results in a rapidly increasing quantity of content without necessarily guaranteeing consistent quality” (p. 12), building on Blakiston’s (2013) observation that for many years librarians thought that adding more content was a service for library users.
A framework for content strategy increases the likelihood of consistent quality in your content, and an intentional approach centers the user and their needs in your process before you create any content. Below, we describe the main elements of our content strategy framework and illustrate the framework in action through two case studies at Harvard Library.
Framework Definition
To understand the five steps in this content strategy framework, let’s start with a general definition for what we mean by “creating content.” In nearly all circumstances, communication through content creation requires (1) funneling the idea from a creator’s brain to their own hand or mouth, in order to create or express it; (2) transforming that idea into content—words, images, or sounds on paper or a screen; (3) having the content transmitted to the audience’s brain via their eyes, ears, or adaptive technology; and (4) reconstructing that content as an idea that fits within the audience’s experience.
Presenting these stages in that sequential order presupposes that we can transmit our ideas exactly as we intend and that they will resonate with our audiences exactly as we plan, 100 percent of the time. This perpetuates the myth that we can meet our communication goals as long as we are clear and accurate. The sequential approach is grounded in an inductive model in which the information we wish to communicate—our content—guides our thinking. It drives creators to focus on the ideas they have already decided to communicate rather than the impact they hope to have. Halvorson (2011) framed this intended impact as the “why,” stating:
We have all created or encountered content that did not have its intended impact, did not send the right message, or did not generate the expected action—where we did not understand the “why.” As creators, we then default to adding in additional points, still centering the ideas we have decided to communicate in even more detail. This is often well-intentioned, but additional content may not change the impact. It may reinforce an unintended but nascent negative impression that has taken hold of the content consumer.the content strategist must work to define not only which content will be published, but why publish it in the first place. Otherwise, content strategy isn’t strategy at all: It’s just a glorified production line for content nobody really needs or wants. (p. 23)
Multiple content creators working in the same space, deferring to one another’s specialties and accumulating more and more specialized content, as we saw with Chapman and Demsky’s (2015) “wild west” and “specialist-led” approaches, can exacerbate this instinct.
Acknowledging these well-intentioned attempts as evidence of miscommunication recognizes the need for a strategy—for clearly articulated communication goals and a path for meeting them. In a sense, this is the distinction between an inductive and deductive approach. Through an inductive approach, a content creator brings about the communication strategy from the message itself. Through a deductive approach, a content creator determines the message after having established the strategy. To understand the distinction, consider this set of instructions, which uses an inductive, step-by-step approach:
Visit the library circulation desk.
Present proof of identity and proof of residency.
If you are not a resident, pay a fee.
Fill out the appropriate application (resident/non-resident).
Wait until notified that the application has been approved.
Return to the library circulation desk.
Receive your library card.
Access library resources.
Rather than letting the content itself—the instructions in our example—guide decisions about communication or inducing an outcome through the content, a deductive approach lays a strategic foundation by first identifying the strategic elements that will guide the creation of the content. The subtle but important difference between an inductive and deductive content strategy can be seen in the starting point—induction begins with the content, while deduction begins with the strategy. In our view, a deductive, strategy-led approach establishes a stronger foundation for creating content that is relevant and useful. Our deductive content strategy framework foregrounds strategy as the driving consideration. It is comprised of five elements: (1) audience, (2) goals, (3) value proposition, (4) validation, and (5) measurement.
1 Audience
In leading off with a consideration of audience, the content strategy framework turns the sequential, inductive approach on its head, centering the audience’s experience, rather than the content itself, as the driver of strategic communication. In the corporate context, defining the audience may be synonymous with targeting a particular customer demographic. Frick and Eyler-Werve (2014) used that framing to encourage creating “ content so seductive that your audiences won’t be able to resist reading, using, and sharing it,” (Creating Seductive, Compelling Content section, para 1) which may feel strange to those working in a library environment. At the core, however, even their return on engagement model starts with discovering all you can about your particular audience. User research methods like personas and empathy maps can help guide audience definition and allow content creators to reproduce information about their primary audience with each new push for content creation (Putting Audience Research To Work section, para 1).
Identifying a primary audience for the content creates a lens through which each piece of content will be viewed and interpreted. In the example of our instructions for obtaining access to library resources, it is important to know whether the audience is a completely new library user or someone familiar with the concept of access and borrowing and to frame the communication through that lens.
The most significant hurdle for identifying a primary audience is the misunderstanding that prioritizing audiences is a barrier to inclusivity. In short, when asked to identify a primary audience, many content creators will consider “everyone” as their primary audience. However, creating content for a non-specific audience diffuses the intended outcomes and makes content less accessible for all. The key to the strategy is to identify and prioritize audiences that can serve as a touchstone for making additional key decisions throughout the process of content creation.
2 Goal
Goal setting is not an unfamiliar concept for those engaged in strategy, but identifying goals for particular pieces of content and for specific audiences narrows the scope and enables a deductive approach. Here we are not speaking merely of the content creator’s goals, whether they are to attract a new customer demographic or sell more product, we are talking about the goals of the content consumer—the audience’s goals. A content creator’s understanding of and alignment with the audience’s goals is a form of “hypothesis” allowing them to test whether their content will have the intended impact (Frick & Eyler-Werve, 2014).
Identifying the audience’s goal is akin to setting that initial destination in our example of access instructions, but when paired with an understanding of audience, it can be even more specific and useful. The outcome may be access to library resources, but understanding the goal of the library patron involves framing the destination through their lens. If the audience is a new resident with lots of experience in other public libraries looking to grab the latest best-sellers from the new books shelf, starting at the circulation desk in a physical library location makes sense. But if the primary audience is a young student with no previous library expertise attempting to access electronic resources for their first research assignment, applying for a card online would be the best course of action. That audience and goal combined could shift the content from an in-person to a virtual focus.
To provide appropriate guidance and facilitate the transmission of information to the target audience, we must first set out a destination and frame that destination or goal through the lens of our audience, making sure that they find value in that goal—that there is value to what we create. That value accounts for the third step in the content strategy framework: creating a value proposition.
3 Value Proposition
The value proposition, which can often be distilled into a pithy statement, articulates why your content will enable your intended audience to meet their goal. This concept brings together Halvorson’s (2009) focus on “why” with Frick and Eyler-Werve’s (2014) succinct and intersectional approach of a “hypothesis.” For our library card example, we could say, “Your key to unlock access to library resources wherever you are.” This statement reinforces the value that by using these instructions, we can get you access to library resources both within a library location or at home, based on your needs and preferences. This value proposition should be short, like a catch phrase, because it allows the content creator to have a consistent, easy-to-use reference point for everything to follow. It forces the creator to keep that audience, their goal, and how they will understand value in mind as they go about generating that content and proving that value—validating the audience’s goal.
4 Validation
Put very simply, validation is what words or other types of content are needed to fulfill the value proposition. This is the most widely variable component of the content strategy framework because it depends on the first three steps, but the mechanisms in place for sharing the content may constrain it. When creating instructions for obtaining a library card, for example, we might consider the validation to include an explanation of eligibility, directions to find and submit an application, a list of the ways to prove identity and residency or a fee list for non-resident, and other helpful information such as library hours and expected wait time.
As we begin to list all these components of content or interactions, it can be easy to lose track of our specific audience, their goal, and value proposition, and to let the content or the format take over. It is why most inductive approaches begin with the validation—centering the information to be shared and then working backward to find the audience, goal, and value that can be induced from that content. If XYZ is what we need to communicate, why not start with XYZ? It also feels like a perfectly reasonable starting place if the focus is solely on the creator’s goals, or the broader goals of their organization or platform—what it lacks, however, is the centering of the audience and the context necessary to understand their role in the story: why the content is necessary or important for them to engage with to achieve their goals. For a moment, we can move away from the example of instructions for obtaining a library card and think instead of a different type of content—policy documentation.
This is one of the most common types of content libraries create, and it is critical to support some of our most basic functions: access, borrowing, technology use, patron privacy, copyright, terms of use, and more. It is also more than reasonable to assume that drafting this type of policy is driven by the content itself—we need a place to put these policies that we stand behind and that articulate our ways of working and interacting with each other, our patrons, and the broader community. However, we do not draft these policies in a vacuum. Often, the work of committees or department administrators tasked with reacting to or creating any number of scenarios give rise to each one.
Frick and Eyler-Werve (2014) used their concept of “hypothesis” to suggest that validated learning cycles can help us generate the minimum amount of content necessary to test the efficacy of our approach to these kinds of scenarios. A user-research focus on engaging with policy development can help us avoid the assumption that “adding more content was a service for library users,” allowing librarians to “improve their web skills and demonstrate their fluency with technology” (Blakiston, 2013, p. 176). It is worth noting, however, that if we stop and apply a content strategy framework to writing library policy, we often have all the information we need to make our policies actionable, to promote active engagement with our policies, and to test their efficacy by measuring the impact of the content we share through them.
5 Measurement
The goal of creating content is to have an impact, and by thinking strategically about how to measure the impact of that content from the outside, we can make sure our validation points prove the value proposition and help our audience achieve their goal. Blakiston’s (2013) organization articulated their success metrics for the redesign of a library website through the lens of their target audience. For example, 100 percent of users could successfully complete the following tasks on the website: find a book or article based on a research need, find a known item (book, article), find library hours, etc. These are relatively simple to measure directly and indirectly. A more complex measurement would be “when looking for information about any library service, 100 percent of users find relevant and accurate information,” and even more complex: “when reading a web page, 100 percent of users understand what they are reading and can find what they are looking for before getting frustrated” (p. 190).
Measurement can take any number of forms, and again, it often depends on the format or mechanisms of communication. Still, it should be framed through the lens of the audience member engaging with the content to reach their goal. From read receipts on email to web analytics reporting and ultimately changing user behavior, measurement is critical to successful content strategy. In our instructional example, the number of library cards issued may be a primary type of measurement, but for understanding the access and use of library resources, there may be other forms of measurement—circulation statistics, e-resources usage, or attendance at public programs—to consider.
Incorporating measurement also allows for more iterative development of content. Creating content to gain insight into user engagement or impact will enable us to make more informed decisions and create or edit content accordingly. Our policy documentation used this approach, for example. The number of visits to the library page describing borrowing policies was one metric, but over time, we could see an impact on library returns when certain aspects of the policy were more prominent on a page—a language change regarding the waiver of fines, for example, may have promoted healthier and more sustainable returns procedures, allowing libraries to test the impact of their policies on user engagement and adjust accordingly. In short, completing the process enabled us to restart the process anew each time, with a more refined audience, goal, value proposition, and validation content, building measurement in the form of impact, user experience, and accessibility from the start.
Case Studies
Now that we have defined the elements of the content strategy framework, we want to share specific examples of its application in Harvard Library’s work. The framework can give structure and intention to most types of content. Our usual approach involves a meeting with five to eight staff members who are most familiar with the content and user needs of the topic. There is one facilitator and one notetaker at this meeting.
The facilitator walks through each part of the content strategy framework and asks guiding questions to foster discussion. The notetaker records ideas in each section, and the facilitator guides the group to a consensus for each section based. It is important that the person leading the meeting has strong facilitation skills, but it is not necessary for them to be one of the stakeholders of the content itself. Usually, a content strategy session for a web page is one 90-minute meeting, but for smaller pieces of content a 60-minute session may suffice. If the content is larger than a single web page, it may take several sessions to complete. An agenda for a content strategy meeting and a facilitator guide are available in appendices A and B.
The lead for writing and maintaining the content usually keeps the completed framework without the discussion notes. An example of a completed content strategy framework is in appendix C. If there are significant changes related to the topic area, for instance if borrowing policies change, the stakeholders revisit and update the content strategy.
We’ll walk through two case studies from Harvard Library to show how this process works in practice. First, we applied the content strategy framework to a complicated and popular page on the library website. Second, we used it to help develop a staff newsletter. These are only two examples of how we’ve used the framework; you can adapt it for any need you might have when creating content for internal or external audiences.
Case Study One: A Public-Facing Web Page
When we redesigned Harvard Library’s main website in 2017, we reviewed every piece of content and rewrote most of it. One example is the library’s Borrowing How-To page. Sometimes, library staff said the audience for the Borrowing page was “everyone,” and there was a long list of goals for the content. Using the framework made it easier to articulate a more specific primary audience and align on goals for the content. The process of redesigning this page demonstrates the framework in action.
1 Audience
Borrowing policies for any library can be complicated, so we started with a discussion about the primary audience. A user of library materials must be affiliated in some way with our institution, either as a Harvard ID holder or someone with special borrower rights. After more discussion, we determined that the audience who needed the information most was someone who had little interaction with the libraries or library staff. We homed in on students new to Harvard Library as the primary audience for this how-to guide. The secondary audiences were Harvard ID holders with an established understanding of borrowing policies but who had a specific question, visitors who wanted to understand how they could request access to borrowing rights, and library staff from other institutions who wanted to understand how our borrowing policies work.
2 Goal
Next, we discussed the main goal for the page. We wanted to answer the question, what is the overall purpose of the page? What is it about borrowing that our audiences, especially the primary audience, need to know to address their requirements ? They may need to find answers to a question (content) or take action (interaction). In this case, we had two primary goals: to explain policies around borrowing materials at Harvard Library and to explain how users can get materials that our library does not own. The secondary goal was to explain how people not affiliated with Harvard Library could borrow or use our materials.
3 Value Proposition
Once we had our audience and goals, we discussed the page’s value proposition. This brief statement is meant to entice and engage with the user, describing what the page’s content enables users to do. The value proposition for the Borrowing How-To page was “Whatever materials you need to get your work done, we have them or can get them for you.” This let the user know what borrowing means in the context of library services and provided helpful details about the service, including materials we have or items that we can procure from other libraries.
4 Validation
The penultimate part of the framework, validation, is where the proof points are documented. For a web page, the proof points may be pieces of content—think section titles for the page—and user interface components—for example, links, forms, or embedded video. It is important to document both pieces of content and user interface components so the content writers have what they need to draft the page and so the site engineers can build new components, if needed. For the Borrowing How-To page, our validation section for content included the various services we offer to get users the materials they need and the information about those services that users need to best use them, like loan periods and pick-up locations. The user interface components included text, headings, a jump-navigation menu, bulleted lists, links, and a full-width call-to-action component with a button.
5 Measurement
Finally, we documented what success meant for the page. For a web page, this typically means the user could find what they were looking for. To make this measurable, we used web analytics to understand metrics such as scroll depth, time-on-page, and exit clicks. Documenting this in the process ensured that we set up the necessary tags in our analytics program to start measuring from the day the new content launched.
Implementation
At the conclusion of this content strategy meeting, we had a documented content strategy for our Borrowing How-To page that library staff could refer to when writing and editing page content. It informed how parts of the content on the page were prioritized and the type of audience the content writers thought about as they were drafting and editing. We made sure to give precedence to the primary audience and goals when writing, but we also included information that supported our secondary audiences and goals. See appendix A for the completed content strategy framework for this project.
Case Study Two: An Internal Email Newsletter
In spring 2024, Harvard Library’s Information and Technical Services (ITS) department used the content strategy framework to increase the visibility of ITS’s engagement with Harvard Library’s strategic objectives. The department applied the framework to pinpoint the content required for the communications and how they would disseminate the information internally.
The UX and Discovery team guided the six-member ITS project team through the content strategy framework, leading them through the process and teaching it by example. An example of the content strategy framework agenda is in appendix A, and the facilitator’s guide is in appendix B. This process started early enough that ITS had not yet chosen the mode of communication or the content. This was ideal because the project team could use the content strategy framework to identify how and where to display the content and the content itself. This allowed the group to choose a delivery format based on audience needs instead of retrofitting the content to a less-than-ideal format.
In the first meeting, ITS stakeholders met for an hour and a half to discuss the content strategy framework and perform a collaborative landscape review. A landscape review is a structured method of identifying inspiration from examples of work similar to the concept a team is trying to create; we often pair it with the content strategy framework in our work. The team looked at examples of interdepartmental communication across the library in the review.
1 Audience
The team started by identifying the primary audience: "internal ITS staff, who are not actively engaged with strategic objectives day-to-day.” A secondary audience was “internal collaborators with ITS.” By making these choices, the team didn’t need to provide contextual information about Harvard Library as a workplace since the audience already had the necessary background to understand it. It is essential to consider the audience’s context and what assumptions they might or might not have that would affect the content.
2 Goal
After identifying this audience, the team focused on naming an audience member’s goal that would lead them to engage with the content. The primary goal from the audience’s perspective was to “understand internal ITS work as it relates to the library’s strategic objectives.” It is essential to write the goal from the audience’s perspective using an action verb. You can see this in the facilitators’ guide in appendix B. In this case, understand gives a content writer a primary objective when creating content: to make it easily digestible and to make the connection between ITS work and Harvard Library’s strategic objectives clear for a reader. If the action verb were different, such as find, the content would focus on sharing resources instead of storytelling.
The secondary goal, framed from the stakeholder perspective, supported the primary goal: "to create opportunities for internal staff to consider how to align their day-to-day tasks and projects with the library’s strategic objectives more appropriately.” This secondary goal told the team what they hoped to accomplish in sharing the content from the creator’s end.
3 Value Proposition
There were multiple ideas for the value proposition, which often happens in a content strategy session. This is where the facilitator does a lot of active listening and works on gaining consensus with the group. In this case, the pitch was “your work in ITS reflected in the library’s priorities.” The word choice of your within this value proposition helped the team decide where to place the content—in a place where there was no question to the primary audience that they were the your in that statement.
4 Validation
Validation is often a list of other information needed to support the value proposition. In this case, the team wanted to include a date, the abbreviation ITS in writing as opposed to “information technical services,” and a description of Harvard Library’s strategic objectives to give necessary context to the audience. The choice of date was essential to illustrate the time of year work took place. Calling ITS by its abbreviation assumed local context, which was knowledge that the primary audience would have. Finally, describing the Harvard Library’s strategic objectives would help the audience understand the necessary connection to the broader library.
5 Measurement
After validation, the team discussed the success criteria of this content, which would be both anecdotal and empirical. For anecdotal success, ITS managers would better understand Harvard Library’s strategic objectives during goal-setting conversations with their staff. For empirical success, the team decided to track the number of views each content piece received. At this stage, the team hadn’t chosen a platform or format, but knowing that tracking views was a goal helped narrow down potential locations for the content.
Next, the team discussed which components to include in the final deliverable. They decided to include a date associated with a post, a call to action for ITS staff to get more engaged, easy navigation to previous posts, names of team members associated with mentioned projects, and emojis to showcase the celebratory manner of the content. These choices all guided the content writer.
Implementation
After documenting the content strategy framework, it was time to decide how to deliver this content to ITS staff and create a title for the content. After discussing possible platform overload, they decided not to introduce a new place for staff to see this information. Given that insight, the team chose to create newsletters sent from Mailchimp. This meant sending the content directly to an all-ITS email group, ensuring it reached the target audience and that engaging with the content would not require a new platform. After deciding on the format and the goals, the team chose the name “MyGo Minute” for the content, referencing the acronym that Harvard Library uses for “multi-year goals and objectives,” so each newsletter was easily identifiable when an ITS staff member looked at email subjects. It also encapsulated the goal of associating the library’s strategic objectives with their work, and the choice of “minute” implied the email would be short and easy to review.
The team built the first newsletter in Mailchimp using notes from the content strategy session as a guide and Harvard Library’s web writing guidelines (Harvard Library, n.d.). At this point, the team can say the “MyGo Minute” accomplished its goals, and ITS staff now better understand how the library’s strategic objectives relate to their work. To see the whole content strategy, please refer to appendix A.
Framework Iteration
As mentioned before, we adapted the content strategy framework used at Harvard Library from an approach our web team learned from vendor partners during a website redesign project. The initial framework was focused on web content, so we needed to adapt it to serve our unique academic environment. This first draft of the framework worked well from 2018 to 2023. The framework from this period looks slightly different than the one we present in this paper since our team did a framework review in 2023. The previous framework focused on five main questions: Who is the page for? What is the overall goal of this page? What context is needed to educate the user? What are the proof points to add credibility to the value proposition? What context is needed? The starting framework was a tool, and like all tools, we needed to revisit the methods we used to ensure they align with our current practices.
In the fall of 2023, the UX & Discovery team audited frameworks and guides within the department. The team noticed that the content strategy framework could benefit from a cross-departmental review since so many other departments were now using it. These included communications, research services, and technical services, often in cross-departmental collaborations. At the point of the evaluation, the framework consisted of a template for a facilitator but did not include contextualization or examples for a facilitator new to this framework. The User Experience Researcher brought the Communication team members and UX and Discovery team members together to discuss and iterate on the framework. This group was chosen because of their shared goal of creating concise, informative, and helpful content for our users. These groups were also the most familiar with the content strategy framework and used it with other library departments to create content across library systems. Throughout two meetings, the team worked through the previous framework and conceptualized a guide for the framework.
In the first meeting, the team used a feedback approach called Likes, Wishes, and What Ifs to provide feedback on the previous version of the content strategy framework (Lemarchand, 2021). Likes are things that an individual appreciates about the framework. Wishes are for constructive criticism paired with possible avenues for change. And What Ifs are new possibilities or ways to think about the content presented. Our library had successfully used this framework in other projects (DeMarco, 2022). During this process, the group realized the inherent value of sharing stories of using the framework with stakeholders. These stories pointed to frustration, successes, and time constraints in the previous framework. The new structure for the content strategy framework developed through the stories shared, along with the likes, wishes, and what ifs.
The team quickly realized the framework had three consecutive parts built on one another: the audience, the content goal, and the content itself. From there, the team discussed the goals of each section and brainstormed possible ways to frame the content strategy framework process for a stakeholder group. The User Experience Researcher took the notes from this first meeting and drafted a new facilitator guide and a blank template for the content strategy framework meeting.
In the second meeting, the team performed Likes, Wishes, and What Ifs on the draft. From that discussion, the team decided that there should also be supporting examples of successful content strategy framework sessions in addition to the facilitator guide. We included three examples of building content: an external audience web page, an internal audience newsletter, and an internal website. These examples provided context to a new facilitator on the types of projects and approaches of the framework. After adding the feedback from the team, we finalized the facilitation guide.
As you can see from this story, we view this framework as adaptable, and we plan to review the strategy as needed. The intentional reflection of this process led to a greater collective and individual understanding of the content strategy framework, which will facilitate this process in our work.
Benefits
The content strategy framework we describe is helpful for setting content goals and aligning a team that creates digital content and has a positive impact on the user experience. If information is organized and concise, it results in people getting the information they need efficiently. Often, libraries make online content to reduce the number of informational inquiries received in online chat, emails, phone calls, and in-person requests. If online content is thoughtful, user-focused, and organized, librarians can spend more time supporting complex research questions or locating materials.
Once you have completed your content strategy for your web page, digital collection, or library guide, you can create content. Then the final step is validation. We have successfully used website analytics and user testing to measure content success. Engagement analytics, including time on page, scroll depth, and link clicks, can give you a sense of how much users engage with your content. We have also conducted user testing specifically on the content of our Borrowing How-To page to understand if the content is clear and organized. We employed the content highlighter test approach (18F, n.d.), in which users highlight text that they think is clear with one color and highlight text that they believe is confusing with another color. This gave us a way to evaluate and iterate on the specific content on the page. The feedback helped us edit and make minor adjustments to the organization to optimize the content.
The content strategy framework centers on the user’s needs rather than on what library staff want to communicate. This is intentional and encourages conversation that puts staff in the mindset of a user. The structured approach promotes collaboration among staff to enable fruitful discussions that lead to a shared vision for user-focused content. By prioritizing user needs and creating user-centered content, library staff can build trust with their community by making it easier for people to find information online.
Future Directions
As we look ahead at the future of content generation, we must reiterate that content strategy is not a substitute for direct engagement or research with users. As discussed in the framework definition, user research is critical to defining the audience, understanding their goals—their why, developing a value proposition or hypothesis, validating that hypothesis with the content you create, and measuring the impact as often as possible to restart and reproduce the process. This framework is a tool, and like all tools, it requires maintenance and upkeep; revisiting the methods we use to understand content strategy and its role in creating and maintaining content is part of the process.
This framework is also not a substitute for good writing practices. Writing for the web in the age of artificial intelligence has become both simpler and vastly more complex. While artificial intelligence chatbots can easily generate content in a variety of forms, such as a website, social posting, policy, or technical writing, those artificial intelligence chatbots also function better when prompted with a defined structure (Mollick, 2023). For example, articulating audience and goals as part of a prompt to an artificial intelligence chatbot can generate content one can more easily edit and adapt for the specific use case. It can reinforce the intention behind the content and the value in the context.
In looking ahead at the future of this work beyond our institution, we see the framework growing and evolving as others apply and adapt it in different settings. We encourage our colleagues to view frameworks and guides in your work as flexible and changeable for the context or goals. Consider using this process at your institution. What are things you like or would change? How could you make this more usable within your context? By creating this opportunity for reflection and transformation, your team—or team of one!—will find new and exciting ways to use content strategy in your work.
Conclusion
When we started the website redesign project in 2017, we declared that our website would never be “done.” As your organization and the world evolve, your content will need to change with it. To keep content relevant and useful, it is important to revisit it. Sometimes a simple edit will make a significant improvement, but other times it is worth getting a group of stakeholders together to revisit the content strategy for an entire web page, newsletter, email, brochure, or document. This will ensure your content remains useful for your audience.
The content strategy framework is flexible. We often use it formally with a group during a 90-minute session, giving space for robust conversation about each step. However, individuals can also use it informally before drafting an important email or presentation. In some ways, the content strategy framework is more of a mindset than a method—one that externalizes the focus of our communication and centers the measurable impact of our content with our intended audience. Even using a truncated version of the framework, with only audience and goal, is enough to align a team or your own thoughts on a vision for a message.
We know that this framework is useful for all types of library communications, not just because our teams actively engage with it on a regular basis, but because other groups in the library have adopted it for their projects. It has grown and evolved with each use. It is a helpful and easy way to facilitate a convergent discussion on content for a known deliverable. We have included a template for the framework and examples of completed content strategy documents in the appendices. In sharing this framework, our intent is to enable libraries to have audience-focused content that is flexible and useful. We would love to hear from anyone who uses or enhances this content strategy framework. We believe that in sharing these stories, we can all become better communicators.
References
18F. (n.d.). Content highlighter testing. 18F Methods. https://web.archive.org/web/20250101223520/https://guides.18f.gov/methods/validate/content-highlighter-testing/https://web.archive.org/web/20250101223520/https://guides.18f.gov/methods/validate/content-highlighter-testing/
Bailie, R. A. (2011). What’s the buzz about content strategy? Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 37(2), 19–22. https://doi.org/10.1002/bult.2011.1720370207https://doi.org/10.1002/bult.2011.1720370207
Barker, D. (2016). Web content management: Systems, features, and best practices. O’Reilly Media, Inc.
Blakiston, R. (2013). Developing a content strategy for an academic library website. Journal of Electronic Resources Librarianship, 25(3), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.1080/1941126X.2013.813295https://doi.org/10.1080/1941126X.2013.813295
Casey, M. (2015). The content strategy toolkit: Methods, guidelines, and templates for getting content right. New Riders.
Chapman, S., & Demsky, I. (2015). Taming the kudzu: An academic library’s experience with web content strategy. In B. L. Eden (Ed.), Cutting-edge research in developing the library of the future: New paths for building future services (pp. 23–41). Rowman & Littlefield.
Datig, I. (2018). Revitalizing library websites and social media with content strategy: Tools and recommendations. Journal of Electronic Resources Librarianship, 30(2), 63–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/1941126X.2018.1465511https://doi.org/10.1080/1941126X.2018.1465511
DeMarco, C. (2022). Building an innovative internship program: The recipe for greatness. In A. Hartsell-Gundy, K. Duckett, & S. Morris (Eds.), Learning in action: Designing successful graduate student work experiences in academic libraries. (pp. 75–86). Association of College and Research Libraries.
Frick, T., & Eyler-Werve, K. (2014). Return on engagement: Content strategy and web design techniques for digital marketing (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203751817https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203751817
Halvorson, K. (2009). Content strategy for the web. New Riders.
Halvorson, K. (2011). Understanding the discipline of web content strategy. Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 37(2), 23–25. https://doi:10.1002/bult.2011.1720370208https://doi:10.1002/bult.2011.1720370208
Harvard Library. (n.d.). Writing guide. https://library.harvard.edu/writing-guidehttps://library.harvard.edu/writing-guide
Kaley, A. (2024, May 8). UX writing: Study guide. Nielsen Norman Group. https://www.nngroup.com/articles/ux-writing-study-guide/https://www.nngroup.com/articles/ux-writing-study-guide/
Kissane, E. (2011). The elements of content strategy. A Book Apart.
Kumar, V. (2008). How to develop an e-mail library newsletter: A cakewalk approach. CALIBER 2008 Allahabad, 154–158. https://ir.inflibnet.ac.in/handle/1944/1248https://ir.inflibnet.ac.in/handle/1944/1248
Lemarchand, R. (2021). A playful production process: For game designers (and everyone). MIT Press.
Logan, J., & Spence, M. (2021). Content strategy in LibGuides: An exploratory study. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 47(1), 102282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2020.102282https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2020.102282
Lovinger, R. (2007, March 27). Content strategy: The philosophy of data. Boxes and Arrows. https://boxesandarrows.com/content-strategy-the-philosophy-of-data/https://boxesandarrows.com/content-strategy-the-philosophy-of-data/
McDonald, C., & Burkhardt, H. (2019). Library-authored web content and the need for content strategy. Information Technology and Libraries, 38(3), 8–21. https://doi.org/10.6017/ital.v38i3.11015https://doi.org/10.6017/ital.v38i3.11015
McDonald, C., & Burkhardt, H. (2021). Web content strategy in practice within academic libraries. Information Technology and Libraries, 40(1), 1–46. https://doi.org/10.6017/ital.v40i1.12453https://doi.org/10.6017/ital.v40i1.12453
McDonald, C., & Burkhardt, H. (2022). Web content strategy in academic libraries: Methods and maturity. portal: Libraries and the Academy, 22(4), 995–1033. https://doi.org/10.1353/pla.2022.0050https://doi.org/10.1353/pla.2022.0050
Metts, M. J., & Welfle. A. (2020). Writing is designing: Words and the user experience. Rosenfeld.
Mollick, E. (2023, November 1). Working with AI: Two paths to prompting. One Useful Thing. https://www.oneusefulthing.org/p/working-with-ai-two-paths-to-promptinghttps://www.oneusefulthing.org/p/working-with-ai-two-paths-to-prompting
Podmajersky, T. (2019). Strategic writing for UX: Drive engagement, conversion, and retention with every word. O’Reilly Media.
Wachter-Boettcher, S. (2012). Content everywhere: Strategy and structure for future-ready content. Rosenfeld.
Appendix A Sample Content Strategy Agenda
Part 1: Audience
Who is this content for?
Primary Audience:
Secondary Audience:
Part 2: Content Goal
Why does the audience need this content?
What is the main purpose/goal of the content?
Are there any secondary goals?
Part 3: The Content
What is needed for the audience to understand the goal?
Value Proposition
What is a one sentence description of the project or page that helps the audience know they are in the right place?
Validation
What supporting evidence or supporting information will the audience need to see on the page in order to fulfill the value proposition?
Components
What types of content or interactive elements comprise the supporting evidence or support information?
Part 4: Measurement
What would we consider success?
Appendix B: Facilitator's Guide
This framework assists in strategizing content for any project with an audience.
Instead of allowing the content to dictate communication decisions, this framework prioritizes strategy. It does this by first identifying the audience and objectives that guide content creation.
Part 1: Audience
Who is this content for?
The audience cannot be everyone. Encourage the group to be as specific as possible. Examples of audiences include a first-year student writing a history paper, undergrad students, or alumni interested in library services.
Primary Audience:
Secondary Audience:
Part 2: Content Goal
Why does the audience need this content?
Goals should do their best to be written with an action verb.
What is the main purpose/goal of the content?
This should be written from the user’s point of view.
Are there any secondary goals?
Think about what HL would like the audience to know.
Part 3: The Content
What is needed for the audience to understand the goal?
Value Proposition
It is helpful to frame the value proposition as creating a tagline or elevator pitch for the content.
What is a one-sentence description of the project or page that helps the audience know they are in the right place?
Validation
Validation is meant to help a user know they are in the right place based on the value proposition. So, this will be specific context or proof points to back up the value proposition. Here are two examples: If the group is creating a page, the validation can be page headers. If the group is designing a user website, the validation can be the type of UI elements for the website.
What supporting evidence or information will the audience need to see on the page to fulfill the value proposition?
Components
As a facilitator, keep a running list of components as the group discusses the other parts of the content. If there is time at the end of the meeting, go over the list with the group to see if you need to include anything. Some component examples include a point of contact, a list of headings, images, and a list of quick links.
What types of content or interactive elements comprise the supporting evidence or support information?
Part 4: Optional
Assessment
Assessment is meant to help the group solidify their goal with what success is for the goal. This could be analytic proof or anecdotal evidence that users can do tasks independently.
What would we consider success?
Additional Content Strategy Framework Documentation
Content Strategy Framework for Bookplate Website
Content Strategy Framework for Digital Collections Discovery Website
Appendix C: Sample Completed Content Strategies
Content Strategy for Borrowing How-To Page on a Library Website
Audience
Primary audience: Students who are unfamiliar with the library borrowing policies and practices.
Secondary audiences: Other ID holders who are familiar with library borrowing, but have a specific question; non-ID holders who want to use our materials; librarians from other institutions interested in our policies.
Goals
Primary goal: To explain policies around borrowing materials at the library and how to get things we don’t own.
Secondary goal: To explain what borrowing is available to those not affiliated with our institution.
Value Proposition
Whatever materials you need to get your work done, we have them or can get them for you.
Validation
Content: The various services we offer to get users the materials they need. Information about those services that users need to best make use of them, like loan periods and pick-up locations.
UI components: Text, headings, a jump-navigation menu, bulleted lists, links, and a full-width call-to-action component with a button.
Measurement
General: Web analytics including scroll-depth, time-on-page, and exit clicks.
Content Strategy for MyGo Minute Email Newsletter
Audience
Primary audience: Internal library technical services staff who are not actively engaged in MyGo processes day-to-day
Secondary audience: Internal collaborators with technical services
Goals
Primary goal: To understand internal ITS work as it relates to the MyGos.
Secondary goal: To create opportunities for internal staff to consider how to align their day-to-day tasks and projects with the MyGos more appropriately.
Value Proposition
Your work in ITS reflected in the library’s priorities.
Validation
Content: The subject including MyGo Minute, a date, the abbreviation ITS in writing as opposed to “Information Technical Services,” and a description of MyGo to give necessary context to the audience
UI components: Text, headings, relevant links
Measurement
Anecdotal success: ITS managers would see a greater understanding of MyGos during goal-setting conversations with their staff.
Empirical success: Number of views each content piece received.