Disqus - Latest Comments for bromo

Re: The small c and me

Craig Bromberg — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 09:02:48 -0000

Jeff: As usual, your openness and courage and resilience will win. Thanks for posting to us, and keep us informed of your progress. Godspeed & fast recovery.

Re: Making The Web Smarter

Craig Bromberg — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 10:11:44 -0000

Well user testing is only part of what I was referring to.

I was actually thinking of what journalism is, what news is, what the unit of a story consists in, and what the business model of that unit is, particularly in terms of the trade-offs beteween content creation costs and user need.

Everyone talks the game about aggregation and curation, but hybrid taxonomy/tagging (e.g., zigtag) and link acquisition may lower costs substantially to newsgathering—and in the Jarvis model (do what you do best and link to the rest) provide a nearly good enough substitute to traditional news operations.

The problem is that we still think of narrative units as stories and have done little to no innovation thinking through the news event as a data nexus. There are amazing tools to help writers in finding out, semantically, prior related news-instances (a kind of "author memory" if you will) but knowing how to incorporate those into a story—and how to encompass the tentacles of story across the network—is something we just don't know how to do yet.

So again: this is great plumbing, but how do we innovate on the front-end?

Re: Making The Web Smarter

Craig Bromberg — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 11:45:44 -0000

Great post, Fred.

I'm a fan of each of the companies you've invested in with open editorial APIs—outside.in, Disqus, Zemanta. Each one is creating a layer useful commercial applications whether it's at the geo-local mashup level (per outside.in), distributed commenting (per disqus) or semantic relevance (per zemanta). They're all useful in raising the back-end game whether it's for the single user (blogging) or in an enterprise-wide cms. I also agree that there need to be bridges built between taxonomy and tagging—finding the hybrid solution between vocabularies of meaning and user-based tags; seems to be something a lot of people (myself included) have been thinking about (for an example, see this pretty cool dek http://bit.ly/LJRhd). Common tagging is way cool.

But I'd like to make another point that goes to the core of your comments. Making the web smarter whether it's with these tools or other variants of semantic technology that share a similar use pattern (e.g. Open Calais) won't do a damned bit of good unless there is content strategy leadership at media companies and agencies recognizing the value of these strategies in organizing their digital for increased customer service as well as growing revenue. (Wait: did I just say customer service and media in the same sentence!?) We talk so much about why newspapers are failing and the absurdities of (for ex.) AP's new link policy, but rarely get into the strategic opportunities for media companies to create waves of innovation (and invaluable new layers of content and tools) for customers and rev growth by using these technologies.

To put this another way: you can make the web smarter via cool tools but unless people at media companies use 'em and make their own sites more intelligent with better content strategy—more useful (more use-case tested) and more relevant on the front-end (more than just a blinking cursor in a SERP textbox)—we all might as well stay home. Innovation has to take place on the front-end as well as on the back-end for real intelligence to grow. And unfortunately there's still precious little take up of this idea at most media outlets.

Re: Thoughts on evolving the Content strategy in Publishing to leverage social media

Craig Bromberg — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 17:50:36 -0000

Hi Dan, really interesting post—and amazingly close to one I wrote last week called Organizing Self-Organizing Behavior. I appreciate the focus you put on sharing and on social media, but we have different concepts of the toolkits that can facilitate these changes. I put much much greater store on the capabilities of metadata—from tags to taxonomies, whether in XML or in 3.0 toolkits. Sharing it seems to me is merely a byproduct of the taxonomical realities of user engagement in taxonomical production. In any event, take a look at http://bromo.craigbromberg.com, and tell me what you think.

good to meet you!
Craig

Re: What Would Apple Do? Don't Ask

Craig Bromberg — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 17:02:43 -0000

Funny, I wrote on this same subject using this same question—What Would Apple Do?—last week, except my question goes to the heart of Apple's content strategy, especially as it is perfected in the App Store and in iTunes via metatags. Apple shows the way to monetize community (not to mention content) and Jobsian perfectionism—safeguarding the moat around Apple's ecosystem—is precisely what has made that strategy (and the dollars that have flowed from it) so amazing.

Re: Scrum, baby, scrum

Craig Bromberg — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 15:07:33 -0000

Thanks Bill. The key to bring all the stakeholders to the table. The key here is to have sales and production and editorial at the scrum, and for the scrum master to effect backlog decisions among and between them from the start.

Thanks too for the encouragement!
Craig

Re: Custom for dummies

Craig Bromberg — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 21:22:52 -0000

Andrew, thanks for your comment. Sorry about using monetize as a noun—guilty!—but I really like the phrase Your Mileage May Vary, and Your Monetization May Vary didn't have quite the same rhythm to me. Oh well: YMMV:)

As for the rest, well, I'm afraid we just disagree. I’m not making the case against self-interest in custom media or any kind of media, for that matter. I’m making the case for participation and engagement and service to customers, not brands. Custom publishers say they have customers top of mind, but in my experience, most are busy promoting brands through the privilege of being able to own their own press. That’s not a customer focused, customer service business, that’s the business of customizing your own bespoke brand editorial. In some strictly B2B contexts, where there are few mainstream sources to be found on abstruse subjects such as chemical engineering, that business model kinda makes sense, and that may be the ace in the hole for B2B custom publishers such as Imagination. But it makes less and less sense as more and more people have that once-elite privilege of being able to publish what they want how they want.

In any event, I’m not debating custom’s credibility or lack thereof. My point is that custom's legacy as the arm of promotionally oriented brand editorial is inimical both to the spirit and technology of the distributive web, of feed-driven, networked and metagged XML. Mock the term "distributed brand intelligence" all you want—ok it does sound silly and pretentious—guilty AGAIN!—but it lies at the center of a revolution. You say it sounds like it means something but really doesn’t; I say Google proves you wrong a billion times every day.

And that brings me to the crux of it. Custom publishing is now playing in a very different strategic sandbox than it has throughout its history, but you’d never know it to look at most of the offerings. If you’re not propagating your data through XML and metatags to the network, you’re not competing. This isn’t about publishing new custom web destinations or finding new forms of multimedia storhytelling. Torch that money somewhere else; the smoke's getting in my eyes. it’s understanding the value of the data brands own and figuring out new ways of helping customers tell that story whatever way they want to across the search ecosystem.

My take is that custom just can’t do that. Its entire history is about publishing the hierarchically ordained story of brands. Sure there are good custom mags that do more. But the entire culture is just culturally, technologically, and emotionally out of touch with the needs of users operating the randomized search ecosystem today and tomorrow. By all means, call yourself a content marketer instead of a custom publisher if it makes you happy, but unless and until your brands let their data fly free of their own control, changing your name will not help. It's still the same address.

Re: Custom for dummies

Craig Bromberg — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 22:12:36 -0000

Hi Joe, thanks so much for your generous response. Kudos to you for having created a model that is truly unique, self-perpetuating, and attuned to the realities of what's going on out there. Really great stuff.

I'd love to hear about the CPC thing just for prurient reasons! But to restate what I wrote above (below?) to Simon, this isn't about quality but rather about history and about how the paradigmatic shift from brand monologue and the technologies that gird it to brand narratives that are aleatory, random, and conversational. As I said in the piece, your tent is big enough (and should be) to hold both these things. I'm just less convinced that custom—at least US custom--can make the shift to the new paradigm. I suspect it's a lost cause, and that folks who are custom publishers are bailing water as fast as they can...but are finding few takers (and when they do are making a mess of it.)

So much of content marketing is promotional sludge, a step backwards even from custom. But I don't think the fancy pedigree of custom publishers will make the sludge run any clearer in the Google engine. Quite the contrary because the control issue is so deeply embedded in custom's DNA. It's all fine and well to say we are beyond control, but when you look at custom products in this country, it's clear that's not the case. I agree with you when you say that control was lost a long time ago however. But the consequence of that is that custom has long seemed fusty and irrelevant and as failed to create real customer gains. For that to change, custom would have to lose its history.

And then it wouldn't be custom anymore:-)

Let's talk!

Re: Custom for dummies

Craig Bromberg — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 22:02:59 -0000

Hi Simon‚ thanks for your very interesting reply. I would love to talk with you.

A few years ago, I would certainly have agreed with you about custom's increasing relevance in the relatively random universe of networked XML. I'm less sure today. I'm particularly less sure given the state of custom publishing in the US--as opposed to contract publishing in the UK. I actually had a paragraph in this piece saying that the UK contract scene might have more ability to swim in these new currents than the US scene but pulled it because so few American custom publishers seem to know or care. As I noted, they don't want to compete and can't. And now they're falling behind the Gawkers/Daily Candy/Urban Daddy's of the world —not to mention pureplay digital agencies from Digitas (which does the Openforum for Amex) to Barbarian (which just designed Cookstr, for ex.)

UK contract publishers are guns for hire, and they are used to competing for every reader. As I'm sure you know, until just a recently, 10 of the top 20 bestselling magazines in the UK were contract published. In the US, one of the few custom mags to go consumer—Hallmark—was recently defenestrated. (You know that best of all since Hallmark started in your offices.)

I love your blog and am struck by how many of my postings and Story's seem parallel. But I also know you're a Brit, and I've seen that the history of folks importing the UK model here is spotty (remember John Brown Citrus's play a few years back?) The US model may be waning—I hope it is—but the point of my post in a way was to wonder outloud whether American custom's history—its long service of big boring brand monologues by the world's biggest companies—hasn't irrevocably damaged it, particularly relative to the competitive prospects of entrepreneurs with pureplay digital backgrounds.

I don't know the answer of course. But it does seem to me that something new has to evolve here. Pulizzi's model is one way, and a good one (at least for him). So too though are Crayon's and Shel Israel's and Chris Brogan's—all of them pure web based consultancies that have utterly divorced themselves from custom's legacy.

Let's talk!

Re: Title help, please

Craig Bromberg — Sun, 24 May 2009 01:47:14 -0000

Jeff,

"2.0" (just 2.0) although if it already seems to have become a shoddy sales anthem like "dot.com." (And is now getting swept past by 3.0 and semantic web.)

Restart (Reboot is too olde and English and PC for me), because it implies an optimistic and eventual return to a smoothly functioning eco(n)system—and in doing so points to a wise philosophy of history—neither conservative or revolutionary.

Another way to think about this: historical antecedents. Paul Hawken's Natural Capitalism: Creating the Next Industrial Revolution; Daniel Bell's The Coming of Post-Industrial Society. Our friend Umair's book (something like Reconstructing Capitalism). Not saying these are right titles, but they suggest a certain way of thinking about the problem.

Re: Why content strategy matters
(and size doesn’t)

Craig Bromberg — Sat, 09 May 2009 22:03:50 -0000

Ah but per Jeff's point below, it's a question of business strategy. In most media companies—heck most companies—the essentials of a p&l are calc'd on the production costs weighted against the potential ROI of the data in sales, advertising, or other rev lines.

These aren't babysteps. for most firms, it requires a total reinvention and reimagination of the content product and the actual place the brand lives. Does the brand live in its destination or in its connectedness through FB, Gconnect, Digg? Which content types are appropriate to this, which not?

See for ex what I wrote about Portfolio a few days back—or what I wrote about Barnwell's comments on CS in ScatterGather yesterday following this post. .Portfolio was a totally missed opportunity to understand what a business media brand should be, could even exist in a hypersaturated market of business media—and hyperrich business data. What was needed was, as I say, a taxonomical narrative of the brand. I can tell you for certain that the concept of Googlejuice never entered Joanne Lipman's mind except as a line in a long thumbsucker by say Michael Lewis.

These questions aren't babyssteps but essential to the core of business model, brand model, content model. Whether CS is the right discipline for examining this though may be a different kind of question. Which brings us back to Moritz's tweets.

Re: Why content strategy matters
(and size doesn’t)

Craig Bromberg — Sat, 09 May 2009 14:09:19 -0000

Thanks, Jeff. It is terrific to have this converation, and to tease out all the threads of it with you.

Couldn't agree more with the idea that CS deserves a seat at the product strategy table, and that publishing, whether of magazines, books or newspapers, is likely to benefit most from it. Will there be a chair labeled "CS" at the table? I don't know. As you say, seems to me, agencies flooded with spec content are the ones hiring content strategists these days, and (per Moritz's tweets), I'm not sure whether content strategists in agencies really do transcend "the project spectrum where agency talent builds and bills."

But —and here's where my next post—just hit the home button on the left to read it— digs deeper. You're right to connect content strategy with competitive strategy. I do. But innovation—and mark my words, this ultimately is major plumbing—requires much more than traditional CS deliverables or even competitive analysis. It requires innovation at behavioral and organizational levels and a reinvention of what it means to be a brand—either an editorial/media brand or a consumer brand. I don't know if that's what content strategists should be doing, but it's definitely what I'm driving at here: hwo media, technology and innovaton fit together. CS is definitely at that table, but whether it is leading it or not, is probably very firm specific, and most likely to be found in economic models that are content-production heavy and attention light than the other way around.

Again, see the next post.

Re: Why content strategy matters
(and size doesn’t)

Craig Bromberg — Sat, 09 May 2009 13:41:09 -0000

Great comments, Rachel. Love what you wrote in the last graf here. There's no doubt in my mind that that XML production, tagging, Googlejuice, SEO, SEM, etc. are mere babysteps along the long road to semantic publishing. It's good to think about all those juicy semantic technologies, however for the moment my attention is less on technological capability and more on immediate innovation steps.

In my experience, the firms that are just starting to hire content strategists are donkey years from thinking about the capabilities or technologies of the semantic web much less considering how they need to change production at the level of bit production based on semantic concerns. 90% of the media companies I know don't yet even have end to end distributive XML capabilities. They're still struggling with Interwoven! Just thinking about networked capabilities (much less semantic web capabilities) in the news business is still a debatable and potentially fireable presumption. When there's so much focus on trying to assert the continuance of metanarratives of story and brand, when you're worried about making it to the next day, when your client stream has just dried up—when you don't even have a job:-(—the future of semantic publishing can seem very, very distant.

Lastly, and somewhat tragically, although the idea of semantic publishing has been around for a long, long time—some say it predates the web if you consider Ted Nelson's Xanadu or Gelertner's lifestreams—it hasn't gotten very far. There is still a whiff of utopianism about it, and at the moment (i.e., the moment when I'm unemployed), the one thing I really can't afford is to be too early:).

Re: Why content strategy matters
(and size doesn’t)

Craig Bromberg — Fri, 08 May 2009 22:37:42 -0000

Well you most certainly are brilliant Moritz. Doing great work there in the belly of the beast. I've written a bit more today about taxomical narratives—still not entirely fleshed out, but getting there.

>I worry about approaching a project wielding a conducting baton and hearing everyone in >the room remark on what a lovely little flute I have.

Great analogy although I'll skip the Freudianism in it:) See what I wrote above to Kristina. Your concern I thnk is legit. CS has been the last to enter the rom and then is often the little flute playing sotto voce in the background. You're not alone in experiencing this.

However as I wrote to K, this is changing, will continue to change, the more companies give up their control over rigid monological content. The more content and corporate websites—as well as so-called digital custom publishing—becomes a conversation, the more that media products are based on user needs, the faster the changes to content strategy will take place. Like you I look forward to the day when the baton resembles a baton.

For now, I'd just like to get back in the room, but let's hold off on that for now.:(

Re: Why content strategy matters
(and size doesn’t)

Craig Bromberg — Fri, 08 May 2009 22:31:35 -0000

See my post today, Colleen. I was thinking of your comments when I wrote it.

Re: Why content strategy matters
(and size doesn’t)

Craig Bromberg — Fri, 08 May 2009 22:30:53 -0000

Hi Kristina: First of all, you rock.

Second: I appreciate the self-consciousness of this awakening. It reminds me of the stirrings of the nouvelle vague—people who were critics and artists at the same time, struggling with self-definition. That's the kind of permanent revolution I can sign up for.

Third: I wanted to send you a virtual martini to encourage your bookwriting but you're not following me:(

Finally, I think it's true that CS is where the buck often stops on anything related to content. However, the economics of content production relative to that of marketing are such—attention being cheaper to obtain than high production values—that content is still often relegated to second place status, even among creative professionals. (Btw, the economics of this are actual, and in my next post, the link to Umair Haque's dek on economics of new media shows this in great detail.) Umair, for one believes that the plasticity of microchunking and remixing in what we call web 2.0 will create a moment when the economics of media favor content productoion over attention—i.e., marketing.

When that day comes, you may be sure, that the buck really will be stopping with content production (including what are now called content strategists.)

Re: A Little R&R

Craig Bromberg — Fri, 08 May 2009 19:08:10 -0000

Hey Fred:

Make sure you eat at these restaurants:
--Au Pied du Cochon. It's the best "real Quebecois" food in the city
--Schwartz's, for the smoked meat (corned beef, Montreal style) no one does it better. Great action
--L'express: my favorite bistro in N. America

On St Denis also make sure to visit Arthur Quentin and the stores around that section (called The Plateau). It's a great housewares store, very beautiful and GG will love it. There's also a terrific French bookstore up St. Denis (Flammarion) you shoudl visist jst to see how much better book retail can be done.

Unfortunately,Daniel Langlois's Ex-Centris cinema has closed (just googled it) but his Foundation for Art, Science, and Technology is still open. You should check out eveyrthing Daniel Langlois is doing. He's a terrific entrepreneur, started Softimage, digiscreen, and lots of other digital cineman initiatves, owns a hotel and this very beautiful le357, which is a great spa/biz club— http://www.le357c.com/. Btw it's attached to the Hotel Gault where we stayed last time we were there (4 years ago just before my kids were born--a last hurrah) and had the most amazing pancakes there. (A great hotel too.)

Have fun!

Also be sure to check out the burgeoning digital cinema empire of Daniel Langlois.

Re: Why content strategy matters
(and size doesn’t)

Craig Bromberg — Thu, 07 May 2009 18:29:54 -0000

As my grandfather might have said, oi gevalt, gestalt!

I really appreciate your comments, Seems that we are at a point where the holistic character of CS has to be acknowledged.

At the same time, so essential for content strategists not to get big heads. Marketers, audience development folks, researchers, corporate strategeists and others who create strategy process and articulate brands already do much of what some CS folks think they should be doing. This may be a manifesto for holism but it is also a recognition that it must be bottom-up, as it were. (Although there's complexity in that too.)

Re: 8 REASONS PORTFOLIO FOLDED

Craig Bromberg — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 18:13:10 -0000

Conde (and just about every magazine publisher out there) just expects that
it's only a moment of time before brand advertising hits the web with the
same ferocity it has on TV. Hate to add to the Fail meme, but: FAIL.
Branding on the web happens through businesses adding value, media
businesses included. More or even different content doesn't cut it anymore.
Before they spent that $100M they shoulda thought about data, and especially
the role of data in business media...

Re: boxee blog » boxee on Apple TV 2.3

Craig Bromberg — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 11:36:12 -0000

does anyone know if this erases other hacks (perian, sapphire, couch surfer) already on my atv?

Re: Why The iTouch Is Inevitable

Craig Bromberg — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 15:03:37 -0000

No need to get defensive: just pointing out that while we may share similar
passions, we don't all have similar resources--and noting that this is one
of the many differences between journalism and blogging: the former is
committed to resolving readership needs, the latter to proclaiming
individual passions. I carry no brief for Apple but ATV is a good product
gradually getting to great and can't be beat at the offered price point. To
wit (speaking of research): Mac Mini: From $599. (Apple); Apple TV
(40gb): $179.00 (Amazon).

No need for a "double" hack either: http://code.google.com/p/at....
Note that this hack not only gives you Boxee, but XBMC--both of which work
straight outta the box with FrontRow.

Re: Why The iTouch Is Inevitable

Craig Bromberg — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 14:31:42 -0000

Ah the investment! Well, since you're justifying the Sonos experience on
the basis of your sunk costs, allow me to remind you (my journalism-based
morals are showing here) that your readers will often take your advice--I
almost did, so passionate were you about Sonos/Rhapsody at that time--to the
tune of hundreds of dollars.
This is interesting for two reasons. First is that in the past you raked ATV
over the coals because it was a closed Apple product, but over time it's
become clear that for a Mac, this is is an uncharacteristically "open"
product to modding. ATV keeps growing in value relative to other audio
controllers whereas the rest keep getting more expensive. Also wonder if
perhaps this illustrates how little sense bloggers (I'm afraid I'm
generalizing here) don't quite see that product cheerleading w/o careful
competitive research can lead to some bad buys. Upshot: caveat lecteur! And:
get thee an Apple TV for video AND audio: The ATV interface is pretty much
all the control you need to play just the tunes you want when you want
em--and you can play any file, using almost any codec now on ATV.

Re: Why The iTouch Is Inevitable

Craig Bromberg — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 14:03:30 -0000

Fred, it's interesting to me that you're gradually creeping up to precisely the system that many Apple TV users have had--at a fraction of the cost of Sonos. In fact, we've been around this bend in previous discussion on your blog, but ATV is tremendously underrated in this regard because it gives you the power of Sonos for $150 per TV, and both the Touch and iPhone work directly with it thanks to the Remote app. Plus, thanks to all the ATV patch fiends out there, Boxee now works on ATV--an almost painless hack at this point. Interestingly, for a while, I coveted your Sonos/Rhapsody system, but a hacked ATV far exceeds that firepower (and provides 5.1 sound, HD quality video, and even a web connection to my TV.) As I said, at $150/room that cannot be beat.

Re: Apple TV vs Roku Netflix

Craig Bromberg — Fri, 23 May 2008 10:40:54 -0000

i know you have investments in bug, but if you had ever worked for a hw manufacturer (although apple is hybrid hw/sw) you would know that the focus is moving boxes; software follows. take comfort, though fred. that's the way the entire history of computing has evolved.if you have patience, apple will get there eventually.

Re: Apple TV vs Roku Netflix

Craig Bromberg — Fri, 23 May 2008 09:12:15 -0000

hey what's with the f bomb, buddy? i was under the impression you want civil, constructive dialogue in your comments.

as to "any stream,"--yeah dig you fred. i too want it all. but you're getting way caught up in early adopterville. apple is about architecture not technology. if you wanna live in an open source geodesic dome, cool by me (and you'll find a lot of other people who'll join you). but the ipod's success shows that many more people in the consumer marketplace prefer clean white, aluminum post-war buildings with a protective moat--ipods and itunes and iphones and maca. they want a simple interface and simple technology for what they rightly understand are lifetime digital problems.

i find it odd that you're cool chasing musical ubiquity at the expense of long-term strategic innovation. apple is not "donkey-ass" (again, what's w/ the language, dude?) it is simply doing what's right for the company and its users by leading them to a risk-adjusted solution that users seem to like, iterating towards imperfect but market-sweeping solutions. you are a latecomer to macs so i suspect that you have that pc gene in you that says, "windoze sucks so bad, we have to tear it down w/ homebrew strategies." again: that's the geodesic domes way. long term mac users recognize that they have a good product that keeps getting better.

so give it up fred: where do you want to live--a geodesic dome with hand pumped showers or a cool calatrava (or maybe that's zaha hadid) building with the latest technology built into a systemic user-based solution? the choice is between the hard intellectual work of techne or the joys of starchitecture and convenience. they're not entirely exclusive but you should see how different they are. apple tv is imperfect but it really is a sweeping solutiion for most folks who want great music (w/o spending a grand on a sonos/rhapsody solution) or a crappy netflix solution.

Disqus - Latest Comments for bromo

Re: The small c and me

Re: Making The Web Smarter

Re: Making The Web Smarter

Re: Thoughts on evolving the Content strategy in Publishing to leverage social media

Re: What Would Apple Do? Don't Ask

Re: Scrum, baby, scrum

Re: Custom for dummies

Re: Custom for dummies

Re: Custom for dummies

Re: Title help, please

Re: Why content strategy matters (and size doesn’t)

Re: Why content strategy matters (and size doesn’t)

Re: Why content strategy matters (and size doesn’t)

Re: Why content strategy matters (and size doesn’t)

Re: Why content strategy matters (and size doesn’t)

Re: Why content strategy matters (and size doesn’t)

Re: A Little R&R

Re: Why content strategy matters (and size doesn’t)

Re: 8 REASONS PORTFOLIO FOLDED

Re: boxee blog » boxee on Apple TV 2.3

Re: Why The iTouch Is Inevitable

Re: Why The iTouch Is Inevitable

Re: Why The iTouch Is Inevitable

Re: Apple TV vs Roku Netflix

Re: Apple TV vs Roku Netflix

Re: Why content strategy matters
(and size doesn’t)

Re: Why content strategy matters
(and size doesn’t)

Re: Why content strategy matters
(and size doesn’t)

Re: Why content strategy matters
(and size doesn’t)

Re: Why content strategy matters
(and size doesn’t)

Re: Why content strategy matters
(and size doesn’t)

Re: Why content strategy matters
(and size doesn’t)