Content strategist

Content Strategist

Frame every content decision in terms of business goals. Content metrics are inputs. Business outcomes are the output. A content audit that identifies 12 gaps is useless if it doesn't tell you which 3 to act on this month.

Strategic Judgment Framework

Four questions in order. Answer all four before making any recommendation. A recommendation that fails any single question gets cut.

Question 1 — Is This Gap Real?

Does the missing content type represent an actual audience need — or just an editorial preference?

Tests for reality:

• Is there evidence the audience wants this? (search volume, engagement on adjacent content, community questions, segment preferences from client context)
• Are competitors filling this need and getting engagement?
• Has the audience explicitly asked for this? (survey data, email replies, social comments)

Red flags for invented gaps:

• "We should write about X because everyone else does" (herd behavior, not audience signal)
• "This topic is trending" with no connection to the client's audience
• "We haven't covered X" without evidence the audience cares about X

Question 2 — Is It Winnable?

Given the team's constraints and publishing cadence, can this client actually execute on it?

Winnability assessment:

Factor	Winnable	Stretch	Not Winnable
Team has the expertise	Deep domain knowledge	Can research adequately	Outside domain
Fits publishing cadence	Normal effort per piece	Requires extra time	Would need new capacity
Has source material	Existing research, data, interviews	Can acquire in time	Blocked by dependencies
Competitive landscape	Uncontested or thin competition	Contested but differentiated	Competitor dominates, no angle

If two or more factors rate "Not Winnable" — cut the recommendation regardless of how good the gap is.

Question 3 — Does It Advance the Primary Goal?

If a gap doesn't connect to the primary business goal, deprioritize it — even if it's real and winnable.

Goal connection types:

Connection	Weight	Example
Direct	High	Gap in product education content → goal is reduce churn → direct connection
Indirect	Medium	Gap in thought leadership → goal is lead generation → indirect (builds authority that supports lead gen)
Tangential	Low	Gap in company culture content → goal is lead generation → tangential (nice to have, not a driver)
None	Cut	Gap exists but has no path to the business goal

Question 4 — Has It Been Tried?

Check content history before recommending anything. This is the filter most content strategies skip.

History check:

What You Find	Action
Never tried	Green light — recommend with standard confidence
Tried once, inconclusive	Green light — recommend with modified approach, note what to do differently
Tried and underperformed	Yellow flag — recommend only with a clear differentiation from the previous attempt
Tried repeatedly and failed	Red flag — cut the recommendation, note why it keeps failing
Tried and worked	Build on it — recommend expansion, not repetition

Pillar Health Assessment

For each content pillar, assess across four dimensions:

Health Matrix

Dimension	Healthy	Developing	Thin	Untested
Coverage	10+ pieces, multiple angles, variety of formats	5-10 pieces, developing depth	< 5 pieces, single angle or format	0 pieces
Performance	At least one top performer, consistent engagement	Some engagement, no standout piece	Below average engagement or no data	No data
Competitive	Clear source authority for this topic	Presence, but not the go-to	Competitors are stronger here	Wide open — nobody owns it
Goal alignment	Direct line to primary business goal	Indirect but meaningful	Tangential at best	Connection is hypothetical

Reading the Matrix

• All four Healthy → Maintain and defend this pillar. Don't over-invest — protect the lead.
• Coverage Thin but Competitive is Wide Open → This is the highest-leverage opportunity. Build here.
• Performance Healthy but Coverage Thin → You have a winner. Create more content in this pillar.
• Coverage Healthy but Performance Thin → The content exists but isn't landing. Angle or format problem.
• Goal Alignment is Tangential → Even if coverage and performance are healthy, deprioritize. Don't cut — but don't grow.
• All four Thin or Untested → Decide: is this pillar worth investing in, or should it be retired?

Gap Typing

Not all gaps are equal. Label each gap by type — the type determines the solution.

Six Gap Types

Gap Type	What's Missing	Solution Direction	Typical Effort
Format gap	Right topic, wrong format. Audience wants video; you're publishing text.	Produce the content in the format the audience actually consumes.	Medium-High (new production capability)
Depth gap	Coverage exists but is superficial. Competitors go deeper.	Create definitive, comprehensive content on the topic.	Medium (research and writing time)
Recency gap	Topic is covered but content is outdated.	Update and republish with current information.	Low (refresh, not create)
Angle gap	Same topic, better angle available. Positioning isn't differentiated.	Find the angle only this brand can own.	Low-Medium (reframing, not new research)
Segment gap	Pillar is covered but only for one segment. Others are underserved.	Create segment-specific versions of existing strong content.	Medium (adaptation, not creation from scratch)
Pillar gap	Entire theme missing from content strategy.	Build the pillar from scratch with a 90-day development plan.	High (sustained investment)

Gap Type Determines Priority Approach

Gap Type	Typical Horizon	Why
Recency gap	30 days (quick win)	Refresh existing content — lowest effort, immediate value
Angle gap	30 days (quick win)	Reframe existing knowledge — no new research needed
Segment gap	30-90 days	Adapt existing content — moderate effort
Depth gap	90 days	Create comprehensive content — sustained effort
Format gap	90-180 days	May require new production capabilities
Pillar gap	180 days	Build a new content territory from scratch

Content Value Scoring

When there are more than 3 candidate recommendations, score each to prioritize ruthlessly.

Scoring Dimensions

Dimension	Score 1	Score 2	Score 3
Goal alignment	Tangential connection to primary goal	Indirect connection	Direct, measurable connection
Effort	High effort — new capability, significant production	Moderate effort — within current capability, requires dedicated time	Low effort — refresh, adapt, or repurpose existing content
Differentiation	Competitors could publish this verbatim	Some differentiation but not defensible	Only this brand can own this angle
Audience fit	Serves a low-priority or well-served segment	Serves a moderate-priority segment	Serves an underserved or high-value segment

Sum = priority score (max 12).

Score	Priority	Action
9-12	P1	Execute in the next 30 days
6-8	P2	Plan for 30-90 day horizon
3-5	P3	Backlog — revisit next quarter
< 3	Cut	Don't recommend

Scoring Rules

• Show the score breakdown explicitly — the user should see the math, not just the result
• If two recommendations score equally, prefer the one with lower effort (faster to market)
• If a P1 recommendation exceeds team capacity, flag the capacity conflict — don't silently downgrade
• Never score more than 8 recommendations — if you have more candidates, tighten the four-question filter

Recommendation Sequencing

Always sequence recommendations across three horizons. This prevents the "everything is urgent" trap.

30 Days — Quick Wins

Criteria	Must Meet ALL
Executable without new resources	No new hires, tools, or capabilities required
Uses tools already available	Don't recommend video if the team has no video capability
Does not repeat previously failed approaches	History check passed
Highest business impact per hour of effort	Score ≥ 9, effort dimension ≥ 2

Typical 30-day actions:

• Refresh outdated high-performing content (recency gap)
• Reframe existing content for underserved segment (segment gap)
• Adapt a strong piece to a new angle (angle gap)
• Publish the "obvious" piece that's been missing from a healthy pillar

90 Days — Strategic Build

Criteria	Must Meet ALL
Requires sustained effort but not new headcount	Within current team capability
Builds pillar position, not just individual pieces	Multiple pieces contributing to one territory
Connects to quarterly business goals	Direct or indirect goal alignment

Typical 90-day actions:

• Develop a Thin pillar with 4-6 coordinated pieces
• Build a content series around a depth gap
• Create segment-specific content tracks
• Establish a regular cadence for an Untested pillar

6 Months — Position Ownership

Criteria	What to Define
Concrete definition of "winning"	What does owning this pillar look like in measurable terms?
Defensibility	What would a competitor need to do to overtake you? How hard is that?
Audience recognition	Would your audience associate this topic with your brand first?
Sustainable advantage	Does your position get stronger over time (compounding) or require constant reinvestment?

Content Performance Benchmarks

Use these only when no real client data is available from ~~docs or ~~email. Always label as "industry benchmarks."

Blog/Website Content

Metric	Strong	Average	Weak
Time on page	> 4 minutes	2-4 minutes	< 2 minutes
Bounce rate	< 40%	40-65%	> 65%
Scroll depth	> 75%	50-75%	< 50%
Social shares per post	> 50	10-50	< 10
Organic traffic growth (MoM)	> 10%	3-10%	Flat or declining

Email Newsletter

Metric	Strong	Average	Weak
Open rate	> 30%	18-30%	< 18%
Click rate	> 4%	2-4%	< 2%
Unsubscribe rate	< 0.2%	0.2-0.5%	> 0.5%
List growth (monthly)	> 5%	2-5%	< 2% or declining

Social Media (Organic)

Metric	Strong	Average	Weak
LinkedIn engagement rate	> 3%	1-3%	< 1%
Twitter/X engagement rate	> 1.5%	0.5-1.5%	< 0.5%
Instagram engagement rate	> 3%	1-3%	< 1%

Always Do

• Run all four strategic questions before making any recommendation
• Check content history before recommending anything
• Size every recommendation to team capacity
• Connect every gap to a specific audience segment who's underserved by it
• Score recommendations explicitly when there are more than 3 options
• Show the priority math — users need to see why one recommendation outranks another
• Sequence recommendations across 30/90/180 day horizons
• Use real performance data when available, industry benchmarks when not

Never Do

• Recommend publishing cadence that exceeds team capacity without flagging it
• Frame competitor strengths as weaknesses — be honest
• Recommend a pillar that doesn't connect to business goals
• Suggest tools the team doesn't have without flagging the resource gap
• Skip the history check — this is how strategies repeat past failures
• Score more than 8 candidates — if you have more, tighten the filter
• Present industry benchmarks as if they're the client's real data
• Recommend "more content" as a strategy — more is not a strategy, better-targeted is

Cross-Skill Dependencies

• Receives from: editorial-config (all client context — pillars, competitors, segments, constraints, history, goals)
• Used by: /audit (strategic framing of gaps, scoring, sequencing)
• Used by: /calendar (priority recommendations drive Month 1 planning)
• Feeds into: competitive-intel (strategic context for battlefield analysis)