In August 2022, Gisele Navarro wrote an article making the case for “Hero” or “Content-Led” Digital PR. In her post she addressed many of the arguments being made against “Hero” content at the time, in addition to providing plenty of tips and actionable advice – it’s an excellent article, and one I’d strongly recommend reading.
For clarity, I’m not seeking to cover the same ground here – I feel like Gisele’s done a fantastic job on that front – consider this article a companion piece to Gisele’s.
Aren’t you late to the party with this?
Yes! Gisele wrote that article 18 months ago – I’m really late!
However, in my work consulting for various agencies and inhouse teams, it seems to me that this conversation is still going on, albeit perhaps not quite so publicly as before. Many people have told me that they’re continuing to see an increased appetite for “asset-less” Digital PR activity, and a decreased appetite for “hero” or “content-led” Digital PR.
Whilst I think I understand why appetites have changed, I do think that some companies are likely missing trick by relying solely on “asset-less” Digital PR activity. (Also noteworthy: for clarity, I’m in no way hating on “asset-less” Digital PR, or seeking to argue that “content-led” Digital PR is “better” – if at all possible I think folks should do both.)
But before I get into this, I think some definitions are probably in order:
“Asset-less” Digital PR: Only a press release or outreach email is created – i.e. there is nothing live on the client’s site that a journalist could link to (often, but not always, this is reactive Digital PR activity).
“Hero” or “Content-led” Digital PR: Anything where something is created that a journalist could link to on the client’s site (could be anything from a blog post to a fully interactive piece)
Why is this happening & what’s the problem?
I suspect that part of the reason that appetites have changed, is that some people view the pros and cons of “asset-less” versus “content-led” Digital PR like this:
| “Asset-less” Digital PR (essentially, only the Pros are considered) | “Content-led” Digital PR (essentially, only the Cons are considered) |
| ✓ Quick to execute | ✗ Slow to execute |
| ✓ Quick results | ✗ Slow results |
| ✓ Cheap (comparatively) | ✗ Expensive (comparatively) |
Of course, if that’s your view of the pros and cons, it’s not surprising that you’d conclude “asset-less” is a better bet, and focus most of your attention in that area. The trouble is, that’s not the full picture.
What happens to this Pros & Cons list when we consider “Asset-less” vs “Content-Led” Digital PR Performance?
Back in 2022 I gathered data on over 2,000 digital PR pieces from 11 agencies & inhouse teams.
From that analysis I found:
“Asset-less” pieces seem to “fail” at a higher rate: 31% of “asset-less” pieces generated zero pieces of linked coverage, whereas just 5% of “content-led” pieces generated zero pieces of linked coverage.
“Asset-less” pieces are seemingly less likely to generate 100+ pieces of linked coverage: just 1% of “asset-less” pieces generated 100+ pieces of linked coverage, whereas 8% of “content-led” pieces generated 100+ pieces of linked coverage.
If we take this into account, our pros and cons table now looks like this:
| “Asset-less” Digital PR | “Content-led” Digital PR |
| ✗ Higher failure-rate | ✓ Lower failure-rate |
| ✓ Quick to execute | ✗ Slow to execute |
| ✓ Quick results | ✗ Slow results |
| ✓ Cheap (comparatively) | ✗ Expensive (comparatively) |
This is a little more balanced, but it’s not really telling us the full story, right? “Asset-less” Digital PR could still be more “effective” – i.e. $ for $ you’re able to generate more linked coverage.
But this still isn’t the full story.
“Building a Moat”
Originally my thinking on this was something like: “Is the problem here that we’re skipping the strategy?”; but on reflection, I don’t think it’s helpful to get bogged down in arguments about “strategic” versus “tactical” approaches – not least because no one really understands what that stuff means.
So, in terms of framing, I’d like to talk about this in terms of “building a moat” (this is a pretty horrible concept, but one that I think is easier to grasp).
WTF is “building a moat”?
“Building a moat” is a business concept, the original term, “economic moat,” was popularised by Warren Buffett:
It refers to a business’s ability to maintain competitive advantage in order to protect its long-term profits and market share. Just like a mediaeval castle, the moat serves to protect those inside the fortress and their riches from outsiders.
(See what I mean? Horrible concept! But potentially useful here, nevertheless.)
What happens to this Pros & Cons list when we consider “Building a Moat”?
What does “building a moat” look like in this context? I like to think of this in terms of the extent to which we’re building defendable assets.
The key issue with “asset-less” Digital PR from a moat building perspective, is that we’re not creating any assets, right?
This means we’re missing out on:
- Opportunities for the content to rank (and/or accrue linked coverage over time) – there’s no asset, so there’s no chance this will happen
- Opportunities to use the content for remarketing / retargeting (and other activity) – again, there’s no asset, so we can’t engage in other marketing activity like this
Which leads me neatly to my core point – I’m a particular fan of updateable “content-led” Digital PR, because over time these pieces can become something you’re known for.
Here are some of my favourite examples:
- The Michelin Guide
- Red Bull TV
- Forbes Rich List
- Hopper’s Instagram Rich List
- Stack Overflow’s Developer Survey
- Aira / WTS State of Tech SEO Report
It’s important to note that, of course, not all “content-led” Digital PR looks like this!
But when it does, I think we start getting into a really interesting place, because whilst most “asset-less” Digital PR is pretty easy for competitors to replicate, “content-led” Digital PR like this is much tougher for competitors to replicate.
So what does our pros and cons table look like now?
| “Asset-less” Digital PR | “Content-led” Digital PR |
| ✗ No opportunity for the content to rank or accrue links over time | ✓ Opportunity for the content to rank & accrue links over time |
| ✗ No opportunity to use the content for remarketing / retargeting | ✓ Opportunity to use the content for remarketing / retargeting |
| ✗ Easier for competitors to replicate | ✓ Harder for competitors to replicate |
| ✗ Higher failure-rate | ✓ Lower failure-rate |
| ✓ Quick to execute | ✗ Slow to execute |
| ✓ Quick results | ✗ Slow results |
| ✓ Cheap (comparatively) | ✗ Expensive (comparatively) |
This table still isn’t exhaustive, (this stuff is complex!) but I think it’s a good step towards providing a fuller picture in terms of the pros and cons of “Asset-Less” vs “Content-Led” Digital PR.
What’s next?
Whilst I totally understand the need to justify spend on Digital PR, (for what it’s worth, I suspect this is where much of the increased appetite for “asset-less” Digital PR comes from); ultimately, my hope is that by better illustrating the pros and cons of both “Asset-Less” vs “Content-Led” Digital PR, we can start to have better conversations with our clients, and stakeholders, which will (hopefully) lead us towards engaging in a more thoughtful, and balanced approach to Digital PR activity.
I’m particularly keen to encourage people to think about whether or not some of their “asset-less” activity has the potential to deliver more if an asset was created.
For example, let’s imagine we’re working for an online jeweller, and engagement rings are a core focus for them. A reactive piece on the valuation of that hot new celeb engagement ring everyone’s talking about probably doesn’t need an on-site asset. The media noise around any individual celeb engagement tends to die down pretty quickly, right?
But let’s imagine you plan to do this for every major celebrity engagement.
You probably don’t need to create an individual on-site asset for each engagement, but what if you created a piece, which over time, you added to? By the end of the year you’d have a list of the valuations of every major celebrity engagement ring. Pretty cool, huh?
Not only could you use that to tell a bigger story at the end of the year (I’d acknowledge that this might gain traction, or it might not); but you’re also starting to create a genuinely useful resource for the journalists who are covering those celeb engagement stories.
Data like this could be really useful for them – it would enable them to add more context to any current celeb engagement story they’re covering, for example they could compare ring valuations between celebrities, and/or talk about trends like the gemstones chosen, the cuts, the settings, and so on.
Every time you launch a new reactive valuation story, you send that to the journalist and also point them towards the resource which you’re continually updating. Plus, let’s imagine you optimise the page, and over time it starts to rank – there’s a chance that journalists who are researching additional information for these articles, might find your resource, even if you’ve not directed them to it yourself.
Now of course, this sort of thing won’t always be appropriate or applicable for all of the reactive or “asset-less” Digital PR activity you engage in. But in some cases I suspect that creating an updateable asset might be worthwhile.
Further notes…
Are you saying every company should seek to “build a Digital PR moat”? Nope! Engaging in Digital PR doesn’t make sense for every company, and even those who do seek to engage in Digital PR activity don’t necessarily need to be thinking about “moat building”. It really depends on their competitive landscape, their objectives, etc. However, I do believe that many companies who engage in Digital PR activity would benefit from considering things through this lens.
Is Digital PR the only way to “build a moat”? Hell no! Companies can build moats in countless ways, and Digital PR may or may not be the most appropriate way for any given company.
Is Digital PR the “best” way to “build a moat”? Also, hell no (see my point above).
Is it possible to “build a moat” just using “Asset-less” Digital PR? Conceivably, yes! I just think it’s tougher to do so.
Are you saying “Content-Led” Digital PR is “better” than“ Asset-less” Digital PR?Absolutely not. If at all possible I think you should engage in both types of activity. I’m just saying that if “building a moat” is important to you, then you should consider engaging in some “Content-Led” activity (particularly updateable “content-led” Digital PR activity), which, over time, might become something you’re “known for”. Hopper’s Instagram Rich List is a great example of this, I think.