After creating content strategies that helped brands like Fireflies, Pclub, Willo, & Awaio generate organic leads from Search, I’ve developed a set of principles that fundamentally change how I approach SEO content briefs.
Most strategists treat content briefs as research dumps—collect SERP data, analyze competitors, document keywords, hand it off to writers. As a result, the writer creates generic content that ranks poorly and converts worse.
These nine principles represent the mindset shifts that separate strategic content briefs from research reports. They’re the thinking patterns I use when creating briefs that produce content readers actually connect with—and buy from.
Here’s what you’ll learn:
- Why optimizing for “potential customers” instead of “searchers” eliminates analysis paralysis
- How to treat the SERP as search psychology, not a feature checklist
- Why interconnectedness matters more than completeness
- How to use the client’s voice to prevent generic content
- Why alignment beats appeasement every time
- How strategic questioning creates better briefs than exhaustive research
- Why most strategists confuse problems with pain points (and why it matters)
- How to make strategy corrections happen before writing, not after
- Why your outline should be instructional, not structural
Let me walk you through each principle and show you exactly how to apply it.
Principle 1: Optimize for Potential Customers, Not Searchers
Stop asking “What do searchers want?” Start asking “What does a potential customer of this specific brand want?”
This is the most important principle because it solves the biggest problem in content strategy: analysis paralysis.
When you search for “meeting room setup,” thousands of people might type that query. Some are setting up home offices. Some are corporate facilities managers. Some are event planners. Some are architects. Some are just curious.
If you try to satisfy everyone searching that term, you create generic content that satisfies no one.
But here’s what changes everything: If you’re creating content for a B2B event management platform, you’re not writing for everyone searching “meeting room setup.” You’re writing for event specialists who care about ROI, pipeline generation, and justifiable spend.
How This Principle Works in Practice:
When I created the brief for “B2B event marketing strategy,” for Invitedesk, I didn’t start by asking “What do all searchers want?” I asked:
“What does a potential Invitedesk customer want when they search this?”
The answer was specific:
“An event manager/specialist at a mid-sized B2B organization who runs 5-10 events yearly and needs to prove ROI to their CFO when events become KPI-driven.”
This one decision shaped everything else:
- Which pain points to prioritize (CFO scrutiny, not budget constraints)
- Which solutions to position against (enterprise tools vs. spreadsheets)
- Which examples to use (pipeline attribution, not attendance numbers)
- Which CTAs to include (ROI calculators, not venue checklists)
Why This Eliminates Analysis Paralysis:
When you understand your potential customer’s specific context, you can ignore 80% of what appears in the SERP. You’re not trying to cover everything—you’re covering what matters to people most likely to convert.
If someone searches “meeting room setup” looking for home office tips, they won’t convert to your B2B event platform anyway. Why optimize for them?
How to Apply This Principle:
Before you analyze a single competitor or SERP feature, answer this question in your brief:
“What does a potential [CLIENT NAME] customer look like, and what specifically are they looking for when they search [KEYWORD]?”
Include:
- Their role and responsibilities
- Company context (size, industry, team structure)
- The trigger moment that makes them your customer
- The specific outcome they need (not just “better results”)
Example from Practice:
Generic approach: “People searching ‘AI note-taking app’ want software to transcribe meetings.”
Potential customer approach: “Busy sales reps making 8+ calls daily who need automatic transcription at high accuracy so they don’t waste time editing or risk working with incomplete call data when composing follow-ups and creating sales reports.”
See the difference? The second version immediately tells you:
- Which features matter (auto-recording, accuracy, search)
- Which pain points to address (time wasted editing, incomplete data)
- Which use cases to highlight (follow-up emails, sales reports)
- Which competitor weaknesses to exploit (manual setup, poor accuracy)
This is how you write content that attracts people most likely to become customers.
Principle 2: Treat the SERP as Search Psychology, Not a Feature Checklist
The Mindset Shift: The SERP isn’t telling you what to include—it’s showing you how people think about and want to consume information on this topic.
Most strategists analyze SERPs like this:
- ✅ Competitor A has 15 subheadings
- ✅ Competitor B includes comparison table
- ✅ Competitor C has 2,500 words
- ✅ Featured snippet shows 3 steps
Then they create briefs that say: “Include comparison table, write 2,500+ words, optimize for featured snippet with 3-step answer.”
This is checkbox thinking. It misses the entire point of SERP analysis.
Here’s What You Should Be Asking Instead:
The SERP is Google’s interpretation of search behavior. Every element exists because it reflects how people with this problem actually search, think, and progress through their journey.
When you see:
- AI Overview → How does Google think this concept should be explained?
- Auto-suggestions → What adjacent questions do people have?
- Meta descriptions with numbers → Do people want sequential steps or categorized lists?
- People Also Ask → What’s the next question in their journey?
- Site links → What immediate actions might they want to take?
- Discussion forums → Are they seeking validation or tactics?
You’re not checking boxes. You’re decoding psychology.
How This Principle Works in Practice:
When I analyzed “B2B event marketing strategy,” I didn’t just note that Google shows a numbered AI overview. I asked: “Why is Google structuring it as numbered steps even though the query doesn’t specify ‘steps’?”
The answer: Search behavior shows people want actionable, sequential information. They’re not looking for theory—they want a process they can follow.
This insight shaped the entire brief:
- Angle: Framework-based (not just “importance of events”)
- Structure: Sequential steps with clear ROI connection at each stage
- Headers: Action-oriented (“How to [X]” not “Understanding [X]”)
- Examples: Specific tactics with before/after scenarios
Why This Matters More Than Feature Matching:
Two articles can have the same “features” (comparison table, 2,500 words, images) but completely different effectiveness.
One matches features mechanically. The other understands WHY those features exist and creates content that mirrors the psychological need they serve.
How to Apply This Principle:
In your SERP analysis section, don’t just list what you see. Interpret what it means:
Instead of: “AI Overview provides 5 steps”
Write: “AI Overview structures information as 5 sequential steps, suggesting searchers want a clear process they can follow start-to-finish. Our content should provide a framework, not just scattered tactics.”
Instead of: “People Also Ask includes ‘What is the ROI of events?'”
Write: “PAA queries focus on ROI proof and measurement, confirming our target reader’s core anxiety: justifying event spend. We should address ROI calculation in the main body, not just a FAQ section.”
Instead of: “Top 3 results use listicle format”
Write: “Dominant format is numbered lists (8 strategies, 10 tactics), indicating readers want discrete, actionable items they can cherry-pick based on their situation. Our angle should enable both comprehensive reading and selective implementation.”
See the difference? You’re documenting psychological insight, not feature inventory.
Principle 3: Interconnectedness Matters More Than Completeness
The Mindset Shift: Stop trying to cover everything. Start connecting everything back to something.
The worst content briefs I’ve seen are comprehensive but disconnected. They include:
- 47 pain points from forums
- 23 competitor insights
- 15 keyword variations
- 8 SERP features to optimize for
- 12 internal linking opportunities
But there’s no thread connecting them. No logic explaining why each element matters. No strategy showing how they work together.
This is the fundamental problem with most content briefs: They collect information but don’t create strategy.
Here’s What Interconnectedness Means:
Every element in your brief should trace back to something else:
- This pain point → Connects to this attempted solution → Which creates this friction → Which our product solves this way
- This SERP feature → Reflects this search behavior → Which aligns with this customer need → So we’ll optimize by doing this
- This competitor weakness → Creates this opportunity → Which we’ll exploit with this angle → Using this specific approach
If you can’t draw these connections, you don’t have strategy—you have research.
How This Principle Works in Practice:
In my B2B event marketing brief, I documented that:
Forum Research: People ask “Are events effective in B2B?” and express skepticism about ROI.
Competitor Gap: Most competitors cover “Why B2B events are important” (generic).
Strategic Decision: Instead of generic importance section, we’ll address skepticism directly with “Why B2B events are still effective in 2025” section.
Outline Connection: This becomes H2 that opens with forum skepticism, acknowledges why doubt exists (typical approaches don’t track attribution), then presents our differentiated framework.
Product Integration: This section naturally introduces our attribution tracking as the solution to the skepticism.
See the chain? Forum insight → Competitor gap → Strategic angle → Outline section → Product positioning. Everything connects.
Why This Matters:
When everything connects, three things happen:
- Writers understand the strategy behind each section (not just “include this”)
- Editors can evaluate decisions based on logic (not just “is this covered?”)
- Content feels cohesive to readers (not like a Frankenstein assembly of sections)
Most importantly, you can defend every decision. If someone asks “Why did you include this section?” you have a clear answer that traces back to research insights and strategic goals.
How to Apply This Principle:
After completing your research, add a “Strategic Connections” section to your brief that explicitly maps relationships:
Pain Point: "Struggle to prove ROI after large conferences"
↓
Connects to: Typical solution (hosting large events for reach)
↓
Creates Friction: One-touch attribution problem in multi-touch sales cycle
↓
Competitor Gap: No one addresses attribution methodology
↓
Our Angle: Framework-first approach with built-in attribution
↓
Outline Section: "How to Structure Events for Clear Attribution"
↓
Product Integration: Our multi-touch attribution dashboard
If you can’t create this chain for an element in your brief, question whether it belongs there.
Principle 4: Bake the Client’s Voice Into Research, Not Just Writing
The Mindset Shift: Your client’s point of view isn’t something you add at the end—it should shape what you research and how you interpret findings.
Here’s what usually happens:
- Strategist researches topic (SERP, competitors, forums)
- Strategist creates brief based on research
- Writer writes article based on brief
- Editor says “This doesn’t sound like our brand”
- Everyone scrambles to retrofit the client’s voice
The client’s voice feels bolted-on because it IS bolted-on.
Here’s the Better Approach:
The client’s point of view should be your research filter FROM THE START. Every time you find a pain point, competitor claim, or forum discussion, you should be asking:
“What would [CLIENT] say about this? How does their approach differ? What unique perspective do they bring?”
How This Principle Works in Practice:
When researching B2B event marketing, I could have documented generic pain points like “Events are expensive” or “Hard to measure success.”
Instead, I went to Invitedesk’s knowledge base FIRST and asked:
“What does Invitedesk believe is the real problem with B2B events?”
The answer shaped everything:
“Invitedesk believes that obtaining the right guests and quantifying returns are the true success factors. While seamless execution (registration, ticketing, scanning) is vital, these are only hygiene factors—like a laptop that works. Logistical smoothness doesn’t equal business success.”
This POV became my research lens:
When I Found Forum Complaints About:
- “Events are expensive” → I interpreted through Invitedesk lens: The real problem isn’t cost, it’s inability to prove value
- “Registration is complicated” → Invitedesk lens: That’s table stakes, not the strategic problem
- “Hard to track attendees” → Invitedesk lens: Tracking isn’t the goal, attribution to pipeline is
See how the client’s POV filters what you prioritize?
Why This Prevents Generic Content:
When you research without a POV filter, you document what everyone says. Then you write what everyone writes.
When you research through your client’s POV, you automatically:
- Prioritize different pain points
- Interpret competitor claims differently
- Frame solutions from a unique angle
- Connect to products naturally (not forced)
How to Apply This Principle:
Before you start external research, complete these steps:
Step 1: Query the Client’s Knowledge Base
Ask:
- “What does [CLIENT] believe is the real problem in [TOPIC AREA]?”
- “How does [CLIENT] approach [TOPIC] differently than competitors?”
- “What do [CLIENT]’s best customers say about why they chose this solution?”
Step 2: Document the Core POV
Write a 2-3 paragraph “Brand POV” section at the TOP of your brief that captures:
- What they believe (that others don’t)
- Why they built their product this way
- What success actually means to them
Step 3: Use POV as Research Filter
As you research competitors and forums, constantly ask:
- “Would our client agree with this claim?”
- “How would our client frame this problem differently?”
- “What would our client say is missing from this conversation?”
Example from Practice:
Generic Research Finding: “Event managers struggle with follow-up”
POV-Filtered Interpretation: “Event managers struggle with follow-up because they lack the attribution context sales needs. Our client believes the real problem isn’t follow-up speed—it’s that badge scans create vanity metrics without qualification context, so sales doesn’t know who to prioritize. This is why our attribution framework matters.”
The second version immediately suggests:
- What angle to take (attribution context, not speed)
- What competitor weakness to exploit (vanity metrics)
- How to position the product (qualification + prioritization)
- What outcome to promise (sales knows who to call first)
This is how you ensure your client’s voice isn’t just present—it’s foundational.
Principle 5: Create Alignment, Don’t Seek Appeasement
The Mindset Shift: You’re not trying to satisfy everyone searching a keyword. You’re creating alignment between three forces: your ideal customer’s needs, observable search behavior, and your client’s unique approach.
Most strategists approach content strategy like this:
“The SERP shows people want X, so we should give them X.”
This is appeasement thinking. You’re trying to make everyone happy.
The problem: When you try to satisfy everyone, you attract everyone—including people who will never buy from you.
Here’s the Strategic Approach:
You want to create content that attracts people who are most likely to become customers. To do that, you need alignment in three areas:
- Customer Profile Alignment: Does this keyword attract people who match our ideal customer profile?
- Search Behavior Alignment: Does the way we want to present information match how searchers want to consume it?
- POV Alignment: Can we satisfy search intent while maintaining our differentiated point of view?
When all three align, you get content that ranks AND converts.
How This Principle Works in Practice:
For “B2B event marketing strategy,” I checked alignment at each level:
Customer Profile Check:
- Does this keyword attract event specialists at mid-sized B2B companies? ✅
- Are they facing CFO pressure on ROI? ✅
- Do they run multiple events yearly? ✅
Search Behavior Check:
- Do searchers want frameworks and steps? ✅
- Are they looking for ROI-focused strategies? ✅
- Do they need templates and next steps? ✅
POV Check:
- Can we present our “guest selection + attribution” philosophy within a strategy framework? ✅
- Does addressing skepticism align with providing a comprehensive guide? ✅
- Can we differentiate without fighting the SERP structure? ✅
All three aligned, so we proceeded.
What Happens When Alignment Fails:
Sometimes you find a keyword where alignment breaks down:
Example: “Event planning checklist”
Customer Profile: ✅ Event managers search this Search Behavior: ❌ They want downloadable templates, not articles POV: ❌ Our differentiation (attribution focus) doesn’t fit a checklist format
Decision: Don’t force it. Either:
- Find a different keyword that aligns better
- Create a different content type (actual downloadable checklist, not blog post)
- Skip it and focus on keywords where alignment is natural
Why This Matters:
Appeasement thinking leads to:
- Generic content (trying to be everything to everyone)
- Forced product mentions (POV doesn’t fit naturally)
- High bounce rates (wrong audience attracted)
- Low conversion (right audience can’t find themselves)
Alignment thinking leads to:
- Specific content (clear who it’s for)
- Natural product integration (POV shapes the framework)
- Qualified traffic (right people attracted)
- Higher conversion (they recognize themselves)
How to Apply This Principle:
Before you start writing your brief, complete this alignment check:
1. Customer Profile Alignment:
Does this keyword attract our ideal customer?
- Role match: [Yes/No - explain]
- Context match: [Yes/No - explain]
- Need match: [Yes/No - explain]
2. Search Behavior Alignment:
Can we serve search intent our way?
- Format compatibility: [Yes/No - explain]
- Depth expectations: [Yes/No - explain]
- Journey stage: [Yes/No - explain]
3. POV Alignment:
Can we maintain differentiation?
- Does our POV fit naturally: [Yes/No - explain]
- Can we challenge conventional thinking: [Yes/No - explain]
- Is there room for our unique angle: [Yes/No - explain]
If you have two or more “No” answers, reconsider the keyword or adjust your approach.
Principle 6: Strategic Questioning Beats Exhaustive Research
The Mindset Shift: Don’t collect everything you find. Ask specific questions and research only to answer them.
The biggest mistake I see strategists make: They approach research as collection.
They open 47 browser tabs. They read every competitor article. They screenshot every forum thread. They export every keyword variation from SEMrush.
Three days later, they have 6,000 words of “research” and no idea what to do with it.
This is research paralysis, and it comes from not having questions.
Here’s the Better Approach:
Start with questions. Research to answer them. Stop when you have answers.
This is why I created the Content Strategy Questionnaire framework—it gives you the exact questions that lead to strategic decisions.
Instead of “research everything about this topic,” you ask:
- Who is the target reader?
- What problem are they trying to solve?
- How do they know it’s a pain?
- What typical ways do they try to solve it?
- What pain points emerge from those attempts?
- Why must they solve it today?
- How would they know it’s solved?
- What are competitors saying?
- How will we exploit competitor weaknesses?
- What’s the brand POV on this topic?
Each question has a strategic purpose. Answer them, and you have everything you need for a brief.
How This Principle Works in Practice:
When I researched “B2B event marketing strategy,” I didn’t read every article on the SERP. I asked specific questions:
Question: “What pain points emerge from typical solutions?”
Research Target: Forums where people discuss what went wrong with their event strategies
What I Found:
- Large conferences create attribution problems
- VIP dinners create quality vs. quantity tension
- Post-event follow-up suffers from poor lead qualification
Strategic Decision: Structure our framework around attribution-first planning, not event-format-first planning
Time Spent: 45 minutes reading relevant threads
See the efficiency? I had a question. I knew where to find answers. I stopped when I had what I needed.
Compare This to Exhaustive Research:
Exhaustive approach:
- Read all 10 SERP articles (2 hours)
- Screenshot every insight (500+ notes)
- Export every keyword (1,000+ terms)
- Read every forum thread on “events” (3 hours)
- Result: Overwhelmed with data, unclear on strategy
Question-based approach:
- Ask: “What pain points emerge from typical solutions?”
- Search: Forums for “event strategy didn’t work”
- Find: 3-4 threads with clear patterns
- Document: Specific pain points with links
- Result: Clear strategic insight in 45 minutes
Why This Matters:
Strategic questions focus your research on decision-making inputs. You’re not collecting information—you’re gathering evidence to make strategic choices.
This means:
- Faster research (hours, not days)
- Clearer briefs (insights, not data dumps)
- Better strategy (focused on what matters)
- Easier writing (clear direction for writers)
How to Apply This Principle:
Use the question-based research template:
QUESTION: [Strategic question]
WHY IT MATTERS: [What decision this informs]
WHERE TO LOOK: [Specific sources to check]
WHAT I FOUND: [Specific insights with links]
STRATEGIC DECISION: [What this means for our content]
Example:
QUESTION: What pain points emerge when they host large conferences?
WHY IT MATTERS: Tells us what solution gaps to address and how to position our attribution focus
WHERE TO LOOK:
- Reddit r/marketing threads about event ROI
- LinkedIn posts from event managers
- G2 reviews mentioning attribution problems
WHAT I FOUND:
- "Hosted $50K conference, can't prove which leads converted" (Reddit)
- "Sales says leads were unqualified but we had 300 attendees" (LinkedIn)
- "Attribution across multiple touchpoints is impossible" (G2)
STRATEGIC DECISION: Our framework will emphasize pre-event qualification and multi-touch attribution tracking, positioning these as solving the "$50K conference with zero traceable ROI" problem
This approach gives you exactly what you need—nothing more, nothing less.
Principle 7: Problems and Pain Points Are Not the Same Thing
The Mindset Shift: Problems are what they want to solve. Pain points are what happens when their solution attempts fail.
This distinction is critical, and most strategists miss it completely.
They document: “Event managers struggle with ROI.” Then they write content about “how to measure event ROI.”
This addresses the problem but misses the pain points—and pain points are where conversion happens.
Here’s the Difference:
Problem: The big-picture challenge they’re facing
- “I need to prove event ROI”
- “I need to generate pipeline from events”
- “I need to justify event budget”
Pain Point: The specific friction they encounter when trying to solve that problem
- “After hosting a $50K conference, I can’t connect badge scans to the deals that closed 4 months later”
- “Sales and marketing argue for 45 minutes every Tuesday about which event format to prioritize for Q4”
- “I spend 8 hours every week manually exporting data from three platforms to create spreadsheets my CFO still questions”
See the difference? Pain points are:
- More specific (numbers, timeframes, tools)
- Connected to attempted solutions (what went wrong when they tried)
- Visceral (you can feel the frustration)
- Actionable (you know exactly what needs to change)
How This Principle Works in Practice:
When researching B2B event strategy, I documented:
Problem (What They Want to Solve): “They are struggling to host B2B events that generate justifiable pipelines.”
Typical Solutions They Try:
- Host large conferences for reach
- Use badge scanning technology
- Set pipeline-centric KPIs
- Deploy multi-channel promotion
Pain Points That Emerge:
- “Trade shows rarely produce clear pipeline because it’s usually one touch in a series before buying actually happens” (Attribution pain)
- “Without unified tech stacks, teams manually export lists between platforms, causing poor lead scoring” (Process pain)
- “Executives judge success by registration numbers, creating tension between quality and quantity” (Political pain)
Each pain point is connected to a solution they tried. This is the cause-and-effect chain that makes pain points resonate.
Why This Distinction Matters:
When you only address problems, you write educational content:
- “5 Ways to Measure Event ROI”
- “How to Track Event Performance”
- “Event Metrics That Matter”
Generic. Educational. Doesn’t convert.
When you address pain points, you write conversion content:
- “Stop Wasting 8 Hours Weekly on Manual Event Reports: Here’s the Attribution Framework That Connects Badge Scans to Closed Deals”
- “Why Your $50K Conference Shows 300 Attendees But Zero Pipeline (And How to Fix Attribution in Multi-Touch Sales Cycles)”
Specific. Personal. Converts.
The Content Structure This Creates:
Problem-Based Content Structure:
- Introduction to problem
- Why it matters
- How to solve it
- Conclusion
Pain Point-Based Content Structure:
- Hook with specific pain manifestation (“It’s Tuesday morning…”)
- Acknowledge the problem and typical solutions
- Explain why typical solutions create new pain points
- Present framework that addresses specific pain points
- Show what life looks like when pain points are solved
The second structure naturally leads to conversion because it mirrors the reader’s lived experience.
How to Apply This Principle:
In your research, create two separate sections:
Section 1: Core Problem
What problem are they trying to solve?
[Big-picture challenge in their own words]
Section 2: Pain Point Mapping
What typical solutions do they try?
1. [Solution A]
2. [Solution B]
3. [Solution C]
What pain points emerge from each solution?
Solution A → Pain Point: [Specific friction with numbers/timeframes]
Solution B → Pain Point: [Specific friction with numbers/timeframes]
Solution C → Pain Point: [Specific friction with numbers/timeframes]
How do they know it's a pain?
- [Daily manifestation 1]
- [Daily manifestation 2]
- [Daily manifestation 3]
This structure forces you to:
- Connect pain points to attempted solutions (cause and effect)
- Make pain points specific (numbers, timeframes, consequences)
- Show how pain manifests (daily work scenarios)
Then, in your outline, you can structure content that addresses pain points at the moment readers are most receptive.
Principle 8: Strategy Corrections Should Happen Before Writing, Not After
The Mindset Shift: Your brief should contain 90% of the strategic thinking. The writer should implement strategy, not figure it out.
Here’s the painful pattern I see with most content teams:
- Strategist creates brief (2 hours)
- Writer writes draft (8 hours)
- Editor reviews (finds strategic problems)
- Writer revises (4 more hours)
- Editor reviews again (still strategic issues)
- Strategist steps in to fix (3 hours)
- Writer implements fixes (2 hours)
Total: 19 hours, lots of frustration, suboptimal result.
The problem: Strategic decisions are being made during writing and editing instead of during research and briefing.
Here’s the Better Approach:
Move strategic thinking upstream. Your brief should answer every strategic question BEFORE writing begins.
When a writer opens your brief, they should know:
- Exactly who they’re writing for (not just “event managers”)
- Exactly what angle differentiates this content (not just “comprehensive guide”)
- Exactly what each section should accomplish (not just topic headings)
- Exactly how to position the product (not just “mention our tool”)
How This Principle Works in Practice:
Instead of brief that says:
H2: Types of B2B Events
- Cover different event formats
- Mention pros and cons
My brief says:
H2: Choosing Event Formats Based on Attribution Potential (Not Just Reach)
Strategic Purpose: Address the "large conference vs. VIP dinner" debate by reframing the decision around attribution clarity, not attendee count. This exploits competitor weakness (they focus on format descriptions without ROI guidance).
Opening: Reference the quality vs. quantity tension documented in forums ("Executives want 300 attendees, marketing wants 12 qualified C-levels").
Structure:
1. Explain why format decisions usually prioritize reach (industry habit)
2. Present our POV: Format should optimize for clear attribution first
3. Analyze each format through attribution lens:
- Conferences: One touch in multi-touch cycle (attribution problem documented)
- VIP Dinners: High-value but small reach (tension documented)
- Webinars: Scalable but lower engagement
4. Provide decision framework: Match format to sales cycle length + attribution infrastructure
Include:
- Client case study showing format choice impact on attribution clarity
- Link to ROI calculator (SERP feature optimization + product integration)
- Internal link to "Event Attribution Methodology" guide
Avoid:
- Generic "conferences are good for awareness" advice (competitor weakness)
- Format descriptions without ROI connection
- Equal weight to all formats (prioritize what our customer actually considers)
See the difference? The writer knows:
- WHY this section exists (strategic purpose)
- HOW to open (with specific pain point)
- WHAT structure to use (numbered analysis)
- WHERE to integrate product (naturally, with context)
- WHAT to avoid (competitor patterns we’re exploiting)
When I hand this to a writer, they’re implementing strategy, not creating it.
Why This Matters:
When strategy is clear upfront:
- Writers work faster (no guessing, no research paralysis)
- First drafts are stronger (90% there instead of 60%)
- Revisions are tactical (word choice, flow) not strategic (restructuring)
- Everyone’s happier (less back-and-forth, less frustration)
Most importantly: You’re correcting strategy when it’s cheapest to fix—during planning, not after 8 hours of writing.
How to Apply This Principle:
For every section in your outline, document these five elements:
1. Strategic Purpose
What does this section accomplish strategically?
(Not "cover types of events" but "reframe format decisions around attribution")
2. Connection to Research
Which research insights does this address?
(Specific pain points, competitor gaps, forum discussions)
3. Opening Approach
How should this section open?
(With what hook, pain point, or transition)
4. Structure
What's the information architecture?
(Numbered steps, comparison framework, narrative flow)
5. Integration Points
Where do product/resources/links naturally fit?
(With what context and transition)
When every section has these five elements, you’ve moved strategic thinking upstream where it belongs.
Principle 9: Your Outline Should Be Instructional, Not Structural
The Mindset Shift: Headers aren’t enough. Your outline should show thinking, not just topics.
Most content outlines look like this:
H1: B2B Event Marketing Strategy
H2: What is B2B Event Marketing?
H2: Why B2B Event Marketing Matters
H2: Types of B2B Events
H2: How to Create an Event Marketing Strategy
H3: Set Goals
H3: Define Audience
H3: Choose Format
H3: Promote Event
H3: Follow Up
H2: Best Practices
H2: Conclusion
This is a structural outline. It shows what topics to cover, but not:
- Why each section exists
- How sections connect to each other
- What each section should accomplish
- Where insights from research appear
- How strategy manifests in execution
A writer looking at this outline must still make all strategic decisions themselves.
Here’s What an Instructional Outline Looks Like:
Instead of just headers, you provide instructions for what each section should do:
H2: Why B2B Event Strategies Still Work (Despite Rising Skepticism)
→ STRATEGIC PURPOSE: Address the forum-documented skepticism ("are events even effective?") while establishing credibility. This section transitions from acknowledging doubt to presenting our framework as the solution.
→ OPENS WITH: The skepticism pain point documented in Reddit research: "We hosted 12 events last year with no clear ROI. Are we wasting budget?"
→ STRUCTURE:
- Para 1: Acknowledge why skepticism exists (most events don't have attribution infrastructure)
- Para 2: Present data showing events still work (78% of organizers view in-person events as vital)
