October Tweets Address Best Competitive Analysis Strategy
This month’s top Tweets review announces a new way to score e-news enterprise during competitive analysis match-up. Another upcoming innovation is market-by-market tracking of enterprise effectiveness. Supporting these developments is a collection of tips covering other ways to achieve editorial superiority bragging rights. Also included: comments on possible editorial performance study as well as the current “number phobia” challenge. If you like what you see,below, follow me on Twitter.
Now there’s a way to measure online editorial enterprise. My system arrives at an estimated percentage based on reviewing 3 enterprise formats. Ability to claim enterprise superiority is highly exploitable. The new yardstick will be included in all future consulting projects.
— Howard Rauch (@fogindex8) October 22, 2018
Competitive analysis tip: Run regular editorial strength & weakness comparisons. In not doing that, you may overlook possibility that a competitor once deemed as a loser has improved to the point where your content has slipped to second best.
— Howard Rauch (@fogindex8) October 24, 2018
When comparing direct quote presence vs. competition, an often-overlooked issue is how many comments are obtained via interview as opposed to PR release pick-up. In several cases, pick-up may account for over 70% of posted quotes. Don’t get caught in that trap if possible.
— Howard Rauch (@fogindex8) October 29, 2018
WHO HAS THE FOGGIEST E-NEWS OF THEM ALL?? Here are some early indicators based on Editorial Solutions, Inc. e-news analysis by market. Medical category leads the pack. Of 80 articles viewed, 43 — 57.5% exceeded Fog Index limits. Retail close behind: 45 of 90 articles (50%),
— Howard Rauch (@fogindex8) October 19, 2018
For competitive purposes, B2B editors should devote a weekly edition to e-news requiring enterprise reporting. Separate editions can cover low-impact content. My Phase VII online news study found only one site that met the 100% enterprise challenge. Other sites were much lower.
— Howard Rauch (@fogindex8) October 19, 2018
New scoring system used in my annual B2B e-news study provides competitive data for sites serving specific industries yet to be determined. Possible fields include technology, retail, medical, transportation, heavy industry. Final Phase VII scores will be posted next month.
— Howard Rauch (@fogindex8) October 10, 2018
Since my recent Tweet about editorial performance standards seemed of interest, it’s probably time to do a follow-up study covering reasonable workloads. In an average work month of 20-22 days, getting the job done probably requires much more time.
— Howard Rauch (@fogindex8) October 4, 2018
One goal of my current editorial performance study is to compare total hours spent per week devoted to various tasks vs. data initial study gathered several years ago. Back then, editors estimated spending 20-30 hours alone to online work. Print tasks required additional time.
— Howard Rauch (@fogindex8) October 10, 2018
Applying quantitative standards to qualitative performance is a topic many B2B editorial managers would rather avoid. After all, they argue, there’s no way you can quantity qualitative success or failure. I don’t agree, but occasionally encounter senseless quantitative policies.
— Howard Rauch (@fogindex8) October 3, 2018
Many editors — and salespeople as well — suffer from “numberphobia” . . . an inability to cope with tabular material. If you are one of those, it’s time to shed this resistance. Very helpful: have your in-house research director conduct a “math facts for editors” workshop.
— Howard Rauch (@fogindex8) October 12, 2018
Timely blog directed to doctors pleads with them to apply “plain English” in written communications. Sound familiar? It should. In my 7th annual B2B e-news study, 201 of 500 articles reviewed exceeded Fog Index scoring limits. https://t.co/581XFsCTjI
— Howard Rauch (@fogindex8) October 15, 2018