A lot of interesting points here. “Like to like” can be a great approach. In addition to the shared persona, this technique can also help inform distribution. For example, LinkedIn comes to mind as a place for leveraging network effects. That said, Facebook Groups, Subreddits, Discord Channels, and other niche communities could produce higher engagement rates.
Still, while a shared profession might prequalify a reader, offer the creator special access, and/or hold an audience’s attention longer, crafting meaningful content remains a key difficulty. You mention, “articles would differ in addressing the particular concerns of people in that target group,” which is a solid goal. However, targeted content can often be reduced to baseline commonalities. So, a potential downside risk with professional targeting is writing toward a job title rather than a person.
Using the example, “How this software engineer approaches charity”—noting that this is likely a placeholder title—I’d start developing the content by asking:
Who is the piece for?
What does the piece hope to accomplish?
At first glance, the title indicates that the article would be written for software engineers. However, it could be argued that this is more the intention of the author and that the audience is really people who might be interested in this particular software engineer’s charitable musings. So, unless the software engineer is a thought leader or influencer in their space, this content might be too niche to achieve a sizable impact. Conversely, the article might intrigue someone generally interested in giving and charity, but the specificity of the software engineer makes it less tailored for them.
When designing both titles and content, I find it helpful to shift perspectives from writer to reader. Here are some questions I use:
Why is this piece of content interesting to the reader?
How does it speak to their personal goals or pain points?
Does the piece offer value and/or provide solutions?
Is the message engaging…helpful…meaningful?
Using these questions, one might arrive at titles like:
How I Made Software Engineering a Fulfilling Career (Audience: Engineers looking for meaning through their career)
Giving Like a Coder: How I Hacked My Charitable Contributions (Audience: Engineers looking to optimize every area of their life)
How You Can Maximize Impact as a Software Engineer (Audience: Engineers looking to do more through their career)
How Software Engineers Can Save Lives (Audience: Engineers interested in doing important work)
Top 10 Software Engineers Who Are Giving Back (Audience: Engineers aspiring to be like their respected contemporaries)
While I employed some hooks with these titles, I’m shaping through the lens of a software engineer presumed hopes, interests, issues, etc. — not just the shared persona. You can pull this out further and see how each title could then fulfill on the promise of its premise and, ultimately, align with the second question: “What does the piece hope to accomplish?”
All of that said, the content that might result from a framework like this could have its own downside risks:
Disingenuous writing: Tailoring too much for an audience and/or applying marketing best practices (hooks, keywords, SEO , etc.) has the potential to compromise core messaging.
Low fidelity: Due to its often “snackable” nature, viral/shareable content can lack important nuance.
Unrepresentative associations: A successful article could be shared by the unengaged for purposes such as virtual signaling, risking the reputation of the EA community and/or appropriation of EA-related indicators e.g. #effectivealtruism.
You mention some of these risks in your post, so perhaps additional guidelines should be considered when pursuing external targeted movement building.
All of that said. I think professional outreach + meaningful content has strong potential to reach and activate people.
Great points! I appreciate your concern about the original ideas being aimed too much at the job title and not enough at the individual, and your thoughts on downside risks are also well taken. I like where you take these ideas from a marketing standpoint, as well.
I have been encouraged by recent developments like the appointment of a head of communications at CEA, and hope ideas like those in my entry above—and improvements upon them, much as you have offered—will be considered increasingly in the coming months.
Thanks, Adam! And thank you for starting a conversation around this approach (I don’t think I mentioned that in my original comment). I’ve actually applied to some of the new comms positions at CEA and would love the opportunity to further explore these ideas and others...
A lot of interesting points here. “Like to like” can be a great approach. In addition to the shared persona, this technique can also help inform distribution. For example, LinkedIn comes to mind as a place for leveraging network effects. That said, Facebook Groups, Subreddits, Discord Channels, and other niche communities could produce higher engagement rates.
Still, while a shared profession might prequalify a reader, offer the creator special access, and/or hold an audience’s attention longer, crafting meaningful content remains a key difficulty. You mention, “articles would differ in addressing the particular concerns of people in that target group,” which is a solid goal. However, targeted content can often be reduced to baseline commonalities. So, a potential downside risk with professional targeting is writing toward a job title rather than a person.
Using the example, “How this software engineer approaches charity”—noting that this is likely a placeholder title—I’d start developing the content by asking:
Who is the piece for?
What does the piece hope to accomplish?
At first glance, the title indicates that the article would be written for software engineers. However, it could be argued that this is more the intention of the author and that the audience is really people who might be interested in this particular software engineer’s charitable musings. So, unless the software engineer is a thought leader or influencer in their space, this content might be too niche to achieve a sizable impact. Conversely, the article might intrigue someone generally interested in giving and charity, but the specificity of the software engineer makes it less tailored for them.
When designing both titles and content, I find it helpful to shift perspectives from writer to reader. Here are some questions I use:
Why is this piece of content interesting to the reader?
How does it speak to their personal goals or pain points?
Does the piece offer value and/or provide solutions?
Is the message engaging…helpful…meaningful?
Using these questions, one might arrive at titles like:
How I Made Software Engineering a Fulfilling Career (Audience: Engineers looking for meaning through their career)
Giving Like a Coder: How I Hacked My Charitable Contributions (Audience: Engineers looking to optimize every area of their life)
How You Can Maximize Impact as a Software Engineer (Audience: Engineers looking to do more through their career)
How Software Engineers Can Save Lives (Audience: Engineers interested in doing important work)
Top 10 Software Engineers Who Are Giving Back (Audience: Engineers aspiring to be like their respected contemporaries)
While I employed some hooks with these titles, I’m shaping through the lens of a software engineer presumed hopes, interests, issues, etc. — not just the shared persona. You can pull this out further and see how each title could then fulfill on the promise of its premise and, ultimately, align with the second question: “What does the piece hope to accomplish?”
All of that said, the content that might result from a framework like this could have its own downside risks:
Disingenuous writing: Tailoring too much for an audience and/or applying marketing best practices (hooks, keywords, SEO , etc.) has the potential to compromise core messaging.
Low fidelity: Due to its often “snackable” nature, viral/shareable content can lack important nuance.
Unrepresentative associations: A successful article could be shared by the unengaged for purposes such as virtual signaling, risking the reputation of the EA community and/or appropriation of EA-related indicators e.g. #effectivealtruism.
You mention some of these risks in your post, so perhaps additional guidelines should be considered when pursuing external targeted movement building.
All of that said. I think professional outreach + meaningful content has strong potential to reach and activate people.
Great points! I appreciate your concern about the original ideas being aimed too much at the job title and not enough at the individual, and your thoughts on downside risks are also well taken. I like where you take these ideas from a marketing standpoint, as well.
I have been encouraged by recent developments like the appointment of a head of communications at CEA, and hope ideas like those in my entry above—and improvements upon them, much as you have offered—will be considered increasingly in the coming months.
Thanks, Adam! And thank you for starting a conversation around this approach (I don’t think I mentioned that in my original comment). I’ve actually applied to some of the new comms positions at CEA and would love the opportunity to further explore these ideas and others...