Old vs New Way of Doing Content
Why disrupting yourself is the only path forward
👋 Hey, I’m George Chasiotis. Welcome to GrowthWaves, your weekly dose of B2B growth insights—featuring powerful case studies, emerging trends, and unconventional strategies you won’t find anywhere else.
This note is brought to you by Minuttia.
Most companies have no idea how they appear in AI search results.
The team at Minuttia built a free AEO report that shows how your brand appears across AI platforms like ChatGPT and Perplexity, based on real prompts, citations, and sentiment data.
You’ll get:
A visibility score and share of voice
Breakdown by topic, platform, and sentiment
A shareable report with clear next steps
It takes 30 seconds to request. Minuttia’s team does the rest.
Get the report. See how visible you really are. Then fix what’s broken.
Lately, I’ve been thinking about what has changed in the past few years regarding how we approach content.
Spoiler alert: for most companies, things have remained the same.
But, for many others, either organically or by force, things have changed quite a bit.
In general, I’m sitting in the “disrupt yourself” camp (if there’s such a camp), and believe that it’s better to bring change yourself than to be forced to change.
In that context, I want to explore with you the new and the old ways of doing content through the lens of five important pillars for any content strategy.
Let’s go.
The five pillars
The five pillars I’m using for this analysis are as follows:
Objective—the objective behind a piece of content, a particular content type (e.g., video), or campaign that’s based on content
Brand Voice—the voice of the brand through a series of documents (e.g., editorial guidelines) and is more relevant as a company grows
Distribution—the distribution plan for each piece of content, a particular content type (e.g., video), or campaign that’s based on content
Structure—the structure of each piece of content, a particular content type (e.g., content for search), or campaign that’s based on content
Product—the integration of product (e.g., screenshots, GIFs, mentions) inside our content, regardless of the type or format
Based on these five pillars, I came up with the following table:
Let’s take a closer look at the differentiation points under each pillar.
Pillar #1: Objective
In the past, most content strategies were heavily focused on Google search as a way to generate traffic.
Some of the traffic would then translate into sign-ups, demo requests, and ultimately revenue for the company.
Author’s Note: I’m oversimplifying, but you get the point.
This has started to change as companies realize that they can’t rely on Google search alone to hit their growth goals.
But there’s another reason that’s also prevalent.
From a risk management perspective, you simply can’t keep all your eggs in one basket—you need to expand your traffic portfolio and open up new referral traffic sources.
Another characteristic of the past was virality just for the sake of it.
This has started to change as well, since companies now may seek virality (nothing wrong with that), but in the context of building momentum, that will then result in mental availability.
The past was dominated by short-term thinking, and while that’s still true in several cases, I see that more and more companies wake up to the fact that long-term relevance is more important than being relevant just for a quarter.
Strategies were dominated by last-touch attribution thinking, which you don’t need me to tell you it didn’t always highlight the hard work of content marketers and the contribution of content to marketing results.
This has started to change with multi-touch attribution models becoming more important (and relevant), and influence in different parts of the customer journey rising in significance.
Last but not least, instant gratification—which could totally happen today, too—isn’t an expectation, as companies realize that a slow build-up is more sustainable and realistic, especially in an environment with so much noise.
Pillar #2: Brand Voice
Brand voice is usually something that companies at later stages adopt and try to cultivate.
I believe that regardless of the company size, from the moment a company starts putting content out there should care about its brand voice.
The word “care” doesn’t mean obsess over every little detail.
It means saying things in a unique way that represents how the company and its people think and express themselves.
In the past, brand voice was dictated by the company, usually through a series of scattered documents in a cloud drive somewhere.
But today, companies understand that empowering their people to act as voices and evangelists is how a brand’s voice is actually built.
And instead of putting out polished and press-release-like content pieces, companies understand the importance of being more humane and opinionated.
Additionally, companies understand that jargon (unless necessary) confuses buyers.
At the same time, I see that many companies are waking up from the AI content honeymoon, and the hangover isn’t pleasant at all.
Companies need their content to sound and feel human.
And, instead of “following the same tone” to keep a consistent point of view (POV), which is more important, and can serve their long-term interests better.
Pillar #3: Distribution
Distribution wasn’t a first-class concern in the past.
In most cases, it simply wasn’t part of the conversation.
Companies would publish content on their CMS and hope that Google would pick it up and rank it in the top search results.
Because most content was created with Google search in mind, it was engineered primarily to “satisfy” algorithms.
This has started to shift as companies realize that content designed to satisfy humans will often satisfy search engine crawlers and AI agents as well.
Author’s Note: This assumes the content is intended for search and that no technical or visibility issues are present.
That obsession with Google search led many companies to rely (almost exclusively) on it for referral traffic, invest more heavily in the channel, and end up renting attention instead of owning it.
This has started to shift as companies realize the importance of owning attention, not just renting it.
Lastly—and this is something I never fully understood—companies would post the same content everywhere.
Case in point: companies would publish competitor alternative listicles on LinkedIn as a distribution tactic.
Today, companies understand the need for a dedicated strategy per channel—winning in a few places rather than being mediocre everywhere.
Pillar #4: Structure
As we discussed earlier, most content was created with Google search in mind.
This is why structure was mostly SEO-focused (e.g., long-form, text-heavy).
This has started to change as companies create pieces that can stand on their own, while still being designed to perform well in a specific channel.
From text-heavy pieces that were designed to rank in Google search results, we’re moving to content that’s skimmable and more visually appealing.
One piece is no longer a single asset (usually a blog post).
Today, the idea (or topic) behind a piece is used to generate multiple assets, each purpose-built for the channels they’ll be distributed on.
Lastly, value was backloaded and often gated.
That, too, has started to change, as companies now understand that even content created for Google and AI search should put value front and center.
Pillar #5: Product
Product integration or product features inside content are sometimes necessary, while in other cases they’re irrelevant.
Even though there used to be a notion that the “product should always be there”—through screenshots, GIFs, video walkthroughs, or casual mentions—companies today understand that this often feels biased and unnatural.
When they did feature the product, companies would rush to showcase as many features (no pun intended) as possible, as if buying decisions were based solely on feature count.
It was never about features, but about the value these features add and what they can do for the customer.
CTAs were everywhere, regardless of how much they affected the user experience.
That, too, has started to change.
Product features used to be presented entirely from the company’s perspective, whereas recently I’ve been seeing more content where the product is communicated through the voice of the customer.
Lastly, product and brand used to be treated as separate things, whereas today the product is an extension of the brand’s POV.
Final thoughts
Change is an opportunity for growth.
It’s also inevitable and at times necessary.
Of course, most people don’t change and would choose to avoid it if they were given the chance.
The way we do content has already changed.
This isn’t an opinion—it’s a reality.
To stay relevant, you need to adapt and do it quickly.
It all starts with your mindset.
Change that, and the way you approach content will follow.
Thank you for reading today’s note, and see you again in two weeks.