I’ve been giving this topic a good deal of thought, on and off, for the last few months. I’m just now getting around to writing about it, of course; I’m busy, give me a break. Plus, I’m still wrapping my head around what points I want to make.

First, let me set some ground rules. I’m not talking about inbound vs. outbound marketing, in the purest sense. I don’t even agree that most marketing in the digital sphere automatically is the former and most of that bad, woefully-behind-the-curve advertising that’s unnecessarily criticized is the latter. Nor am I talking about the traditional push/pull definitions that have been applied—improperly, in my mind—to digital techniques.

No, I’m relating this strictly to content strategies and the tactics that come in execution. Is there a way to define inbound vs. outbound content strategies, and what is it?

Educational vs. relational

Mark (the owner of Digett) and I have been working feverishly on defining and refining Digett’s message as it relates to our services and how we approach creating and implementing strategies for our clients. We agree on the fundamental principles of content and engagement marketing. Where we part is what’s meant when you say those two little words: content strategy.

I’ve been using the educational vs. relational comparison since we began this discussion, though I don’t know if it’s appropriate. In this scenario, an educational content strategy focuses on the development and delivery of corporate information that is designed to educated consumers about business offerings. Yeah, I’m talking about the this-is-what-we-do, this-is-why-we’re-great content that marketers hate to love. This is especially important in B2B or services marketing, where trust and authenticity are good, but basic information can make the deal.

Mark is laser-focused on qualified lead generation, and I can understand why; frankly, he and I both believe lead generation is the red-headed stepchild of the content strategy universe. As such, he views content strategy through the lens of defining prospects, creating content they desire, and delivering/promoting it where they are. That’s a relational strategy.

Problem is, it’s all relational—or it should be, at least. If not, then corporate communications get short shrift because they’re “too promotional” in nature. That’s silly. So, I’ve come up with a new option:

Inbound is yours, outbound is theirs

These are better descriptors, in my view. When you view content strategy in terms of lead generation, it’s an outbound strategy; you’re defining segments and buyer personas, discovering where they congregate, and delivering killer content they want. For the purist, that content isn’t even related to your business, even if you’re attempting to draw them to a landing page for a whitepaper or register for a webinar. It’s theirs.

As a former corporate communicator and writer, I approach content strategy from a holistic viewpoint—one that assumes as much emphasis should be placed on your own content. A plan to improve your own presentation and messaging is an inbound strategy. That’s yours. Inbound and outbound. Or maybe it’s in-house and outhouse.

Labels aside, there is a difference

For many in content strategy, the primary differences between inbound and outbound strategies will exist at the tactical level. That’s not the way I think of it, and it’s why I’m choosing to define the two in terms of ownership—real or perceived—of the content. That puts it at a higher level and helps separate content strategy from editorial strategy.