AMA: Adobe Head of Product Marketing (APAC), Jeremy Wood on Messaging

I think the general rule of thumb about any content creation still applies here. Use a structure/framework that lets you layout all the key details in a logical order. In terms of 'key details' think about the end user and the use of the asset. Who is using this asset and for what purpose? What 'job' does this asset need to do? What are the key objectives of an asset like this one? The answers to these questions will then help you prioritise emphasising the key content that addresses these questions. If the asset is designed to be sent to a customer as a reference (peer) for a given solution/product then it would be good to frame up what the problem was (background), what the other customers were trying to solve (include quotes here from the customer) and how they came to your solution to fix these needs/issues. Then move into the 'solution' provided by your company and outline what that customer(s) deployed. Lastly really emphasise the impact that yoru companies solutions had for that customer and most importantly how it helped solved for their initial issues/concerns (tie it back to the original problem statement!) This is another great place for customer quotes..i.e "After deploying X solutions, we now have great visibility into our marketing efforts and can better track ROI. We have also been able to free up resourcing that was previously bogged down in our old solutions and can use them in other more valuable areas of the business!" So again..1) Problem statement customer was trying to solve, 2) Story behind what was presented to them as a solution from your company, 3) How they implemented those solutions and 4) What benefits they realised from going with your solutions. Quotes interlaced throughout as 3rd party validation (it can't be from you as the vendor..peer to peer references are the only ones with cut through!)

What a great question! I've been a part of some of these 'category creator' products/services and your question is at the forefront of any work thats gone into shipping those products! I'm not sure there's a 100% right/wrong answer to this but in my experience it's really come down to how much brand cache you feel you have that can build/sustain something like building and creating a new category. We often here the examples such as Netflix, Uber, and AirBnB as changing the landscape of their industries but the reality is they didn't create net new categories..they evolved them! I think its important when creating these to be able to help the end customer be familiar with (a) category..while redefining it enough that they see it's quite different! For Airbnb (and I'm just making this up!) that might have been simply stating that one wants to book accomodation (easy, understandable etc) for an upcoming trip..BUT..maybe its nicer to stay in a home with creature comforts vs a stuffy hotel (the differentiator). So you've grounded the customer in something familiar and then giving yourself the platform to introduce them to doing it differently!

Easier said then done but do a 'pinch test' when reviewing your messaging. Ask yourself if you removed your companies brand/name from the message could any other brand/name be swapped in and the message still hold true? If so, it's not very differentiated is it? However, if its unique enough then it would be harder for another business to 'mirror' your messaging/value prop etc. It's a great litmus test to continually apply as you work through messaging evolutions as it keeps you 'honest' on whether you are TRULY differentiated or not!

I think this question depends on a lot of factors mostly which revolve around the release rate of updates to your products and services. There's a careful balance of ensuring your message is in market long enough to gain traction and to get positive recall while still being fresh/updated. If you are adding significant functionality to your products you want to be evolving your message to add weight to it. You also want to ensure you're staying relevent in market and that your value proposition etc is aligned to our ideal customer profile etc. So I suppose the 'refresh interval' really depends on a) how often you are making significant updates to your products, b) how much the market and/or audience is changing and c) the performance of your current messaging in market and if there is a gap to your intended performance which will require some reiteration of your message!

It all leads back to business goals but also the where/why of your messaging. What I mean by that is messaging plays a key role in a multitude of assets, resources, and content. It would be unfair to ask your sales enablement messaging to 'convert' whereas you absolutely would have that expectation when it came to demand generation right? I think what spans any 'use' is something that is compelling, intriguing, thought provoking but relevant enough to have an end consumer/customer want to take that next step. They want to learn more! So ensuring you have that 'hook' is key!

Nothing revolutionary. Focus on your competitive differentiators so that customers fully understand why 'you and not them' This seems like it's basic advice but it's very easy to lose sight of what sets you apart. What is your USP? If a large portion of the functionality is 'table stakes' then own that! This will in turn discredit the competitors if they are positioning these as innovative! Again, always focus on the customer..what matters to them and why is your solution superior to the others!

Incredibly important! Thats not to say it has to be quantitatively measurable..but the business needs to know if there is positive business returns on messaging work. There is a huge sliding scale as to what that can look like and thats where the difficulty often lies. From qualitative brand reporting all the way to 1:1 ROI measurable activities such as purchases etc. Either way you need to ensure you have a foundation to track effectiveness that can align to key business priorities.

This is a very common circumstance and can be conflated when a companies products bridge both audiences. Think of a consumer product that also has developer tool versions of their software. API's, open source etc. On one hand one core audience group simply wants to know 'will this product do what I need? whereas the other one will need a much more detailed and technical breakdown of a similar question! Similar to another question here, I would always put myself in the place of the intended audience as much as possible. If I'm a non technical customer/consumer of the product what messaging, language, content resonates with me. Where is the 'technical cutoff' point when it comes to details and jargon? Conversely, if I'm a technical buyer/user..what are the key pieces of data or information I'll expect from a given piece of content to ensure its met my expectations? This is where persona's (or the evolved version of) can be helpful as a guide to ensuring you're creating for specific audiences.

All too often! haha Most of the time I find it best to combine quantitative data (i.e market data) with a healthy dose of qualitative data to ensure you have balance. Gut instinct and anecdotal feedback can still be valuable when it comes to inputs. Ultimately you want to test test test! It's hard to argue with results and once your messaging starts to deliver..leadership tends to come onside pretty quickly!

Always put your customer hat on! Put yourself in your customer/consumers position and use that lens to pressure test the 'realness' of the messaging. Does it make sense? Is it clear? Is the value proposition clear/unique/and resonates? It's amazing how often you can get caught in your own bubble and becuase you're close to your products/solutions/services..you do add jargon, you do describe things from an inside->out nature vs ensuring your customers are truly understanding your USP!