Explore

The Debate on Content Velocity: Quality vs. Quantity in SaaS and Technical Content Marketing

In the world of content marketing for SaaS and technical products, there is an ongoing debate between those who advocate for content velocity — the practice of publishing large amounts of content within a defined period — and those who argue for a focus on quality over quantity.

This article examines the arguments for and against content velocity and explores alternative strategies to engage audiences and generate leads.

The Case Against Content Velocity

Critics of content velocity argue that producing massive amounts of content may not lead to higher conversion rates or attract the desired target audience.

They question the usefulness of such content for smart, sophisticated decision-makers, such as CIOs, who need valuable information to make informed choices about complex enterprise products.

These critics also highlight the challenges of managing large content teams and the potential for duplication and low-quality output.

They argue that a single, well-researched piece of content that took hundreds of hours to write can generate more leads and be more cost-effective than 20 average pieces of content.

The Value of Quality Content

Focusing on quality content allows businesses to create memorable brands and offer meaningful, personal, and engaging materials that help move the needle.

By publishing less frequently but ensuring high-quality content, companies can target their audience more effectively and provide valuable information that leads to conversions.

The Case for Content Velocity

Proponents of content velocity argue that the goal is not to generate conversions directly but to build mental availability.

This means making the brand familiar to potential customers, so they choose it when they are ready to make a purchase.

Content velocity can also be part of a large retargeting campaign, serving as a nudge during the buying process.

These supporters emphasize that content velocity is just one of many valid tactics, including power pages, data-driven content, thought leadership, and others.

They advocate for a combination of strategies to achieve the best results.

The Middle Ground

Some marketers believe that content velocity can be an effective strategy when used alongside other approaches.

For example, it may be beneficial for businesses that have exhausted all bottom-of-the-funnel and sales enablement content.

They suggest that companies should focus on mental availability and top-of-the-funnel content after addressing other content needs.

However, they also recognise that content velocity may not work well for all tech companies, and that different strategies can work together to achieve the best results.

It is crucial to tailor content marketing strategies to the specific needs of a business and its target audience.

Conclusion

The debate on content velocity in content marketing for SaaS and technical products highlights the importance of considering the goals, target audience, and unique circumstances of each business when developing a content strategy.

While content velocity may have its merits, a focus on quality content that genuinely engages and informs audiences is crucial for long-term success.

Companies should balance different content marketing tactics and evaluate their effectiveness to ensure they are meeting their objectives and providing value to their audiences.

Join the conversation

Are you passionate about content marketing strategies?

We’d love to hear your thoughts on the content velocity debate! Share your insights, experiences, and opinions in the comments below to join the conversation.

Let’s work together to create a

vibrant community⁠

of informed marketers and drive meaningful discussions on the best SaaS and technical content marketing approaches.

Don’t forget to share this article with your network to spark even more engaging conversations!

Want to print your doc?
This is not the way.

Try clicking the ⋯ next to your doc name or using a keyboard shortcut (

CtrlP

) instead.