Persona-based content mapping: which asset goes to which seat
The CFO and the end user do not read the same case study. Content mapping is the discipline of matching each asset to the seat it is supposed to convince.
A buying committee has six to ten seats, and each seat reads for a different reason. The CFO reads for ROI. The end user reads for ease of use. The IT reviewer reads for security. A content library that sends the same case study to all three is not persona-based, it is a mail merge, and the mapping is what turns a pile of assets into a system.
Start with the seat, not the asset
Most content maps start with the library, and that is why they fail. The map lists every asset, then tries to assign each one to a seat, and the result is a spreadsheet that justifies what already exists. Start with the seats instead. List the six to ten decision-makers in the deal, write down what each one cares about, and only then look at the library.
The gaps appear immediately. The champion has four case studies. The CFO has none. The IT reviewer has a security white paper from three years ago. The map did not create the gaps. It made them visible, and visible gaps get filled.
The three questions each asset must answer
Every asset in the map answers three questions. Who is it for, and which seat will read it. What objection does it answer, and in that seat's language, not the company's. And what stage does it belong to, because an ROI calculator handed to a champion in week one is a waste of a good calculator.
An asset that cannot answer all three does not belong in the map. It belongs in the archive, or in a rewrite. The test is strict on purpose: a library full of assets that answer two of three questions is a library that looks complete and performs like it is empty.
Where most maps fall apart
The first failure is assets with no seat. Someone wrote a beautiful guide, and nobody in the buying committee needs it. The second failure is seats with no assets, usually the CFO and the IT reviewer, because marketing writes for the champion and forgets the people who sign and the people who block. The third failure is the map that is never updated, and quietly describes a buying committee from two years ago.
Each failure has the same symptom: a rep in a deal reaches for an asset and finds the wrong one, or finds nothing, and writes something from scratch. The map is supposed to prevent that. When it does not, the map is decoration.
The review that keeps the map honest
Review the map quarterly, tied to the persona audit. The seats change, the objections change, and the assets that answered last quarter's objections may not answer this quarter's. The review asks three questions: which seats are new, which assets are stale, and which deals stalled because the right asset did not exist.
Keep the map small. A map with fifty assets and ten seats is a catalog, not a tool. A map with fifteen assets and six seats, each one matched and current, is the one a rep actually opens.
Keep reading
Related guides on this site: the six seats on a buying committee when sales and product disagree about the same buyer win/loss interviews as a persona source More from Persona based personalization for online stores.
Frequently asked questions
What is content mapping in plain terms?
Matching each piece of content to the buyer it is meant to convince, the objection it answers, and the stage of the deal it belongs to. A map is a table: seat, asset, objection, stage. Without the table, the library is a pile.
How many assets does a seat need?
Two or three, at different stages. An early-stage asset that names the problem, a mid-stage asset that proves the approach, and a late-stage asset that answers the objection. More than that per seat is noise, and the seat will not read it.
What do you do with an asset that fits no seat?
Retire it, or rewrite it for a seat it does fit. An asset with no seat is a piece of content nobody asked for, and keeping it in the library costs every rep the time they spend finding the right one among the wrong ones.
Does content mapping work for small teams?
Yes, and it matters more, because a small team cannot afford to write an asset for every seat. Map first, then write only the assets the map says are missing. The map stops you from writing the fourth case study for the champion and the first one for the CFO.