• by Jack Loechner , Staff Writer @mp_research, December 24, 2015

According to the Content Marketing Institute’s 2016 B2B Content Marketing Survey, the number of marketers describing their organizations as effective at content marketing dropped to 30% (from 38% in the 2015 survey).

Concurrently, as a discipline, content marketing is exploding. eMarketer reports that more than $118 billion is spent annually on the production and distribution of digital content. That number is projected to reach $300 billion by 2019. At the same time, competition is on the rise because the size and content consumption of the U.S. audience has plateaued.

To understand more about what it takes to produce content that’s effective in this increasingly crowded space, Visually surveyed marketers and creatives to see how they work together. The study revealed that the relationship between marketers and their creative teams isn’t always harmonious. At a high level, these were the biggest observations:

• Better communication is needed. Both marketers and creatives have a rosier view of their own performance than their counterparts, especially with delivering final content that meets expectation or giving actionable feedback.
• Creative teams are understaffed. One thing marketers and creatives agreed on was that creative teams don’t usually have the personnel they need. 58% of marketers with in-house teams turn to freelancers, agencies and online services to scale their efforts
• Despite the fact that content helps marketers meet a lot of their objectives, it’s not always a smooth road getting from strategy to execution, says the report. Only 37% of marketers were extremely or very satisfied with the work they received from writers and designers. Almost 20% described themselves as unsatisfied.

Creatives were more optimistic in their self-assessment. For example, 43% of creatives viewed their work as extremely or very effective, while only 26% of marketers thought the creative work they received was as effective. An additional 9% didn’t know whether their work was effective or not—an early sign that communication may not be effective as it could be.

And despite the low effectiveness ratings from marketers, 93% of marketers are proud of the work that they do.

In the eyes of marketers, says the report, there was room for improvement across the board, but a few creative duties received especially low marks. When it came to staffing adequately, anticipating problems, or following a transparent process, less than 30% of marketers thought the creatives they work with did well. This assessment held true whether the creatives were part of in-house teams, agencies, or freelancers.

Creatives also received low ratings in three areas related to the briefing process. Less than 40% of marketers listed following the brief, asking questions that make the brief better, and communicating concerns as things their creative teams did well.

Creative teams saw the dynamics of their working relationship a little differently, says the report. While briefing came up as one of the easier parts of the process, they thought estimating the scope of work and agreeing on a timeline were two of the most difficult activities. Both of these activities flow directly from briefings and project kickoffs, so these results suggest briefs aren’t as detailed or thought out as they should be.

The study found that creatives could do a better job of communicating earlier in the process and content marketers could do a better job of outlining their needs up front, says the report, but it’s also worth taking a moment to see how each group viewed its own performance in the face of these criticisms.

Both creatives and marketers tended to have a rosier view of their own work than their counterparts. But for creatives, the discrepancies were biggest when it came to delivering content that met expectations. Additional areas where creatives’ and marketers’ opinions had the biggest discrepancies are; 

When marketers’ self-assessment is compared with what creatives thought, a few new opportunities to improve the relationship emerge. While sharing more credit with creatives might help boost their overall positivity, marketers also overestimated their ability to give timely and actionable feedback, says the report. 

One problem area that both marketers and creatives agreed on was the lack of adequate staffing. Only 24% of marketers felt the creative teams they work with were staffed adequately. While creatives generally tended to evaluate themselves more positively than the marketers they work with, this is one place where they didn’t: Just 16% of creatives felt that they did a good job of maintaining enough bandwidth to meet marketers’ demands.

A deeper look, says the report, found that 58% of the marketers who most frequently used an in-house creative team also relied on external contributions from freelancers, agencies, or online services. 16% of marketers used two or more types of these external resources.

In fact, says the report, 40% of marketers who have access to in-house creative teams, relied most frequently on external creative resources. However, there was less than 10% variance in satisfaction ratings between the highest and lowest performing types of creative teams.

The study found that creative teams that collaborated better with their marketing partners got more done and produced more successful content. And, the marketers who are most satisfied with their creative teams also think the creative process is easier.

In addition, these same marketers considered every single part of the creative process, from kickoff to final delivery, to be easier as well, says the report. A similar correlation is seen with looking at the marketers who consider their content most effective. Bottom line? Ease, effectiveness, and satisfaction go hand in hand.

When you’re a marketer, the relationships you have with your creative team can ultimately dictate whether you’re successful, says the report. Amazing insights and a brilliant strategy won’t matter if the creative team can’t execute. Good communication means better campaigns, more bandwidth, and maybe most importantly, fewer fire drills, headaches, and frustration concludes the report.

For additional information from Visually, please visit here.