How I think
Not a blog. Just the operating principles behind the work in this portfolio, so you know how I would approach yours.
The instinct when a channel underperforms is to make more, or make it prettier. Usually the constraint is somewhere else. I audited 330 posts at Qualtrics expecting a content problem and found a distribution problem — engagement rate went from 4.3% to 11.7% in two quarters without changing what we were making. Content is the easiest thing to blame and rarely the thing that’s wrong.
A content calendar answers what goes out Tuesday. It does not answer who decides, what we say no to, or how we know it worked. So I build the boring infrastructure: an intake process anyone in the company can use, tiered operating models with real approval chains, and measurement that ladders to category ownership rather than channel vanity metrics. It is the difference between a channel that survives a reorg and one that doesn’t.
Every format that has worked for me has had a person in it — an executive with an actual point of view, a customer explaining what changed, an employee who wants to talk about their work. That’s why I spend time on executive voice profiles and employee advocacy instead of brand-account polish. A logo on a slide proves nothing. A person explaining what changed proves everything.
I still shoot and edit. Partly because it’s faster, partly because strategy written by someone who hasn’t made anything in three years tends to be unbuildable. Knowing what a shoot day actually costs, how long an edit really takes, and what a platform rewards this month is what keeps a plan from being a wish.
Good social looks like luck. It is almost always architecture.