# Content Brief Guide

A brief isn't a writing assignment. It's a contract between the strategist and the writer — and when you're both the same person, it's still the contract between your thinking brain and your writing brain. Skip it and you'll rewrite. Do it right and the draft almost writes itself.

---

## Why Briefs Fail (and How to Fix Them)

Most briefs are too vague. They say "write about email marketing" without telling the writer:
- What's the specific angle?
- Who's the reader?
- What keywords matter?
- What tone?
- What should the reader do after?

The result: a draft that misses the mark on every axis.

**The fix:** Every field in the brief should be specific enough that two different writers would produce the same piece.

---

## The Most Important Field: Angle

The angle is the single most critical field in the brief. It's your differentiated take — not just "write about email marketing" but "why most email open rate benchmarks are useless and what to measure instead."

**A good angle is:**
- One sentence
- Opinionated (takes a position)
- Different from what already ranks
- Grounded in something you actually know or have data on

**A weak angle is:**
- "Comprehensive guide to email marketing"
- "Everything you need to know about..."
- "Best practices for..."

If your angle sounds like a Wikipedia article, it's not an angle.

---

## Keyword Targeting: What Actually Matters

You don't need to stuff the brief with 20 keywords. You need:

1. **One primary keyword** — the main search term this piece is targeting. Every SEO decision flows from this.
2. **2-4 secondary keywords** — related phrases that appear naturally. These expand coverage without forcing it.

**How to find secondary keywords:**
- Look at "People Also Ask" on the SERP for your primary term
- Check what related terms appear in the top-ranking articles
- Use autocomplete on the search bar for your primary term

**Common mistake:** Targeting a keyword that's informational (someone learning) with a piece that's commercial (someone buying). Match intent or waste the effort.

---

## The Competitive Gap: Finding the Opening

Before writing the brief's angle, look at what's ranking. You're not copying them — you're finding what they missed.

**Gap patterns to look for:**

| Pattern | What It Means | Opportunity |
|---|---|---|
| All top pieces are listicles | No deep explanation exists | Write the definitive guide |
| Top pieces are outdated (2+ years old) | Information is stale | Write the current-year version with updated data |
| Top pieces are generic (no real examples) | Theory without practice | Write a practitioner piece with real cases |
| Top pieces are all from the same POV | Perspective monopoly | Write the contrarian or underdog angle |
| Top pieces are very long but shallow | Word count without depth | Write shorter but genuinely useful |

The gap is your angle. Find it before you brief.

---

## Structure: H2s Are the Real Deliverable

Writers often write vague outlines. "Introduction. Section 1. Conclusion." That's not a structure — that's a placeholder.

Good H2s do three things:
1. **Promise value** — the reader knows what they'll learn
2. **Follow logic** — each section flows from the previous
3. **Hit keywords** — secondary terms appear naturally

**Building the H2 structure:**
- Write the outline as if you're writing the table of contents for a useful reference book
- Each H2 should be a complete thought ("How to Write Subject Lines That Get Opened" not "Subject Lines")
- Sequence matters: don't put "Advanced Tactics" before "Why This Matters"

**The rule of 5:** Most blog posts need 4-6 H2s. Fewer and it's shallow. More and it's scattered.

---

## Sources: Non-Negotiable Before Drafting

Writers who draft without sources invent claims. Then those claims go live on your website.

**Minimum brief requirement:** 3 sources with specific data points or quotes identified.

**Source quality hierarchy:**
1. Original research (surveys, studies, experiments you conducted)
2. Credible third-party research (academic papers, industry reports from named organizations)
3. Expert quotes (attributed, verifiable)
4. Strong case studies with specific metrics
5. Official documentation or standards

**Red flag sources:** Anything that cites "a study" without naming it. Anything more than 5 years old in a fast-moving category. Competitor blog posts (they're also making stuff up).

---

## Internal Linking: Plan It Before, Not After

Most writers add internal links as an afterthought. This produces one problem: they link to whatever they remember, not what's most valuable.

The brief should specify:
- 2-3 existing pieces this article should link to (and what anchor text to use)
- 1-2 existing pages that should link back to this article once published

This prevents both orphaned content and missed link equity.

---

## Success Criteria: If You Don't Define It, You Can't Measure It

Every brief should answer: how will we know this piece worked?

Not vague ("gets traffic") — specific:
- Ranks in top 5 for [keyword] within [timeframe]
- Drives X leads per month
- Achieves X% conversion rate on the CTA
- Gets cited / linked by [type of site]

Define it now so you don't change the definition later.

---

## Brief Anti-Patterns

| Anti-pattern | Problem | Fix |
|---|---|---|
| "Write a comprehensive guide" | No angle, no differentiation | Define the specific take |
| Missing audience definition | Writer guesses; often wrong | Name the exact reader job title and pain |
| No sources listed | Writer invents facts | Find 3 sources before briefing |
| Vague keyword ("marketing") | No SEO targeting | Get specific: "email marketing for B2B SaaS" |
| H2s that are just topic labels | No promise, no structure | Rewrite as complete-thought headers |
| No internal links specified | Orphaned content | List 2-3 links before writing |
| No success criteria | Can't evaluate performance | Define at least one measurable outcome |