Your content sucks because you’re writing it for [insert algorithm/business KPI] instead of a person.
Yes, especially your B2B content.
Businesses are not readers. CEOs and heads of engineering are, and they probably don’t want a 20-page guide to your specific software, written by AI in the style of Hemingway.
Yes, even if you make sure to type: *Make no mistakes.*
I’ve spent most of my career so far creating, distributing, and systematizing content in one form or another, and the same thing keeps happening: people are only producing content in business to satisfy an algorithm or “grow their business” — not to serve the needs or desires of an audience.
And to be clear, this isn’t new, this was already a problem long before the age of AI. See keyword stuffing. And now you know I’m getting old.
Of course, there can be many reasons why content falls flat, but in this post, I want to focus my rage against the most egregious disrespect of the principles of good media: making content that is NOT for people.
Make the Algorithm Work for You
Say it with me: “We don’t chase algorithms, algorithms chase us.”
Nice.
Whatever platform we’re talking about, the algorithm is already optimizing for the same thing you should be. It always will be.
That’s how Google keeps you off Bing. Or how TikTok keeps traffic from fleeing to Instagram Reels. They serve better results. (TikTok was just an example for me to sound hip, I’m a Reels guy, myself.)
The content discovery platforms you can trust will give you the closest thing to what you are looking for on the entire internet. When someone does that better — even just for specific types of searches, like using TikTok for recipes or Reddit for medical advice — consumers search there instead, and the incumbent loses ad dollars. We are their product. Our data is their line item.
The algorithm just wants to know whether the content you were served engaged you and held your attention.
Time on page.
Scroll depth.
Did you click through or bounce in 12 seconds?
Whatever other measurements become possible due to the ever-creepier internet and the tools us weirdos, who want to know if you looked at landing page B for an additional millisecond, build into it.
Bottom line: if you write something that a human being genuinely wants to read, the algorithm takes care of itself. As the algorithm improves, your content gets served more (because it’s good, right?) Even if it’s 10 years old. If you answer the question or hold attention best, no one can replace you by optimizing better for your keyword. (Unless they also write/film/sing better than you.)
And if you create or write something nobody wants to read, no amount of keyword stuffing is going to save you. From the algorithm, nor especially my LinkedIn comments.
Stop Chasing It Directly
I have this conversation constantly with clients, colleagues, and people who manage content programs spending tens of thousands of dollars every month on this stuff.
Someone always asks: are you optimizing for [ChatGPT/Google/LinkedIn/whatever platform just updated their algorithm]?
And the answer, every time, should be: yes. But not because I spent two hours tweaking phrasing to better suit our AI overlords. And it definitely should not be the main concern.
The thing that makes content rank in Google is the same thing that makes it show up when someone asks an LLM a question: it best serves answers to what the person was looking for. That’s it. That’s the whole game. Go ahead and take my job, because that alone should be enough.
But you’re busy trying to optimize for AI crawlers, so good luck.
For example: if someone searches “how to make a kite fly” and your article immediately gets into the actual steps required to fly a kite — clearly, accurately, in a way where most people who land on it get what they came for — you probably win. The algorithm will figure it out. (See almost all top YouTube results on Google when you search “How to ____.”)
The inverse is also true. If you write an article about how to fly a kite that spends the first four paragraphs defining what a kite is, explaining the history of kite-flying, and announcing what the article is about to cover, you will lose the reader before you get to the point. The algorithm will notice. You might get traffic, but you will have terrible engagement, which is often worse than no traffic at all. Because at least no traffic doesn’t actively signal to search engines that your content is dogshit. (Maybe it’s just your technical skills.)
As AI-powered search gets more sophisticated, and it will, this will be even more true. There are going to be more ways to track whether someone actually got what they were looking for (see my note about us internet data freaks, above). The content that wins eyeballs, hearts, and minds, now and in the future, is the content that genuinely satisfies the audience’s search intent. Full stop.
Your Audience Decides What “Good” Means
Here’s something that I hate to admit: boring content can be great content, if you’re writing it for the right person.
I’m a person who gleefully listens to hour-long breakdowns of weight-loss myths and shitty books (shoutout to Michael Hobbes, Aubrey Gordon, and Peter Shamshiri). Not everyone is.
But the people who are, are searching for exactly that, even when they don’t already know it. And if you write a genuinely thorough, accurate, readable piece on timesheet software for HR executives in banking — a topic that I would prefer to sit on an anthill covered in syrup to consuming — you can build a massive (albeit unfathomably dry) audience. Because HR executives who care about that software do exist and they are not currently being served well. Also, it’s boring as hell for most people to create that content, which is why it’s not hard to shine there, despite major incumbent competition.
Point being, it’s not always a mistake to write “boring” content. The mistake is writing boring content for “business readers” or some other nebulous persona that was entirely misjudged, and wondering why it doesn’t perform.
“Good” is not a universal standard. It’s audience-specific. The question isn’t “is this interesting?” It’s “is this relevant, interesting, and accurate for the specific person I’m writing it for?”
Pro tip: write for one person who you know fits your ICP. Chances are, if you speak to them directly, you’ll resonate with more people like them and avoid talking into the void.
Social Is a Different Game
Everything above applies to content where someone has actively searched for something. They had a question. You answered it. Easy enough to reason about.
Organic social media is different. You’re not answering a search query. You’re interrupting someone who was already doing something else, and you have about two seconds to give them a reason to stop. Especially in video.
The goal there isn’t just to answer a question. It’s to grab, then hold attention.
Short-form video, long-form video, written posts — the mechanics are different for each, and I want to get into all of them properly rather than squeeze it into a section here. Social content, both video and copy, is its own deep topic and one I plan to cover in detail soon. But the core principle still holds: you’re writing or editing for a person. You need that person to feel something. If you want to grow your reach, that’s the number one job.
One More Thing: Individuals Have an Advantage
Most of what I’ve built, written, and worked on has been B2B content. Startups, agencies, enterprise companies with legal review, strict brand guidelines, and approval chains. That’s where I have the most experience, and most of what I write about comes from that world.
But here’s what I’ve noticed, especially as I’m starting to seriously make my own content for the first time: individuals move faster. (And dare I say, better?)
You can say what you actually think. You can try something weird and see if it lands without putting your job at risk. (Unless it’s a nuanced take on Israel.) You’re not beholden to a board or a compliance team. You can respond to current events in real time instead of getting it approved three weeks later when nobody cares anymore.
That’s an edge. And I think the people who use it — who show up consistently, say something worth listening to, and are willing to be wrong in public — are the ones who most often build something worth following.
The content that works is the content that sounds like a person who actually has something to say.
And man oh man am I pissed off reading what’s out there right now. More soon.