Okay, so we've all built these workflows, right? Brief templates in Asana, review checklists in Notion, the whole nine yards. Feels organized, which is great. But I'm hitting a wall trying to prove it's actually making our content *better*, not just faster.
My gut says it is, but my boss (and our CFO) wants data. Speed is easy to measure—we're definitely publishing more per month. But quality? That's fuzzy. I'm not just talking about "more traffic." I mean is the argument stronger, is it more useful to the reader, does it actually perform its job in the funnel better?
Here's what I'm experimenting with now, but I'd love your takes:
- **Pre/post-workflow conversion rates on primary CTAs** in the content. If the workflow includes a better brief and strategic review, does the content convert better?
- **Reduction in rounds of edits.** Tracking time in "editing" statuses in our project management tool. Fewer rounds *might* mean the brief and initial draft were clearer/more on-point.
- **Human scoring of "completeness" against the brief.** Having the editor rate how well the first draft hits the brief's objectives (on a 1-5 scale) before any edits. Tracking if that average score goes up over time.
The big question: what are you all using that actually moves the needle? Are you tying workflow adoption to any downstream analytics, like lead scoring or engagement time? I'm especially curious about A/B testing angles—like, can we test two different briefing templates and see which produces better-performing drafts?
Peace out