As your email arrived I was contemplating abstraction in the customer journey from a completely different direction. I look at the words people use in search engines, mapping them to the classic buyers journey, I have found specificity indicates 'where they are'. They are all 'in market' but those concept terms,the abstract ones are earlier, and require different thinking to engage with then. The job of the content as they graduate from concept to topic to types, that also changes. We can map out the journey in advance - pretty novel, but related? It feels like a parallel with goals, planning and tasks too.
While there are several ways that you could take this abstraction angle, it's very difficult to do when you're looking at backward looking data as your starting point. Unfortunately, that's where most of us start. I'm trying to stimulate a new way of looking at this, if that makes sense.
We might be on a different plane, but often have the same sentiment. Why bother with building something and then find out nobody is looking for it. And then there is being trumped by people intercepting need - offering business intelligence, but being outplayed by growth services - concepty.
I see, there's no sense in studying the customer journey if you haven't identified needs at the market level and developed a solution that addresses the value gaps there. But assuming that you've done that, then you should take a look at one or more of the consumption areas to make sure that you are handling needs closer to the product level.
Maybe I'm missing your point still. The method I employ allows me to look at any of these levels of abstraction in a consistent manner
I like the word consistent, it makes for a process. I’ll try and explain the connection. I am decrypting search keywords into market, audience and buyer journey words (mapping them) - the words are written by those in the market for things - they are just obscured. When you see the difference, the market words have different but consistent levels of abstraction (as do audience words) - and I named the market classifications, subject, topic and type. The subjects or concept level are less ‘tangible, and seemingly can ‘contain’ multiple topics between which you can choose - or combine. They don’t seem to have buyer journey words attached which seem only to occur at topic level - but I have only just begun to figure the subject words out, I ignored them because they have less intent. But when I read your post, whilst you were making a different observation, I recognised the potential for innovation in the market words and I am now figuring out how to handle and organise content. Keywords are a market mapping - but only once you process them.
As your email arrived I was contemplating abstraction in the customer journey from a completely different direction. I look at the words people use in search engines, mapping them to the classic buyers journey, I have found specificity indicates 'where they are'. They are all 'in market' but those concept terms,the abstract ones are earlier, and require different thinking to engage with then. The job of the content as they graduate from concept to topic to types, that also changes. We can map out the journey in advance - pretty novel, but related? It feels like a parallel with goals, planning and tasks too.
While there are several ways that you could take this abstraction angle, it's very difficult to do when you're looking at backward looking data as your starting point. Unfortunately, that's where most of us start. I'm trying to stimulate a new way of looking at this, if that makes sense.
We might be on a different plane, but often have the same sentiment. Why bother with building something and then find out nobody is looking for it. And then there is being trumped by people intercepting need - offering business intelligence, but being outplayed by growth services - concepty.
I see, there's no sense in studying the customer journey if you haven't identified needs at the market level and developed a solution that addresses the value gaps there. But assuming that you've done that, then you should take a look at one or more of the consumption areas to make sure that you are handling needs closer to the product level.
Maybe I'm missing your point still. The method I employ allows me to look at any of these levels of abstraction in a consistent manner
I like the word consistent, it makes for a process. I’ll try and explain the connection. I am decrypting search keywords into market, audience and buyer journey words (mapping them) - the words are written by those in the market for things - they are just obscured. When you see the difference, the market words have different but consistent levels of abstraction (as do audience words) - and I named the market classifications, subject, topic and type. The subjects or concept level are less ‘tangible, and seemingly can ‘contain’ multiple topics between which you can choose - or combine. They don’t seem to have buyer journey words attached which seem only to occur at topic level - but I have only just begun to figure the subject words out, I ignored them because they have less intent. But when I read your post, whilst you were making a different observation, I recognised the potential for innovation in the market words and I am now figuring out how to handle and organise content. Keywords are a market mapping - but only once you process them.