Communication Strategy
Recommendations to Streamline eNewsletter
July 29, 2013 - Long before I pivoted to UX Content Design, I worked on this hybrid communications/content-design project when I was asked to suggest ways to simultaneously improve the quality and the production speed of an underperforming email newsletter. There was no project budget — just a few hours of my time spent interviewing the newsletter editor, documenting my recommendations, and, later, persuading the executive sponsor to implement my recommendations.
I analyzed and made suggestions to improve the process and template for the “What’s SAPpening” e-newsletter, sent via email to internal SAP (business software) users within the IT organization of Novartis’s Vaccines division. Read my strategic recommendations, then compare the prior version (not my work) with the revised version (my work).
Before (Prior Version)
Analysis
Problem: Need to reduce the time & effort required to publish monthly newsletter to stay on deadline, yet retain quality of content
Current State: Ten (10) monthly electronic editions have been published (some, on time; several, late) with good user feedback. A streamlined (easier to format) Outlook-based format was recently proposed, but rejected by users because they preferred the existing print-oriented (time-intensive) approach. The current production process requires lots of time and formatting.
Current Process:
Contributors given one-week deadline to submit content (many usually submit content late)
Louise (editor) reviews content and formats for distribution (2 days):
Format articles and summary page in Word (fit each to one- or two-pages)
Convert articles (Word docs) to individual PDFs and post on SAP SharePoint site
Update article links within summary page and save as PDF; post on SAP site
Reformat summary page in Outlook
Send to ~15 reviewers for comments and approval
Forward formatted email and summary page PDF (attachment) for distribution by IT Comms
Disadvantages of Current Process:
Content often submitted after deadline, creating unnecessary burden on production process, and sometimes resulting in “current” edition (e.g. July) being distributed in following month (e.g. August)
Having too many reviewers delays production
Formatting of issues is time- and effort intensive
PDF attachment includes only summary page – not entire edition (collection of articles)
Current format is designed for print, but is not email- or mobile-device-friendly
Individual articles are stand-alone – no links back to current edition, related articles, SAP Learning Centre, etc.
What’s SAPpening - Prior Version Tap image to view entire document (PDF)
Recommendations to Improve the Process and Format
Create and distribute an article template (Word) for contributors to use. Using “Styles” formatting in Word (article title, author byline, body, etc.) will save formatting time on the receiving end. Template should include a header and/or footer boiler plate that links back to: SAP Learning Centre, Newsletter Archive, and other resources. Benefits: Quicker formatting time, greater context for articles, increased focus on online resources (vs. email).
Have ongoing list/collection of articles in editorial pipeline. Aim to have 2 editions’ worth of content in progress at any given time. Pre-write greater number of articles, such as Tips & Tricks, that can be pooled. Benefit: Less reliance on any one article to complete an edition. OK if a contributor misses a deadline, as the late article can go into a later edition, and another, already completed article can be used to complete the current edition.
Change Edition numbering from “Month, Year” to “Volume # - Edition #.” Retain emphasis on monthly distribution (12 Editions per annual Volume), but ease adherence to specific point-in-time distribution. For example: Rather than having a “September 2013” edition, call it “Volume 2 - Edition 7” (7th newsletter published in 2013 – the second year of production). Benefit: This allows flexibility with distribution date, easing production stressors.
Remain firm on submissions deadline – late submissions will be considered for next edition. Benefits: Reduced stress on production; contributors held accountable for deadlines.
Abandon “fit-to-one-page” print orientation of summary doc in favor single-column, device-friendly, online orientation. | Benefits: Less formatting time, less content to format (shorter teaser blurbs linking to online articles), flexibility as to how many articles are included in each issue, easier for users to scan, easy to read on mobile device.
Develop formatted summary doc template in Outlook (rather than Word). Modify formatting to closely resemble familiar print-oriented version. Benefit: Eases production; creates consistent look and familiar format for each edition.
Include contextual/meta-information in email and in article footers: Purpose of newsletter, frequency, audience, sponsor, where to submit ideas/feedback, how to subscribe, link to newsletter archive, other useful links. Benefits: Greater understanding of how the newsletter fits business needs; who to contact about it; possible generation of content suggestions.
Tighten article/teaser blurb language in summary doc. Limit blurbs to 2 lines. Hyperlink article titles and relevant key words in copy, rather than including unnecessary lines such as “Read about it here.” Benefit: easier for users to scan/read; saves space; decreases length of email; easier to intuit where hyperlinks will take you.
Decide on standard pixel dimensions for photos & graphics in summary doc. Benefit: Simplifies production; creates consistent look and format for each edition.
Abandon PDF attachment of summary doc – If users actually do print the newsletter articles to read offline, then consider combining all articles within an edition into a single print-friendly (simple) PDF that the email can link to. Benefits: Decreased production time; smaller email size; easier consumption for those who wish to have printed version.
Reduce number of reviewers to three (3). One person focuses on grammar and format; one focuses on overall alignment/relevance of content with business needs; one focuses on data accuracy and consistency. Designate a back-up person for each role to allow for vacation/illness. Benefits: Quicker approval time; clearer reviewer roles avoids duplicating or competing editorial changes.
Ensure content aligns with business objectives. For example, refrain from doing spotlights on SAP support staff when ERP Evolution is driving end users to contact BPEs. Look at business needs, annual objectives, and help desk issues, etc. to drive content ideas. Benefits: greater usefulness to end users; greater business ROI for newsletter efforts.
After (Revised Version)
Outcomes
The sponsoring executive, editor, and recipients all were thrilled with the template and process revisions, which made the newsletter much simpler (thus, faster) to produce, easier to read, and did not incur any additional expense. Specifically:
Issues were published on time (or nearly on time) rather than being weeks late, which improved the reliability and reputation of the publication. That, in turn, inspired more contributors to submit articles and increased the value of the publication to readers.
Word of the improvements spread and readership increased.
The editor was able to spend less time on the publication each edition, thus freeing up time to work on other important projects.
Contributors learned to submit articles on time or else accepted the fact that their submissions would appear in a later edition (if still relevant). This eased tensions between the executive sponsor and her direct reports (who were the main contributors), and also reduced stress for the editor, who was able to maintain a more rigorous publication schedule.
Overall, the publication evolved to a more vital communication channel for the organization.
What’s SAPpening - Revised Version Tap image to view entire document (PDF)
What I’d Do Differently Today
If I had the chance to do this project again, I would obtain more concrete metrics to highlight the time saved and efficiencies gained with the new changes. For example:
How many previous issues were published late and by how many business days? How many were late (and by how many days) after the changes?
Open rates for online version of articles?
Survey the main audience and regular contributors, both before and after the changes, to capture pain points (before) and reactions (quotes) to the new format and streamlined process.