What Is a Content Marketing Strategist? (And What Makes Content Actually Strategic)

The fastest way to waste a marketing budget is to hire a "content marketing strategist" who's actually just a content coordinator with a better title. I see this constantly: companies pay $120K for someone to manage editorial calendars, coordinate freelancers, and optimize social media posting schedules—activities that have nothing to do with strategy.

Here's the problem: most organizations can't distinguish between strategic thinking and tactical execution. They conflate planning with strategy, coordination with architecture, activity with leverage. So they hire someone with "strategist" in their title, watch them produce a steady stream of content, and wonder why nothing compounds. Why engagement stays flat. Why content feels like an expense rather than an asset.

The gap isn't output. It's the absence of actual strategic thinking—the kind that builds systems instead of campaigns, that creates narrative positioning instead of random topics, that generates compounding leverage instead of linear effort.

This article defines what content marketing strategists actually do, how their work differs from content marketing managers and content creators, and what evaluation frameworks separate real strategy from expensive coordination. If you're hiring a strategist, building a content function, or wondering whether your current approach is actually strategic, you'll leave with the clarity and assessment tools to know the difference.

What Does a Content Marketing Strategist Actually Do?

Let's start with what strategy is, because most definitions are uselessly circular. "Strategists develop content strategy" tells you nothing. "They plan content" is just coordination with extra steps.

Strategy is architecture. It's the design of systems that compound over time rather than campaigns that complete and disappear. Strategic work creates leverage—each piece of content strengthens everything else, building topical authority, semantic relationships, and narrative coherence that grows more valuable with every addition.

Execution is implementation. It's writing the blog post, recording the video, designing the infographic. Execution is essential, but it operates within strategic constraints. The strategist decides what to create and why. The executor determines how to create it well.

This distinction matters because most "content strategists" are actually doing execution work with strategic vocabulary. They're choosing topics based on keyword research tools rather than narrative architecture. They're filling content calendars rather than building content systems. They're measuring outputs (posts published, emails sent) rather than strategic outcomes (topical authority established, category positioning achieved).

The Strategy vs. Execution Divide

Consider the difference between these two decisions:

Tactical execution: "We should write about productivity tips because it gets good search volume."

Strategic thinking: "We need to establish authority in the workflow automation category by building a semantic network around process optimization entities. That means architecting content that connects task management, team collaboration, and automation triggers—creating topical depth that compounds into category ownership."

See the difference? The tactical decision chases traffic. The strategic decision builds a compounding asset.

Here's a simple test: Does this decision create leverage that grows over time, or does it just create activity that completes and stops? If it's the latter, it's not strategy—it's execution dressed up in strategic language.

Real strategists use what I call the Strategic Decision Filter: they ask whether each content decision contributes to a larger system. Does it strengthen topical authority? Does it advance narrative positioning? Does it create semantic relationships that make future content more powerful? If the answer is no, they don't do it—even if it would generate short-term traffic.

Core Strategic Functions

Content marketing strategists work across five interconnected domains:

Audience architecture goes deeper than personas or demographic profiles. Strategists map need states—the specific contexts and problems that cause someone to "hire" content. They understand jobs-to-be-done frameworks, identifying not just who the audience is but what they're trying to accomplish and what success looks like in their world. This means segmenting by decision-making context rather than industry or company size.

Narrative development means building the story system that positions your organization within a category. This isn't messaging (though messaging flows from it). It's category design—the strategic choice of what you're competing in, not just how you compete. Are you a "marketing automation platform" or are you defining a new category entirely? That decision shapes everything downstream. Strong strategists build narrative IP that compounds over time, creating intellectual property through consistent story architecture.

Content infrastructure is where strategy becomes technical. This means architecting entity-first SEO—building semantic relationships between concepts, topics, and domains rather than chasing keyword rankings. It's designing information architecture that guides both humans and search algorithms through interconnected ideas. The strategist doesn't just decide to write about "project management"—they map the entire entity network around project management, task delegation, team coordination, and workflow optimization, then architect content that establishes authority across that semantic space.

Distribution strategy determines how content reaches audiences across channels and contexts. This isn't social media scheduling. It's understanding which channels create compounding leverage (owned platforms, community, SEO) versus ephemeral reach (paid ads, trending topics). Strategists design distribution systems that amplify strategic content rather than treating distribution as an afterthought once content is created.

Measurement frameworks separate vanity metrics from strategic signals. Strategists don't care about page views or social shares unless those metrics indicate progress toward strategic goals. Instead, they track topical authority (are we ranking for entity clusters, not just individual keywords?), narrative penetration (are we being cited as category authorities?), and pipeline contribution (does strategic content generate qualified opportunities?).

Notice what's missing from this list: managing editorial calendars, coordinating freelancers, writing blog posts, posting to social media, running email campaigns. Those are execution functions. They matter enormously, but they're not strategy.

What Strategy Isn't

Let's be precise about what doesn't qualify as strategic work, because this is where most role confusion lives.

Strategy is not project management. Coordinating production schedules, managing workflows in Asana or Monday, tracking deliverables—this is operations, not strategy. You need someone doing this work, but call them a content operations manager or project coordinator, not a strategist.

Strategy is not content creation. Writing blog posts, even brilliant ones, is execution. The strategist might write—many do—but the strategic work happens before the writing: determining what to write, why it matters, how it fits into the larger narrative architecture.

Strategy is not calendar ownership. If someone's primary responsibility is "owning the editorial calendar," they're doing coordination work. The strategic question isn't "when should we publish?" but "what content architecture creates the most leverage?" and "how does sequencing support narrative development?"

Strategy is not activity without coherence. This is the most common failure mode: people who call themselves strategists but produce random content ideas without an underlying thesis. They chase trending topics, respond to every keyword opportunity, and create content that's individually decent but collectively incoherent. Each piece exists in isolation rather than strengthening a larger system.

I watched a SaaS company hire a "Head of Content Strategy" who spent six months producing a steady stream of blog posts, guides, and templates—all well-written, all optimized for search, all generating traffic. But none of it cohered. The company had no narrative positioning, no topical authority in their core category, no semantic relationships that compounded. They had activity, not strategy. When they finally brought in actual strategic thinking, they killed 60% of their content to focus on building genuine topical depth in three entity clusters. Traffic dropped initially, then tripled over eight months as topical authority compounded.

That's the difference. Strategy requires saying no more often than yes, building systems that compound rather than campaigns that complete, and maintaining narrative coherence even when individual opportunities seem attractive.

How Is a Content Marketing Strategist Different from Other Roles?

The confusion around "content strategist" as a title comes from genuine overlap with adjacent roles. Let's map the distinctions with precision, because understanding these boundaries determines whether you hire the right capability.

Content Strategist vs. Content Marketing Strategist

The terms are often used interchangeably, but there's a meaningful distinction when you need precision.

Content strategists in the traditional UX/IA sense focus on information architecture, content governance, and user experience. They answer questions like: How should this website be structured? What taxonomy makes content discoverable? How do we maintain consistency across platforms? This work is deeply strategic, but it's inward-facing—optimizing the content experience for existing assets and known user journeys.

Content marketing strategists focus on business outcomes and growth. They answer: What content positions us as category leaders? How do we build topical authority that drives inbound pipeline? What narrative architecture differentiates us from competitors? This work is outward-facing—building content systems that generate awareness, authority, and demand.

The overlap: both think architecturally, both care about user experience, both build systems rather than isolated pieces. The distinction: content strategists optimize what exists; content marketing strategists architect what compounds.

Most organizations need the marketing strategist unless they're redesigning information architecture or managing massive content inventories. If you're building a growth engine, you want someone thinking about narrative positioning and topical authority, not content taxonomy.

Content Marketing Strategist vs. Content Marketing Manager

This is where most hiring confusion lives. The titles sound similar, but the cognitive work is completely different.

Content marketing strategists build the system. They determine what content architecture creates competitive advantage, what narrative positions the organization in the category, what entity relationships establish topical authority. They make decisions like: "We're going to own the conversation around AI-assisted workflow automation by building semantic depth across task management, team coordination, and process optimization entities."

Content marketing managers run the system. They coordinate execution, optimize processes, manage teams, track performance, and ensure consistent output. They implement the strategic architecture through production oversight and operational excellence. They make decisions like: "We need to hire two more writers to hit our publishing cadence, and we should move our workflow from Trello to Notion for better collaboration."

Many managers are mislabeled as strategists, which creates two problems: the organization lacks actual strategic thinking, and the manager gets frustrated trying to do strategic work without the mandate or capability.

Here's the evaluation test: Ask someone in the role, "Why are we creating this content?"

If the answer is tactical—"Because it targets a high-volume keyword" or "Because competitors are writing about it"—they're managing execution, not building strategy.

If the answer is strategic—"Because it strengthens our semantic relationship with core category entities and advances our narrative positioning as workflow intelligence leaders"—they're thinking like strategists.

Both roles matter. Most organizations at scale need both. But they're distinct capabilities, and paying manager salary for strategic thinking is expensive confusion.

Content Marketing Strategist vs. Content Writer/Creator

This distinction should be obvious but often isn't, particularly in smaller organizations where one person wears multiple hats.

Writers and creators implement narrative within strategic constraints. They take strategic briefs—"Write 2,000 words connecting project management entities to team productivity outcomes, optimizing for semantic relationships with our existing workflow automation content"—and execute brilliantly. Great writers elevate strategic work through craft, clarity, and creativity.

Strategists define the narrative constraints. They determine what to write about, why it matters, how it connects to broader positioning, what entities it should strengthen, and what outcomes it should generate.

Conflating these roles leads to strategic drift. Writers without strategic guidance create individually good content that collectively goes nowhere. They optimize for writing quality rather than narrative coherence or topical authority. You end up with a blog full of well-written posts that don't compound.

The inverse problem happens too: strategists who spend their time writing instead of architecting strategy. They produce great content but never build the systems that create leverage. The organization has one strategic thinker generating output instead of one strategist designing the architecture that multiplies everyone else's output.

In mature organizations, strategists and writers work in tight collaboration—strategists provide the architecture, writers bring narrative to life within those constraints. The strategist isn't "too important" to write, but writing shouldn't crowd out strategic thinking time.

The Venn Diagram of Related Roles

Content marketing strategy overlaps with several adjacent disciplines. Understanding where responsibilities intersect and diverge prevents organizational confusion:

SEO strategists and content marketing strategists share significant overlap, particularly around entity-first thinking and topical authority. SEO strategists focus on search visibility and technical optimization; content strategists focus on narrative positioning and audience value. The intersection: both should think in semantic relationships and entity networks rather than keyword lists. SEO strategy isn't separate from content strategy—it's the technical foundation that makes strategic content discoverable.

Product marketers own positioning, messaging, and go-to-market strategy. Content strategists translate that positioning into narrative architecture and topical authority. Product marketing determines what you stand for; content strategy determines how you build intellectual authority around it. They should be tightly aligned—when they're not, content feels disconnected from product value.

Growth marketers focus on distribution, experimentation, and conversion optimization. Content strategists focus on content as a growth channel, but growth marketers optimize across all channels. The intersection: both should think about content's role in pipeline generation, not just awareness.

Creative directors own brand voice, visual identity, and creative expression. Content strategists own narrative architecture and information structure. The intersection: both shape how the organization communicates, but strategists focus on what to say while creative directors focus on how it looks and feels.

The pattern: strategy sits at the intersection of business goals, audience psychology, and information architecture. It touches every other marketing function but remains distinct. When organizations blur these lines, everyone does a bit of everything and nothing compounds.

What Thinking Models Do Content Marketing Strategists Use?

Understanding how strategists think matters more than knowing what they do. The outputs—content strategies, editorial plans, topic architectures—are artifacts of cognitive frameworks. If you want to evaluate strategic quality or develop strategic capability, you need to understand the underlying mental models.

Entity-First Thinking

Most content planning starts with keyword research: "What do people search for?" That's useful for execution, but it's not strategic. It leads to isolated content that targets individual queries without building topical authority or semantic relationships.

Strategists think in entities and relationships. An entity is a concept, topic, or subject that exists as a distinct node in a network of meaning. "Project management" is an entity. "Task delegation," "team collaboration," "workflow automation," and "productivity optimization" are related entities. Strategic content architecture maps these relationships and builds semantic networks that establish comprehensive authority.

Here's the strategic question: If Google (or your audience) understands "project management" as a core entity in your domain, what related entities must you own to be seen as authoritative? What semantic relationships strengthen your topical credibility?

This is entity-first SEO—a methodology that builds topical authority through semantic relationships rather than chasing keyword rankings. Instead of creating one article about "project management tips" and hoping it ranks, you architect an entire content ecosystem that demonstrates comprehensive understanding of project management as a concept, its relationship to team productivity, its intersection with automation, its application across different organizational contexts.

The strategic output isn't a keyword list. It's an entity map—a visual representation of how concepts relate, which entities establish category authority, and what content architecture builds comprehensive coverage. Each piece of content strengthens multiple entity relationships simultaneously. That's how topical authority compounds.

I worked with a B2B SaaS company that had decent traffic but no category authority. They'd chased keyword opportunities for three years, writing about whatever research tools recommended. Their content was scattered across dozens of loosely related topics with no semantic depth.

We mapped the entity network around their core category—workflow intelligence—and identified twelve interconnected entities they needed to own: process automation, task management, team coordination, context switching, workflow visibility, approval chains, and six others. Then we archived 40% of their existing content and built deep semantic coverage across those twelve entities. Six months later, they dominated their category in search—not because they'd optimized for more keywords, but because they'd established entity-level authority that made Google (and their audience) see them as comprehensive experts.

Narrative Architecture

Entity-first thinking builds topical authority. Narrative architecture builds category positioning. Both are essential strategic functions.

Narrative architecture means developing a story system that positions your organization within a competitive landscape. This isn't messaging (although messaging flows from narrative). It's the strategic choice of what category you're in and what story defines success in that category.

Here's the strategic insight: categories are narrative constructs. "Marketing automation" is a story about what marketing technology should do. "Workflow intelligence" is a different story—it reframes the problem, the solution, and the criteria for success. Category design isn't about creating a new label; it's about building intellectual authority around a narrative that shifts how buyers think.

Effective content strategy frameworks recognize that narrative compounds when it's consistent, multifaceted, and embedded across all content. Every article, guide, and resource should advance the same positioning story. Not repetitively—but coherently. Each piece explores different facets of the same narrative thesis.

Consider how Stripe built narrative authority around "infrastructure for the internet economy." That's not just positioning—it's category design. Every piece of content they create reinforces that narrative: developer-focused documentation (infrastructure for builders), economic research (understanding the internet economy), API-first thinking (infrastructure over features). The narrative compounds across hundreds of content pieces into intellectual property that competitors can't easily copy.

That's what strategists do: they identify the narrative that differentiates, then architect content systems that build authority around it. This requires deciding what you won't talk about as much as what you will. Narrative discipline means saying no to interesting topics that don't advance your positioning story.

Systems Thinking

The difference between campaigns and systems is the difference between tactical content marketing and strategic content architecture.

Campaigns are finite. You plan them, execute them, measure them, and they end. A launch campaign. A seasonal promotion. A content series around an event. Campaigns can be brilliant, but they don't compound—they complete.

Systems are ongoing. They're designed to strengthen with each addition, creating compounding returns over time. A content system doesn't end; it evolves. Each piece makes the next piece more powerful, more discoverable, more authoritative.

Strategists build systems. They think about content as infrastructure—the foundation that supports business growth rather than isolated campaigns that generate temporary spikes.

This is what product-led content means in practice: content becomes part of the product experience, not just promotion. Strategic narrative doesn't sell the product; it becomes the intellectual property that makes the product valuable. Your content is the category education that generates demand.

The strategic questions become: How does each piece of content strengthen the whole? What's the architecture that creates compounding value? How do we build topical authority that makes future content more powerful?

Think about how Stripe's documentation isn't just product help—it's the category education that makes developers understand why modern payment infrastructure matters. Each guide strengthens the others. The system compounds.

Or consider how Gong built category authority around "revenue intelligence" by systematically publishing research, frameworks, and practitioner stories that all reinforce the same narrative. They didn't run campaigns; they built a system where each piece of content made their entire content ecosystem more authoritative.

That's systems thinking. And it requires strategic patience—the willingness to build infrastructure that compounds over quarters and years rather than campaigns that generate immediate spikes.

Audience Psychology & Jobs-to-Be-Done

Most audience research produces personas: demographic profiles, pain points, goals. This is fine for creative briefs, but it's not strategic. It tells you who people are without explaining why they hire content.

Strategists think in jobs-to-be-done. When someone reads your content, they're "hiring" it to accomplish something specific. Maybe they're:

• Trying to solve an immediate problem
• Building competence in a new domain
• Making a high-stakes decision and reducing risk
• Building social capital by sharing smart ideas
• Procrastinating productively while feeling like they're learning

These are different jobs. Same person might hire content for different reasons at different times. Understanding these need states shapes strategic decisions about what content to create and how to architect it.

The strategic insight: people don't want content. They want outcomes. Content is the vehicle. If you understand the job someone's trying to do, you can architect content that creates genuine value rather than just filling a publishing calendar.

This shifts strategic thinking from "What keywords should we target?" to "What jobs does our audience need content to accomplish, and how do we architect content systems that deliver those outcomes better than anyone else?"

I worked with a fintech company whose content strategy was built around personas: CFOs, finance managers, accountants. Persona-driven content generation led to generic articles like "5 Tips for CFOs" that no one engaged with. We shifted to jobs-to-be-done research and discovered their audience had four distinct hiring criteria for content:

1. Immediate problem-solving (process breakdown, need fix fast)
2. Risk reduction (making expensive decisions, need confidence)
3. Competence building (new role, need to learn the domain)
4. Internal evangelism (need to convince colleagues about new approaches)

We rebuilt their content architecture around these jobs. Same audience, completely different content strategy. Engagement tripled because content finally delivered the outcomes people actually needed.

That's strategic audience thinking: understanding context and intent, not just demographics and pain points.

‍

Build Entity-First Content Strategy That Compounds

The difference between content that generates traffic and content that builds competitive advantage is strategic architecture. The Program teaches founders and marketing leaders to build content systems using entity-first SEO, narrative frameworks, and jobs-to-be-done thinking—the exact methodologies this article describes. No fluff. No surface tactics. Just the strategic discipline modern content demands.

When Does Your Organization Actually Need a Content Marketing Strategist?

Not every organization needs a content strategist. Understanding when strategic thinking becomes essential—and when it's premature—prevents expensive hiring mistakes.

Stage 1: Founder-Led Content (Strategy Not Yet Critical)

In early-stage companies, the founder often is the strategy. They have deep domain expertise, lived experience with the problem they're solving, and clear perspective on what makes their approach different. This is powerful—authentic, opinionated content that connects directly with people facing similar problems.

At this stage, strategy isn't separate from execution because the founder's expertise is the strategic positioning. They don't need an entity map because they intuitively understand the domain. They don't need narrative architecture because they're living the narrative.

What they need: execution capability. Writers who can translate the founder's thinking into polished content. Content coordinators who can manage publishing logistics. Distribution operators who can amplify reach. But hiring a strategist to "build content strategy" when the founder already embodies the strategic POV is premature—you're paying for a layer of abstraction you don't yet need.

The trap: thinking you need strategy before you've validated product-market fit or established consistent output. Strategy is about optimizing what works, not figuring out what to say. If you're still finding your voice, more thinking won't help—more doing will.

Stage 2: The Strategic Inflection Point

Several signals indicate you've outgrown founder-led content and need actual strategic architecture:

Inconsistency across creators. When you have multiple people creating content—writers, subject matter experts, guest contributors—and it lacks coherence, you need strategic architecture to maintain narrative consistency.

Content ROI plateaus despite increased output. You're publishing more but seeing diminishing returns. Traffic isn't growing proportionally. Engagement is flat. This suggests you're creating activity without strategic leverage—exactly when strategic thinking becomes valuable.

Team scaling challenges. You need to hire writers or build a content function, but you can't articulate what "good" looks like or what they should create. Strategic architecture provides the framework that enables team scaling.

Category confusion. Your audience doesn't clearly understand what category you're in or why you're different from competitors. You need narrative positioning—which requires strategic thinking to define and systematic content to reinforce.

Distribution fragmentation. Content exists on multiple platforms without clear strategic integration. LinkedIn posts don't connect to blog content, which doesn't align with product positioning. Strategic architecture creates coherence across distribution.

These inflection points signal that intuition and execution aren't enough—you need someone thinking architecturally about content as a system, not just coordinating production.

Stage 3: Strategic Content as Competitive Moat

At mature scale, content becomes a primary competitive advantage. This is when strategy shifts from "important" to "mission-critical."

Content drives primary acquisition. If 40%+ of your pipeline comes from inbound content, strategic architecture directly impacts revenue. You need sophisticated thinking about topical authority, distribution systems, and conversion architecture.

Category leadership requires narrative IP. If your market position depends on being seen as thought leaders, your content is your intellectual property. Strategic narrative architecture becomes as important as product development.

Distribution requires orchestration. You're operating across multiple owned platforms (blog, newsletter, community), algorithmic channels (SEO, social), and partnership distribution. Strategic coordination across these channels creates compounding leverage that execution alone can't achieve.

At this stage, the strategist isn't just architecting content—they're building category positioning through systematic narrative development. Think Gong with revenue intelligence, Notion with connected workspaces, or Stripe with internet economy infrastructure. Their content isn't marketing collateral; it's category education that establishes intellectual authority.

Build vs. Buy: In-House, Fractional, or Agency?

Once you've determined you need strategic capability, the next question is how to get it. Three models, each with distinct trade-offs:

In-house full-time strategist:

• When it works: Ongoing strategic needs, deep product integration required, building long-term content infrastructure
• Advantages: Deep organizational context, continuous strategic refinement, direct team integration
• Challenges: Expensive ($100K-$180K+ depending on seniority), easy for role to drift into execution, requires strong mandate to maintain strategic altitude
• Budget threshold: Usually makes sense above $5M ARR when content is a primary growth channel

Fractional strategist or consultant:

• When it works: Defined strategic projects (building initial architecture, category positioning work), developing internal capability, need outside perspective
• Advantages: Access to senior strategic thinking without full-time commitment, brings cross-industry pattern recognition, less organizational baggage
• Challenges: Limited bandwidth for implementation support, requires strong internal executor to translate strategy into execution
• Budget threshold: Accessible earlier ($5K-$15K/month) for 10-20 hours of strategic thinking

Agency or content marketing consultant engagement:

• When it works: One-time strategic architecture projects, lack internal capability to implement strategy, need bundled strategy + execution
• Advantages: Complete solution (strategy + execution), external expertise, defined scope and timeline
• Challenges: Less organizational context, strategy may not transfer to internal team, can be expensive
• Budget threshold: Project-based ($25K-$100K+ depending on scope)

The pattern I see work well: fractional or consultant engagement to build initial strategic architecture, then hire in-house as strategic needs become ongoing and complex. The outside perspective establishes the foundation; the internal hire maintains and evolves it.

The pattern I see fail: hiring a full-time strategist before validating that content ROI justifies strategic investment, or hiring fractional without sufficient internal execution capability to implement the strategy.

Not Sure If You Need a Strategist or What Type of Engagement Makes Sense?

Determining whether you're at the strategic inflection point—and what type of strategic engagement fits your organization—requires understanding your content maturity, team capability, and growth objectives. Book a strategy call and we'll assess your situation, identify strategic gaps, and recommend whether you need in-house, fractional, or programmatic strategic support.

How Do You Evaluate Whether Someone Is Actually Doing Strategy?

This is the most practically useful section of this article. Whether you're hiring, auditing current work, or assessing your own approach, you need concrete evaluation criteria that separate strategic thinking from tactical coordination.

The Strategic Assessment Framework

Four questions cut through the noise:

Question 1: Are they building systems or running campaigns?

Listen for language that reveals thinking patterns. Strategic thinkers talk about:

• Content architecture that compounds over time
• Entity relationships and semantic networks
• Narrative systems that strengthen with each addition
• Distribution infrastructure, not one-off promotional pushes

Tactical thinkers talk about:

• Publishing schedules and content calendars
• Individual campaigns and launches
• Traffic goals for specific pieces
• Platform-specific tactics (LinkedIn posts, email sequences)

Both matter, but if someone claims to be strategic while speaking only in campaign language, they're mislabeled.

Question 2: Can they articulate the "why" behind content decisions?

Ask: "Why are we creating this content?" The answer quality reveals strategic depth.

Weak answers (tactical thinking):

• "Because it targets a high-volume keyword"
• "Because our competitors wrote about it"
• "Because it's trending in our industry"
• "Because we haven't published in two weeks"

Strong answers (strategic thinking):

• "Because it strengthens our semantic relationship with [entity cluster] and advances our positioning as [category] leaders"
• "Because it addresses a critical job-to-be-done for our audience at the consideration stage"
• "Because it creates narrative coherence between our product positioning and our thought leadership"
• "Because it fills a gap in our entity coverage that's preventing us from establishing comprehensive authority"

The strategic answer connects individual content to larger systems. The tactical answer treats content as isolated activity.

Question 3: Does their work create compounding leverage?

Strategic work gets more powerful over time. Each piece strengthens what came before. Topical authority builds. Narrative coherence deepens. Distribution channels reinforce each other.

Tactical work completes and stops. Campaigns end. Posts get published and fade. There's activity but no accumulation of strategic advantage.

Ask about measurement: What gets better over time because of this content? If the answer is "traffic to this specific post," that's execution. If the answer is "our topical authority across this entity cluster, making all related content rank better," that's strategy.

Question 4: Are they thinking in narratives or topics?

Topic thinking: isolated content ideas, keyword opportunities, trending subjects. Each piece stands alone.

Narrative thinking: how content connects to positioning, category definition, and intellectual authority. Each piece advances a larger story.

Listen for whether they describe content in terms of narrative architecture ("this piece establishes our POV on workflow intelligence") or content features ("this is a how-to guide about task management"). Strategic thinkers default to narrative framing.

Red Flags in Strategy Work

Activity metrics without outcome alignment. If someone measures success primarily in outputs (posts published, pieces promoted) rather than strategic outcomes (topical authority gained, narrative penetration achieved), they're doing activity management, not strategy.

Tactics without thesis. Content ideas that don't flow from a coherent strategic narrative. Random topics chosen opportunistically rather than systematically. This reveals the absence of strategic architecture.

Tool-centricity. Excessive focus on content tools (Airtable, Notion, CoSchedule) as if strategic thinking comes from software. Tools enable execution; they don't create strategy. If someone's strategic proposal is primarily about implementing new tools, they're confused about what strategy is.

Absence of audience research. Strategy requires deep understanding of audience psychology and jobs-to-be-done. If strategic work doesn't reference audience research beyond demographic personas, it's surface-level.

No competitive positioning. Strategy exists in competitive context. If strategic work doesn't acknowledge how your narrative differs from competitors or what category you're trying to own, it's not actually strategic—it's just content planning.

Inability to say no. If everything is strategic, nothing is. Real strategists ruthlessly prioritize, saying no to opportunities that don't advance positioning or build leverage. If someone creates content about every trending topic or keyword opportunity, they're not thinking strategically.

Green Flags in Strategy Work

Clear narrative thesis. Can articulate in two sentences what story the organization tells and why it matters. All content decisions flow from this thesis.

Entity maps and semantic relationships. Shows actual planning around topical authority and entity networks, not just keyword lists. Demonstrates understanding of how concepts relate.

Distribution strategy integrated with content architecture. Doesn't treat distribution as post-production. Understands how distribution channels reinforce narrative and how to architect content for specific distribution contexts.

Measurement frameworks tied to strategic outcomes. Tracks topical authority metrics (entity coverage, semantic relationships, category positioning) not just traffic and engagement.

Rigorous prioritization. Clear criteria for what content to create and what to avoid. Can explain why certain opportunities aren't pursued.

Audience research depth. References specific jobs-to-be-done, need states, and decision contexts—not just persona demographics.

Strategic constraints that enable creativity. Provides clear boundaries (narrative positioning, entity focus, audience jobs) that guide creators rather than restricting them.

Questions to Ask in Interviews or Audits

When evaluating strategic capability—whether hiring or assessing current work—these questions reveal thinking quality:

"Walk me through a strategic decision you made and why." Look for: Articulation of the strategic context, consideration of alternatives, clear reasoning about why this decision created more leverage than others. Red flag: Can't clearly separate the strategic decision from execution details.

"How do you determine what NOT to create?" Look for: Clear prioritization framework, strategic constraints, understanding of opportunity cost. Red flag: Everything seems worth creating; lacks strategic discipline.

"What's your framework for evaluating content success?" Look for: Metrics tied to strategic outcomes (topical authority, narrative penetration, pipeline contribution) not just activity metrics. Red flag: Focuses entirely on traffic and engagement without connecting to business impact.

"How does your content strategy support [specific business goal]?" Look for: Direct connection between strategic content architecture and business outcomes. Clear theory of how content creates leverage. Red flag: Generic claims about "brand awareness" without specific causal logic.

"Describe how you've built topical authority in a previous role." Look for: Understanding of entity-first thinking, semantic relationships, comprehensive topic coverage. Red flag: Describes chasing keyword rankings without building systematic authority.

"What's an example of content that looked good tactically but was wrong strategically?" Look for: Evidence of strategic discipline, ability to resist opportunistic tactics, clarity about strategic trade-offs. Red flag: Can't think of examples; suggests everything that gets traffic is considered success.

These questions expose whether someone thinks architecturally or tactically, whether they understand strategy as systems or conflate it with execution.

What Does Modern Content Marketing Strategy Look Like in 2025?

The strategic playbook has evolved. What passed for content strategy in 2018—persona documents, content calendars, keyword research—is now baseline execution. Modern strategy requires different frameworks.

From Keyword Lists to Entity-First SEO

The old model: identify high-volume keywords, write content targeting each keyword, optimize for ranking. This produced isolated content that competed for specific queries but didn't build comprehensive authority.

The new model: map entity relationships, build semantic networks, establish topical authority across interconnected concepts. This produces content ecosystems where each piece strengthens others through semantic connections.

Building a content marketing strategy now starts with entity mapping: what concepts, topics, and domains must you demonstrate comprehensive understanding of to be seen as authoritative in your category? What semantic relationships connect these entities? What content architecture creates the most topical depth?

This isn't just SEO thinking—it's how humans and algorithms both understand expertise. You don't become trusted in a domain by writing one great piece about a topic. You become trusted by demonstrating comprehensive, interconnected understanding across that domain.

Example: A company selling project management software used to create isolated articles targeting individual keywords: "project management tips," "how to delegate tasks," "team collaboration tools." Each competed independently for ranking. Limited compound value.

Now they architect entity networks: map "project management" as a core entity, identify twelve related entities (task delegation, workflow automation, team coordination, etc.), then build semantic depth by creating content that establishes relationships between these entities. The result: comprehensive topical authority that makes all their content more powerful. Google understands them as project management experts, not just writers of isolated articles.

That's entity-first thinking applied to content strategy. It requires planning at the architecture level—understanding semantic relationships before deciding what to write.

From Content Marketing to Product-Led Content

Traditional content marketing treats content as promotional: create valuable resources to attract people, then convert them to your product. This works, but it's shallow. Content exists to serve product, not as product itself.

Product-led content inverts this. Strategic narrative becomes intellectual property that's inseparable from product value. You don't create content about your product; you create content that is the category education, the framework, the intellectual foundation that makes your product necessary.

Consider Gong's approach to revenue intelligence. They didn't just create content marketing that explained their product. They created an entirely new category through systematic content that defines revenue intelligence as a discipline. Their content is the intellectual property that makes revenue intelligence real as a concept. The product implements it, but the content creates it.

Or look at Stripe's documentation and economic research. It's not promotional content about payment processing. It's the definitive resource on internet economy infrastructure. They're teaching developers and businesses how to think about economic systems online. The content is the category education that makes Stripe's product model make sense.

This requires strategic thinking about narrative as IP—what intellectual frameworks can your organization own through systematic content development? What category understanding can you build that competitors can't easily replicate?

The strategic shift: from "content that promotes the product" to "content that defines the category and makes the product inevitable."

From Campaigns to Content Systems

Most marketing organizations still think in campaigns: plan, execute, measure, complete. Content gets organized around launches, seasonal themes, promotional pushes. Each campaign is discrete.

Strategic content architecture builds systems: ongoing infrastructures that compound over time. No distinct beginning or end—just continuous accumulation of topical authority, narrative coherence, and distribution leverage.

The strategic design questions change:

• Not "what campaign should we run?" but "what content infrastructure creates compounding value?"
• Not "what's our Q3 theme?" but "what topical depth do we need to build this quarter?"
• Not "how do we promote this launch?" but "how does this launch integrate with our broader narrative architecture?"

This is what content distribution strategy means at a strategic level: designing for accumulation rather than one-time reach. Each piece should:

• Strengthen topical authority through entity relationships
• Advance narrative positioning through consistent story architecture
• Create distribution leverage through platform-specific optimization
• Generate compounding value through internal linking and semantic connections

The measurement question becomes: Is our content system getting stronger over time? Not "did this campaign hit targets?" but "did this quarter's content strengthen our overall strategic position?"

The Strategic Stack: Frameworks Over Tools

One last distinction that separates strategic thinking from tactical execution: strategists work in frameworks; coordinators work in tools.

Tools matter—you need Notion or Airtable for content management, Clearscope or Surfer for optimization, analytics platforms for measurement. But tools don't create strategy. They enable execution of strategic thinking.

The strategic stack is conceptual:

Entity mapping and semantic relationship planning: Visualizing how concepts connect, what topical authority requires, how content builds comprehensive coverage. This might live in Miro or Figma, but the tool isn't the point—the thinking is.

Narrative architecture and category positioning: Defining the story that differentiates you, identifying the intellectual frameworks you'll own, establishing how each piece of content advances positioning. This might be a document or presentation, but it's strategic artifact, not project management.

Jobs-to-be-done audience research: Understanding need states, decision contexts, and content hiring criteria. This informs everything downstream—what to create, how to structure it, where to distribute it.

Strategic sequencing and journey design: Mapping how content creates progressive understanding, how narratives build over time, how distribution channels reinforce each other.

Measurement frameworks: Determining what signals strategic success—topical authority metrics, narrative penetration, pipeline contribution—not just traffic and engagement.

These frameworks precede tools. They inform what tools you need and how to use them strategically rather than tactically.

Organizations that confuse tools with strategy end up with sophisticated project management systems but no actual strategic thinking. They track everything but build nothing that compounds.

What Are the Common Failure Modes in Content Strategy?

Understanding how strategy fails helps identify it when it works. Four failure patterns account for most strategic breakdown:

Strategy Without Distribution

The most common failure mode: brilliant narrative architecture that no one sees. Organizations spend months developing positioning, building entity maps, creating strategic frameworks—then publish content to their blog and wonder why nothing happens.

Distribution isn't separate from strategy. It is strategy. If content doesn't reach audiences, it doesn't exist strategically—it's just documentation.

Content distribution strategy must be integrated from the start. Strategic questions include:

• What distribution channels create compounding leverage (owned platforms, community, SEO) vs. ephemeral reach (paid, trending topics)?
• How does content architecture optimize for each distribution channel's unique mechanics?
• What distribution systems amplify strategic content rather than just spreading it wider?

I've seen companies create genuinely differentiated narrative positioning—category-defining thinking—that died because they had no distribution strategy beyond "publish and hope." SEO takes months to compound. Social sharing is ephemeral. Without systematic distribution thinking, brilliant strategy goes nowhere.

The correction: build distribution thinking into strategy from the beginning. Don't architect content without architecting how it reaches people.

Strategy Without Execution Capability

The inverse problem: strategic thinking that teams can't implement. Complex frameworks that require capabilities the organization doesn't have. Strategic architecture that demands resources unavailable for execution.

This happens when strategists work in abstraction without considering execution constraints. They create entity maps that would require 50 pieces of deeply researched content but the team can only produce 10 shallow pieces. They design narrative architecture that demands expert-level subject matter knowledge but writers are generalists.

Strategy must account for execution capacity. What's the team capable of producing? What's the budget for content creation? What subject matter expertise exists internally?

Strategic architecture should enable execution, not overwhelm it. The best strategy provides clear constraints that guide creators rather than overwhelming them with complexity.

The correction: strategy that considers execution capacity from the start. Build frameworks that scale with available resources rather than assuming unlimited capability.

Strategy Without Business Alignment

Content goals that don't connect to business outcomes. Measuring the wrong things. Building topical authority in domains that don't generate pipeline. Creating narrative positioning that doesn't support product-market fit.

This failure mode reveals strategy as abstraction—intellectual exercise disconnected from business reality. The strategist can articulate beautiful frameworks but can't explain how they drive revenue, reduce customer acquisition cost, or support strategic business objectives.

Strong strategy begins with business outcomes: What does success look like for the business? How does content contribute to those outcomes? What content marketing metrics actually matter?

Then strategy works backward: What content architecture creates those outcomes? What narrative positioning supports those objectives? What topical authority drives those results?

The correction: strategy documents should explicitly connect to business goals. If you can't draw a clear line from strategic content choices to revenue impact, something's wrong.

Tactical Drift: When Strategy Becomes Coordination

The final failure mode: strategists who get pulled into execution and lose strategic altitude. They start thinking architecturally but gradually become content managers, spending time coordinating production, reviewing drafts, managing workflows.

This happens because execution is urgent and visible while strategic thinking is important but invisible. It's easier to manage a content calendar than to think deeply about entity relationships. Immediate execution needs crowd out long-term strategic thinking.

Organizations enable this by failing to protect strategic thinking time. They hire a strategist but expect them to also coordinate, write, and execute. The strategic role drifts into operational management because no one maintains boundaries.

The correction: structural protection for strategic thinking time. Where the strategist sits in your content marketing team structure determines whether they can maintain strategic altitude or get pulled into execution. They need mandate and organizational positioning that enables pure strategic work—which often means pairing them with someone managing execution.

What Should You Look for When Hiring a Content Marketing Strategist?

With evaluation frameworks established, let's get specific about hiring. What capabilities matter? What signals distinguish strategic thinkers from tactical coordinators labeled as strategists?

Essential Capabilities

Strategic thinking: systems over tactics, narratives over topics This is baseline. Can they think architecturally about content as infrastructure rather than tactically about content as campaign? Do they default to building systems that compound or planning activities that complete?

Test this in interviews: Ask them to explain a strategic decision they made. Listen for evidence of systems thinking, consideration of second-order effects, understanding of compounding leverage. If they describe tactical choices (what to write, when to publish), they're not thinking strategically.

Audience research and psychology (JTBD, need states) Real strategy requires understanding why people hire content, not just who they are. Strategists should speak fluently about jobs-to-be-done frameworks, need states, and decision contexts.

Test this: Ask them to walk you through audience research they've conducted. Look for depth beyond demographic personas—do they understand behavioral contexts, decision triggers, information needs at different journey stages?

SEO literacy (entity-first, topical authority) Modern strategic thinking integrates SEO at the architectural level. Strategists don't need to be technical SEO experts, but they must understand entity-first thinking, semantic relationships, and topical authority.

Test this: Ask them to explain how they approach topical authority or entity mapping. If they default to keyword research without mentioning semantic relationships, their SEO thinking is tactical, not strategic.

Distribution savvy (multi-channel orchestration) Strategy without distribution is documentation. Strategists must think about how content reaches audiences and creates compounding distribution leverage.

Test this: Ask them to describe their distribution strategy in a previous role. Look for evidence of systematic thinking about owned vs. earned vs. paid channels, platform-specific optimization, and how distribution compounds over time.

Measurement rigor (outcomes over outputs) Strategic success requires measuring what matters: topical authority gained, narrative penetration achieved, pipeline contributed. Not just traffic and engagement.

Test this: Ask them what metrics matter for strategic content success. Strong answer focuses on leading indicators of strategic impact. Weak answer defaults to vanity metrics without connecting to business outcomes.

Experience Signals

Portfolio of strategic work Don't just look at content they've created. Ask about strategic decisions they made, frameworks they built, narrative positioning they developed. The intellectual work matters more than the content artifacts.

Can articulate frameworks and mental models Strategic thinkers work in frameworks. They should be able to explain their approach to entity mapping, narrative architecture, audience research, strategic sequencing. If they can't articulate methodology, they're probably not working systematically.

Has built content systems that compounded over time Look for evidence that their work created lasting leverage. Did topical authority grow? Did narrative positioning strengthen? Did content ROI improve over time? Compounding results signal strategic thinking.

Understands when to say no Strategic discipline requires prioritization. Ask about opportunities they declined or content they chose not to create. If everything seems strategic, nothing is.

What Matters Less Than You Think

Specific tool expertise Tools change. Strategic thinking transfers. Don't prioritize candidates based on Airtable proficiency or Asana experience. These are learnable. Strategic capability isn't.

Industry experience Strategic frameworks transfer across industries. Someone who built strategic content architecture in fintech can do it in healthcare or SaaS. Domain expertise is valuable but not essential if strategic thinking is strong.

Years of experience Strategic capability doesn't correlate linearly with tenure. Someone with three years of deep strategic thinking beats someone with ten years of tactical content coordination.

Compensation and Market Context

Typical ranges:

• In-house, mid-level: $90K-$130K (3-6 years, solid strategic frameworks)
• In-house, senior: $130K-$180K+ (7+ years, proven strategic impact at scale)
• Fractional/consultant: $5K-$20K/month depending on scope and seniority
• Agency strategist: Bundled into project costs, typically $150-$300/hour effective rate

‍

Budget considerations: Strategy is investment, not cost. If content is a primary growth channel, strategic thinking directly impacts ROI. Budget for seniority that matches strategic complexity.

A common mistake: hiring junior strategist to save money. If they lack strategic frameworks, you're paying for someone learning on your budget. Better to hire fractional senior strategist or invest in The Program to build internal capability.

Compensation structure: Strategy roles should align incentives with strategic outcomes. Consider performance components tied to:

• Topical authority metrics (entity coverage, semantic relationships established)
• Narrative penetration (category positioning, external citation)
• Pipeline contribution (MQLs, SQLs from strategic content)

Avoid tying compensation primarily to output metrics (posts published) or vanity metrics (traffic, engagement without conversion).

Frequently Asked Questions

What's the difference between a content strategist and a content marketing strategist?

Content strategists traditionally focus on information architecture, content governance, and user experience—optimizing how content is structured and organized. Content marketing strategists focus on business outcomes and growth—building content systems that generate awareness, authority, and pipeline. The overlap exists around systematic thinking, but content marketing strategists explicitly own the connection between content and revenue.

How do you know if you need a content marketing strategist or just a content marketing manager?

Ask: Are you missing strategic architecture or execution capability? If you know what content to create but struggle with how to produce it consistently, you need a manager. If you're producing content but it lacks coherence, doesn't compound, and feels disconnected from business goals, you need strategic thinking. Most organizations eventually need both—strategists to build systems, managers to run them.

Can one person be both strategist and content creator?

At small scale, yes—many strategists also create content. But as volume increases, the roles diverge. Strategic thinking requires protected time for deep work: research, planning, framework development. Content creation is execution that consumes time strategists need for thinking. The best model: strategist architects the system, provides strategic briefs, and maintains narrative coherence while creators execute within those constraints.

What's the ROI of hiring a content marketing strategist?

Strategic thinking creates leverage that compounds over time. ROI shows up as: faster topical authority development, stronger narrative positioning, better content efficiency (creating less but with more impact), improved conversion rates through strategic sequencing, and higher lifetime value as strategic content builds category leadership. Expect 6-12 months before compounding effects become obvious—strategy is infrastructure investment, not immediate ROI.

How long does it take to build effective content strategy?

Initial strategic architecture—entity mapping, narrative positioning, audience research—takes 4-8 weeks depending on complexity. Implementation and refinement is ongoing. Most strategies show measurable results in 6-12 months as topical authority compounds and narrative positioning takes hold. Strategy isn't a one-time deliverable—it evolves with the organization and market.

What makes content "strategic" vs. just tactical?

Strategic content builds systems that compound. Tactical content completes discrete objectives. Strategic content strengthens entity relationships, advances narrative positioning, and creates topical authority that makes future content more powerful. Tactical content targets keywords, addresses individual topics, and exists in isolation. Both matter, but only strategic content creates lasting competitive advantage.

Should your content marketing strategist report to the CMO or someone else?

Reporting structure determines strategic altitude. Strategists reporting directly to CMO or VP Marketing maintain strategic focus. Reporting to content managers or product marketing can work if those leaders understand and protect strategic thinking time. The risk: reporting too low in the organization pulls strategists into execution. Where the strategist sits in your content marketing team structure determines whether they can think strategically or get consumed by tactical demands.

How do content marketing strategists work with SEO teams?

Ideal collaboration: strategists own entity architecture and topical authority planning; SEO teams own technical implementation and optimization. Strategists determine what entity relationships to build; SEO ensures technical infrastructure supports those relationships. Both should think entity-first rather than keyword-first. Conflict emerges when SEO chases keyword opportunities without strategic narrative coherence, or when strategists ignore SEO mechanics and build architectures that don't rank.

Conclusion

Content marketing strategists build infrastructure, not campaigns. They architect systems that compound rather than coordinating activities that complete. They think in entities and narratives, not keywords and topics. They create leverage through semantic relationships, topical authority, and narrative coherence—the intellectual architecture that makes content a competitive advantage rather than a cost center.

The distinction between strategy and execution isn't semantic. It determines whether content creates lasting value or just fills publishing calendars. Whether your organization builds category authority or just generates traffic. Whether you're investing in compounding systems or renting attention through endless campaigns.

Modern strategic thinking integrates entity-first SEO, product-led content philosophy, and systems thinking—frameworks that most traditional content strategists still haven't adopted. The strategic bar has risen. Editorial calendars and buyer personas aren't enough. Strategy now requires architectural thinking about semantic relationships, narrative positioning, and content as infrastructure.

If you're hiring, use the evaluation frameworks in this article. Ask about strategic decisions, not just deliverables. Look for systems thinking, not just campaign planning. Assess whether candidates think in compounding leverage or linear output.

If you're building content capability, invest in strategic thinking before scaling execution. Strategy without distribution fails. Execution without strategy creates activity without accumulation. You need both, but strategy comes first—it defines what's worth executing.

And if you're assessing your own approach: Are you building systems or running campaigns? Do your content decisions advance clear narrative positioning, or are you chasing opportunistic topics? Does each piece strengthen what came before, or does content exist in isolation?

The answers determine whether you're doing strategy or just coordinating content with strategic vocabulary.

Ready to Build Content Strategy That Actually Compounds?

Understanding strategic frameworks is one thing. Implementing entity-first content architecture, building narrative systems, and designing for compounding impact requires structured methodology. Contact us to discuss how strategic thinking can transform your content from expense to competitive advantage—whether through The Program, fractional strategic engagement, or comprehensive strategy development.