B2B content contains a Catch-22:
You need to write for search to justify the expense to produce an evergreen asset that will grow long-term ROI, but…
You also need to write for a sophisticated audience to build credibility to ever eventually see said ROI.
Most brands skew too far in one direction or the other.
Write primarily for search and you get derivative, regurgitated, copycat content that immediately erodes trust with discerning prospects.
Write only for prospects, however, and your content is ephemeral – forever relying on short-term bumps in referral traffic that get forgotten within a week.
Semrush has somehow managed to bridge this divide for over a decade. Their year-over-year revenue was up 21% in Q1 of 2024, while growth in large customers paying $10,000 annually is also up 32% YoY.
In this article, Semrush’s Managing Editor, Alex Lindley, shares how his three S approach – structure, skimmability and search intent – can fuel SEO growth, plus helpful examples and takeaways.
1. Structure: Answer search intent without delaying the ‘time to value’
Writing for search and readers is a delicate balancing act.
On the one hand, you need to entice readers by setting up the problem and illustrating symptoms before providing alternative solutions.
On the other hand, you need to clearly answer search intent and structure articles similar to what’s already ranking so you can have a shot at evergreen traffic.
Nowhere is this conundrum more obvious than during the editing stage. An editor might think the paragraph and phrasing is the issue, while the underlying root cause is actually a poor article structure to begin with.
You can think of this “structure” problem as twofold:
You spend too much time talking (or writing) about stuff that doesn’t matter, while also
Not spending nearly enough time on the stuff that does.
Lindley starts with classic journalism advice, structuring articles in an inverted pyramid to help increase the “time to value” readers will receive.
“For content the writer is creating for SEO purposes, I always point to the inverted pyramid and/or the bottom line up front (BLUF) framework.”
“The reason is simple: The single biggest mistake I see writers make is delaying the time to value by adding too much exposition before getting to the point. Delaying the time to value essentially negates any attempt you make later to address search intent because a huge number of readers won’t stick with you long enough to see if you ever do get to the information they’re looking for.”
“I realize, however, that this approach can alienate some readers – and, importantly, writers I’m working with – who prefer a bit of narrative or simply love language and writing for writing’s sake. Balancing strong structure and search intent with narrative and the “delight” factor is tricky, but when there’s any doubt, I always recommend leaning on BLUF first and everything else second. It’s the best possible approach when you’re not entirely sure of the best approach.”
This advice is especially relevant for long-form B2B content.
The decades-old Problem, Agitate, Solution (PAS) copywriting framework helps set context. You want to provide some background commentary so the reader immediately understands and resonates with the point you’re making, so that the ultimate payoff (or “solution”) hits that much harder.
The problem is that you might take too long to get there.
The trick, then, is to get in and get out – ASAP! Concision is the name of the game.
Unfortunately, this isn’t the only “structure” issue that causes concern.
Delaying the “time to value” is increasingly common because that’s how more and more “search”-driven content is being structured.
Look at the two side-by-side Investopedia examples below. Both are glossary or definition-based content, so notice the similarity in the heading structures used across each:
Another way most search content falls flat is by spending too long on the initial sections of an article (the “what is” or “why it’s important” sections) while not spending enough time answering the primary query behind the article.
“The No. 1 biggest red flag I see with article structure is a compulsion to do the “who, what, where, why” in massive sections before getting to the meat of the article,” confirms Lindley.
“For example, you have an article titled ‘Top SEO Tools for 2024.’ Then the structure looks like this:
H1: Top SEO Tools for 2024
H2: What Are SEO Tools?
H2: Why SEO Tools Are Important
H3: Reach a Broad Audience
H3: Save on Advertising Costs
H3: Make Data-Driven Decisions
H2: How to Choose an SEO Tool
H3: Consider Your Budget
H3: Compare ‘Must-Have’ Features
H3: Test Them
H2: 11 Best SEO Tools
“We get 1,500 words or more in before we’ve even gotten to the point of the article. How many readers will sit through that or even scroll that many times before they get to the part they came for? Very few.”
“Unfortunately, this kind of structure is really common online. It’s a search intent and time to value problem. And it often comes from either believing that search engines ‘want’ to see that kind of thing or feeling the need to reach a particular word count.”
“But we simply don’t need to do that. In fact, we really shouldn’t if we aim to keep readers engaged. If the title promises something, give that thing to the reader right away. Don’t delay; don’t clear your throat. Just put it front and center. And if you need to cover the tangential whys and hows, do that later on.”
One way to mitigate this is to structure content in briefs and outlines with predetermined word count max ranges.
That way, you might still want to include the “what is” section to define a topic for search intent, but then remind writers to quickly move down to spending more time (or word count) on the sections that matter most.
A final tip on article structure and the subheading organization underneath is parallelism. Here’s how Lindley thinks of it:
“Headers – the building blocks of article structure – should always be parallel. Listicles make an easy example. Here’s the ‘bad’ way to approach it, compared with the ‘good’ one right after.”
H1: 3 Content Writing Tips
H2: 1) Use Short Sentences and Paragraphs
H2: 2) Read It Out Loud Before You Publish It
H2: 3) Nailing the Search Intent (bad example)
H1: 3 Content Writing Tips
H2: 1) Use Short Sentences and Paragraphs
H2: 2) Read It Out Loud Before You Publish It
H2: 3) Nail the Search Intent (good example)
This last point seems small and nuanced on the surface. But as you’ll see in the next section below, it actually has a huge bearing on how “skimmable” the content is overall and whether you’re keeping the reader engaged to the end of the content.
2. Skimmability: Provide contextually relevant examples without interrupting the reading flow
AI content can tell you what “advanced excel formulas” are, as evidenced by this sample below:
However, it’ll never:
Show you advanced Excel formulas.
Explain why they matter for who they help.
Illustrate how to create advanced Excel formulas.
Put them into a usable format like a free template or tool.
You future-proof SEO by avoiding head-on competition with what AI can do well. And instead you do what AI can’t do.
Backing up points being made in an article helps the reader visualize what you’re describing and increases the credibility in your claims.
It also arms your content with differentiation that other publishers can’t match.
“The context part is often lacking in web content,” explains Lindley.
“Many web publishers will throw a faintly relevant image at the top or bottom of a section and call it done – almost as if they’re working from some kind of checklist. But we need to aim for a higher level of helpfulness.”
The trouble is that knowing how to incorporate good examples always throws writers and editors for a loop. Thankfully, Lindley has a good framework to keep in mind: