A member of an online group I’m part of asked if we could share models for content reduction for large-scale content audits. After I replied, he asked if I had any tips to manage ardent people who insist that specific content is essential.

As someone who has done multiple large (thousand+ URLs) content audits, I get this question a lot. If you’re new to content audits and a stakeholder in one, this article clarifies goals and decisions. If you’re a content strategist, keep reading for my approach to persuading stakeholders to delete content.

AI Policy: I personally write each draft and final copy on this website. All content reflects my own thinking, ideas, style, and craft.  I do not use AI such as ChatGPT or other LLMs to generate articles. Occasionally, I ask AI (such as Formalizer or Equativ) to summarize or re-state my own ideas and may restructure sections based on the response.

What is a content audit?

An information architecture redesign usually includes a content audit. Responsible team members review the product’s structure and language, calls to action, and user flows to ensure alignment with business goals and clear communication.

There are 2 key types of content audits: Big Spreadsheet and Inspector Quest.

Why should we delete things as part of a content audit?

As part of a content audit, we analyze a digital entity’s content. Big Spreadsheets are used for websites that will be redesigned and replatformed (the application or system will be migrated from one platform to another). The spreadsheet will show which URLs are being removed, kept as they are, or kept and updated.

The true cost of anything is the effort required to maintain it. The more content a digital entity has, the higher the chances for ROT. Keep this acronym in mind when you need to analyze content:

• Redundant – Is the content redundant (duplicate, already exists)?
• Outdated – Is it outdated or timely?
• Trivial – Is the information valuable, or does it provide trivial, unnecessary information?
  • For example, I once worked on a site whose users were extremely skilled software engineers. The site included basic development info, like how to create a GitHub repository. Aim to balance information with user needs when editing or creating content.

Who are the stakeholders in a content audit?

A content strategist/content designer/information architect/web content manager is usually responsible for the audit.

We work closely with subject matter experts, who have invaluable expertise related to the content we’re reviewing. We work with website admins and editors, who have invaluable expertise related to publishing workflows.

Copywriters also use the spreadsheet for planning, enabling them to efficiently allocate time and identify the subject matter experts (SMEs) required for key pages.

We consult with engineers as part of this process. Technical scoping typically involves regular discussions with engineers on the project to review progress, identify any concerns from a budget or timeline perspective, and provide recommendations. At this point, engineers also get a better understanding of technical requirements for building the platform.

While content strategists provide guidelines on how to analyze content, for Big Spreadsheet audits, the ultimate fate of content usually relies on the team responsible for the success of the project, which can be a mix of people from product, design, marketing, sales, and engineering.

My approach to persuading stakeholders to remove content

I’ve done multiple large (thousand+ URLs) Big Spreadsheet audits to prepare for migration. Time-based and analytics-driven rules can save a lot of time. It’s product-dependent, but you can set rules like “anything published before 2015 goes” and “anything viewed less than X times a year goes,” and remove ~70% of content that no one was looking at anyway.

As with anything in the workplace, though, it’s a tradeoff.

MGI was my acronym of the year in 2023. Dr. Becky Kennedy, a clinical psychologist and bestselling author, coined the term MGI.

The idea is simple. When a stranger or your friend or boss or partner is being unreasonable or hostile or bitter, come up with the Most Generous Interpretation for their behavior.

Take a deep breath and get curious. What are they trying to say? What are they afraid of or hurt by? If you had to come up with the Most Generous Interpretation of their behavior, what would it be?

While Dr. Kennedy focuses on parenting, I’ve encountered this concept in multiple business books and have tried to incorporate it into all of my relationships. One of my favorite books, Crucial Conversations: Tools for Talking When Stakes Are High, frames the concept as a question:

“Why would a reasonable, rational, and decent person do what this person is doing?”

You might be surprised that I’m muddying the waters of personal and professional lives, but it’s a core belief of mine that since we spend a third of our day working, deriving joy from work is essential, and it’s important to recognize that work and personal life are inherently intertwined rather than separate entities as “work life balance” suggests.

Why are stakeholders against deleting content?

People can be reluctant to remove content for all sorts of reasons. Every reason is inherently valid and worth listening to, understanding, and iterating upon as needed.

• They invested a lot of time and energy. If the content gets deleted, they feel like it was all for nothing.
• The content represents something deeper to them, like a salvaged relationship with another team or an initiative that was a key factor in their promotion last year.
• Even if the stakeholders we’re working with are the ultimate decision makers, deleting the content can cause friction with the teams that were initially responsible for creating the content.
• They’re worried about the pushback they’ll get from their leadership. They don’t have the spoons to deal with that right now.
• Here’s a long list of Microsoft Windows deprecated features. The Maps app is deprecated, but stakeholders may have reasons to believe that it will be revived in another form in the not-so-distant future. They don’t want to remove everything related to it just yet.
• Even if data shows that a page was last visited 5 years ago, they worry that someone might need the content again and get frustrated if they can’t find it.
• If a client mentions the missing page to their account rep or on social media, they’ll have to justify why the page was removed. It may be difficult to explain it to people who aren’t well-versed in content management and analytics.

Content audit success

If you’re a stakeholder nervous about making the wrong decision, I get it. People are reluctant to remove content, but less is better – for your users’ mental load, for your employees’ time and energy, for our planet (1.6 billion trees would have to be planted to offset the pollution caused by email spam), and for your budget.

If you’re a content strategist finding your stakeholders’ resistance frustrating, try to come up with the most generous interpretation of their behavior. Why would a reasonable, rational, and decent person do what that person is doing? Work with them to understand their fears and goals, and you might be surprised to find how little “convincing” you need to do.