Bagel Tuesday - Fresh ideas. Toasted opinions.

I'm a big fan of Kristina Halvorson and content strategy. Her book Content Strategy for the Web is redefining best practice in web development and restoring content to its rightful place at the center of the online universe.

In fact, we consider it vindication. Wechsler has always emphasized content. We renamed our content leads "content strategists" four years ago to recognize their central role in the process — and our unusual approach to developing content. At Wechsler, content strategy isn't just about the Web. We take a strategic approach to all content.

What does that mean in practice?

Online or off, it's about structuring content. The goal of persuasive communications (unlike creative or narrative communications, like fiction or journalism) is to change how the reader (or user) thinks about something. Elements of verbal and visual information must be delivered in a way that engages, informs and ultimately leads to a new way of thinking.

To achieve this goal, Wechsler's content strategists take responsibility for content from start to finish of a project. They are jointly responsible for the development process with either the experience lead (on a Web project) or the design lead (on a print project). They interview clients, decide what content to include, collaborate on creative concepts and architecture, assign projects to writers (or write it themselves), edit drafts, review proofs, process client changes, ensure consistency, answer proofreader queries and perform quality control. They are, in fact, our in-house experts on each client's business, products, marketing goals, style preferences, compliance guidelines and personality quirks.

We used to call them editors. But that didn't come close to capturing their range of responsibilities or centrality to our process. So we think content strategy is a great idea. We're with you all the way, Kristina!

I don't think I'm being overly self-righteous to say I'm offended by the lead headline in today's Fund Action: "Fund snitches to be paid by SEC" [sub. req.]. Fund snitches? For people who report illegal or unethical practices? You've got to be kidding.

Unlike the headline, the article itself is well-reported and inoffensive:

The just-signed Dodd-Frank law has turned out to have a little-noticed provision that sets up mutual fund whistleblowers for a payday. The provision protects any fund firm insiders from employer retaliation and offers rewards of up to 30% of Securities and Exchange Commission sanctions to employees who report wrongdoing by their firms. Observers note that Dodd-Frank does what Sarbanes-Oxley failed to do—puts funds squarely in the cross-hairs of beefed up whistleblower provisions and incentivizes whistleblowers to act.

The success of the mutual fund industry rests almost entirely on the trust of investors, built over decades of effective regulation. In recent years, an environment of lax regulation has led to occasional scandals and financial practices (like "pay to play") that threaten to undermine that trust, but it's still there.

Investment management professionals don't talk, think or act like mafia dons. In my experience, they have the highest ethical standards in the financial industry. I would assume that most of them are glad (if disappointed in their colleagues) when shoddy practices are exposed to the light of day, even if it means paying whistleblowers to do so. I doubt very much that many mutual fund executives think of such people as "snitches."

The Wall Street Journal has taken a lot of heat lately for pumping up the news, spinning headline-grabbing stories out of the barest of threads. One of the most egregious examples came last week when it breathlessly reported about how farmers are threatened by new derivatives regulations -- but couldn't find a farmer who was affected.

Last weekend, the lead story in Personal Finance was "Congress Overhauls Your Portfolio." This alarming headline was followed by a blurb sure to attract the attention of those who may already be wary of the Obama administration's regulatory efforts:

Overlooked amid the thousands of pages that comprise the Dodd-Frank bill are major changes affecting mutual funds, retirement plans, single-stock investments and other holdings.

So what are these "major changes"? Do they really justify these scary alarums? Let's take a look inside...

Continue Reading

During his lifetime, George Steinbrenner left the actual hitting of home runs to his players. But by passing away in 2010, he hit a financial grand slam. As Investment News reports:

Mr. Steinbrenner's family looks set to inherit his estate practically tax-free, thanks to the expiration of the federal estate tax in 2010 and the light tax regime of the Boss's home state, Florida....

If Mr. Steinbrenner had passed away in 2009, when the [estate] tax rate was 45%, he might have left his heirs a tax bill of some $500 million. Next year, the estate tax is slated to return, with a whopping 55% rate.

This crazy situation stems from a budget gimmick in the early 2000s. The Bush Administration wanted to completely eliminate the estate tax, but the long-term budget impact was too large. So it compromised with a temporary repeal that reinstated the tax in the final year of the ten-year budget evaluation period, reducing the projected shortfall to acceptable levels. Basically, it was betting that future Congresses wouldn't have the guts to allow the tax to be restored. But ever since, Republicans and Democrats haven't been able to come together and agree on a fix, so the current absurdity persists.

Whatever you think of Steinbrenner -- and opinions may differ -- he certainly displayed as much business savvy in his death as in his life.

Sometimes it feels like the whole marketing world is split into two hemispheres: B2B and B2C. But that dichotomy makes me feel like an outsider. We don't belong in either one.

Financial marketing is often neither pure B2B nor pure B2C. Sure, there are certain segments that fit cleanly on one side or the other. Retail banking and brokerage are straight consumer categories. Institutional asset management is classic business-to-business.

But most financial services — investments in particular — are delivered to consumers through intermediaries. The sales process is multi-tiered. First, a manufacturer needs to persuade an intermediary to distribute the product. Then the distributor sells it to a consumer. The end-consumer may be an influencer in the process, but rarely the decider.

We think of it as business-to-business-to-consumer, or B2B2C.

So who's the target audience? That's the tricky part. The message is usually aimed at the intermediary, who tends to be the "real" decider. But most intermediaries don't want materials they can't use with their clients. So you have to deliver messages to intermediaries in client-approved sales materials.

Sometimes it's even more complex. Take the investment-only 401(k) business. There, the sales process goes from an investment manager ("manufacturer") through a plan provider ("recordkeeper") to an employer ("plan sponsor") before it is ultimately purchased by an employee ("participant"). That makes it B2B2B2C.

Having fun yet?