Most content creators avoid choosing whether they act as reporters or adventurers. Andrew Fogliato believes this hesitation weakens their work from the start.
Fogliato, a content strategy advisor, describes the distinction clearly: adventurers experience events firsthand and share their stories, while reporters interview those who already did. Most agents switch between the two without a clear plan. This inconsistency leaves their content feeling uneven, even when the subject is strong.
The unsustainable allure of the adventurer
Choosing the wrong approach carries real consequences. Fogliato shared an example of a team that attempted to scale the adventurer model by traveling to document subjects in a documentary style. The method succeeded at first, but the demands of constant travel became unmanageable. Within a few episodes, the team reverted to sit-down interviews because the logistics were too difficult to maintain.
“You have to consider the practical side,” Fogliato explained. “Can you consistently find the time to experience things and then share them?” For him, the reporter role made more sense. Scheduling a 40-minute video call is simpler than spending a full day shadowing someone. He sees this as a practical choice, not a compromise.
Taylor Hack, who develops content focused on Edmonton’s River Valley, adopted a hybrid approach. He prefers being an on-scene correspondent—present for experiences, occasionally participating, but not fully immersed. It’s less about being an adventurer and more about a reporter who ends up rafting because the story demands it.
Related: Paragon funds Sunderland housing project
Start shallow, then dig deeper
Fogliato’s advice for the first major piece of content goes against common instincts. Instead of diving deep immediately, he recommends beginning with something broad and surface-level. This initial effort can later become a PDF and generate dozens of follow-up pieces.
“Many people ask AI for a complete guide to River Valley living,” he said. “It produces something decent, but adding personal experience and anecdotes makes it far better.”
The deeper strategy comes later. Each shallow section evolves into its own post. Update pricing when it changes. Refresh condo bylaws when a building revises its pet policy. The aim isn’t to replace content but to keep it current, whether that means monthly, yearly, or less frequent updates.
Fogliato’s test for success is simple: revisit a year-old piece and feel embarrassed by how basic it now seems. If that doesn’t happen, he believes improvement has stalled.
The standard may sound modest, but it’s harder to meet than it appears. Most teams treat content as a one-time project rather than an evolving resource. Those who succeed use their first draft as a foundation, not a final product.
Related: £5.5m loan backs Belgravia townhouse project
The real offer behind the content
Their discussion later focused on an often-missed aspect: the actual offer driving a content strategy. Hack highlighted “deal of the week” as a prime example. The feature is straightforward—a curated listing sent regularly. The real value lies in the expert’s judgment applied to the market, delivered in a way readers can rely on.
“It might be just a link to explore,” Hack explained. “Or it could include a video reviewing the listing and discussing key details.”
The challenge is where the offer fits in the funnel. Some teams thrive on volume—500 leads a month, managed with automation and disciplined follow-up. Others need only five qualified prospects. Neither is inherently wrong, but guessing which one aligns with your systems can lead to content that generates leads with no follow-through.
Fogliato emphasized the importance of matching the offer to the team’s capacity. A flashy content strategy is useless if no one can act on the leads it produces. Even the best content won’t fix a broken follow-up process.
The River Valley project remains in its early stages, but Hack’s approach is already evolving. He isn’t just creating a guide—he’s building a system that can grow, adapt, and remain relevant long after the first version is published. That’s what separates content that fades from content that endures.
