“How We” Content vs. “How-To” Content

The other day, I posted a tweet that said:

“How we" content > "how-to" content

It received a lot of engagement—more than I anticipated. 10,000+ people saw the tweet, and 600+ interacted with it.

It also received some healthy pushback, which I welcomed as it was a half-baked idea. It was born from a discussion with my business partners about how companies are preferring "how we" content (inspired by unique, personal experience) over generic "how-to" content.

As I considered this concept, though, I realized I should've angled it differently:

"How we" content makes for the best "how-to" content

The two are not mutually exclusive. In my opinion, they should overlap—every thought piece should provide actionable takeaways, and every how-to article should feature a real anecdote.

When paired, each component strengthens the impact of the other.

Another tweet rebuttal mentioned the subjectivity of “how we” content. I agree, but subjectivity in content is how it wins.

Subjectivity is context, and context is what creates trust and authority. Subjectivity infuses personality and authenticity into "how-to" content. Subjectivity builds and converts audiences, not just answers queries.

Let’s also address the advice-giving itself. Too often do companies and publications give advice that's not theirs to share, simply because keywords aligned like stars. (One could argue that advice sans experience is actually dishonest.)

I work in SEO; I understand its power. But just because you can rank for a term doesn't always mean you should pursue it—not without being able to tell a story, share an anecdote, or feature an expert, too.

The best content strategy exists at the intersection of SEO and storytelling.

When your content is inspired by company, leadership, and product expertise and then rooted in intent-driven keywords, you can meet your audience where they are with information only you can share.