This was an eye-opening read! The point about timing content to match audience cognitive states, instead of just sticking to a fixed schedule, is especially helpful. I'm already rethinking when I post—strategy over routine really makes sense. Excited to try out a "receptivity calendar" approach. Thanks!
When you validate causality, what minimum sample size per content type do you consider before promoting a pattern from “hypothesis” to “schedule-worthy”?
I like to aim for 30-40+ PER each medium. But I know that's not super realistic for everyone, so I lowered a bit the numbers in this post. A bare minimum of 15 is needed, definitely.
Appreciate you asking :) The section above lays out the concept, but let me give you a more tactical angle on how this affects content decisions.
Essentially, Noble Cause Corruption describes what happens when people compromise their process because the goal feels SO extremely important that cutting corners seems justified (e.g. crime investigations). In content strategy, this shows up when you sacrifice quality or strategic timing just to maintain "consistency"
.. you publish mediocre work at suboptimal times because showing up feels like the responsible choice.
The psychological trap is prioritizing the appearance of discipline (posting on schedule) over actual results (publishing when the content and timing are right).
You're not planting evidence, but you are publishing at the wrong time because consistency feels more important than the strategic value of waiting for the right cognitive window. The fix is recognizing that strategic timing beats rigid schedules and sometimes the most disciplined choice is not publishing until conditions are optimal. Let me know if you want me to dig into any specific part of this!
This is outstanding. You're right, I cannot remember the last time I saw someone write about how to publish content based on when the audience is ready to take the desired action.
Also, I would love to see more of a breakdown on how this strategy impacted Yahini's content strategy, if you can share!
I actually had more examples but the piece would have gone to 6000+ words so I had to cut 🤣
I might do this at a later post. Just don't want it to be 50% case study. I'd rather focus on the workflow and it'd be hard to combine both. I'll think of something, in any case I'll definitely be more specific from now on 🤗
Thanks so much Mia, both for the mention, and also for taking my prompt and making it like a billion times more useful and implementable. I really appreciate what you do so much with this newsletter. 🙏
This sounds a lot like having a job...
🤣🤣🤣
So much value here, Mia, great article
thank youuu, Daria! ❤️
This was an eye-opening read! The point about timing content to match audience cognitive states, instead of just sticking to a fixed schedule, is especially helpful. I'm already rethinking when I post—strategy over routine really makes sense. Excited to try out a "receptivity calendar" approach. Thanks!
Thank you for reading! ❤️
When you validate causality, what minimum sample size per content type do you consider before promoting a pattern from “hypothesis” to “schedule-worthy”?
I like to aim for 30-40+ PER each medium. But I know that's not super realistic for everyone, so I lowered a bit the numbers in this post. A bare minimum of 15 is needed, definitely.
This is a fantastic post, thank you so much Mia
Thank you for reading! :)
Regarding the law enforcement concept, could you elabarate on its applicability to content strategy?
Appreciate you asking :) The section above lays out the concept, but let me give you a more tactical angle on how this affects content decisions.
Essentially, Noble Cause Corruption describes what happens when people compromise their process because the goal feels SO extremely important that cutting corners seems justified (e.g. crime investigations). In content strategy, this shows up when you sacrifice quality or strategic timing just to maintain "consistency"
.. you publish mediocre work at suboptimal times because showing up feels like the responsible choice.
The psychological trap is prioritizing the appearance of discipline (posting on schedule) over actual results (publishing when the content and timing are right).
You're not planting evidence, but you are publishing at the wrong time because consistency feels more important than the strategic value of waiting for the right cognitive window. The fix is recognizing that strategic timing beats rigid schedules and sometimes the most disciplined choice is not publishing until conditions are optimal. Let me know if you want me to dig into any specific part of this!
This is outstanding. You're right, I cannot remember the last time I saw someone write about how to publish content based on when the audience is ready to take the desired action.
Also, I would love to see more of a breakdown on how this strategy impacted Yahini's content strategy, if you can share!
Thanks friend, happy you liked it! ❤️
I actually had more examples but the piece would have gone to 6000+ words so I had to cut 🤣
I might do this at a later post. Just don't want it to be 50% case study. I'd rather focus on the workflow and it'd be hard to combine both. I'll think of something, in any case I'll definitely be more specific from now on 🤗
Just had a revelation that I DMed you about! Scratch the above hahahah
Thanks so much Mia, both for the mention, and also for taking my prompt and making it like a billion times more useful and implementable. I really appreciate what you do so much with this newsletter. 🙏
Thank YOU for all the awesome insights, always 🙏❤️