The Guardian, traditionally seen as a 'UK news' organisation, has controlled the US news agenda over the last week with a story about an NSA leak.

This post looks at some of the Content Strategy decisions behind this success.

Over the last week, the Guardian has put out a series of articles about the US National Security Agency, its 'PRISM' programme, and a whistleblower called Edward Snowden.

In the 'old' newspaper world, The Guardian would have done that by splashing it on the front page, backed up with other related articles deeper into the paper.

In the 'new' digital world, the story is still splashed across the front page, but things get a little more complicated online. Extra complexity, but a mass of extra opportunity along with it.

This post breaks down some of the elements of the 'Content Strategy' behind this. The second part of this series will look at the digital marketing tactics  used within this.

1. The overall objectives

Before looking at tactics, it's worth thinking of the overall objectives here both for The Guardian and for the journalists (and the rest of the team) working on the 'story'. Here's my take. If yours differs from this, please do leave a comment with info.

1.1 Objectives of the newspaper:

As a newspaper, their overall objectives here are:

  1. Telling & producing great stories.
  2. Influencing thought & policy.
  3. Traffic.
  4. Money. (short-term & long-term revenue)
  5. Building prominence of their journalists.

1.2 Objectives of the journalists:

The individual journalists involved here have the following objectives:

  1. Tell a great story.
  2. Altruism: Their personal belief that spreading this information is the right thing to do.
  3. Career & their personal profiles.
  4. Traffic to the website & other content.
  5. Money (for them, and the contribution of the money from the story back to their organisation).

2. The content strategy

'Content strategy' is a broad, nebulous term that means different things to different people. In the case here, instead of looking at the overall strategy, we'll simply look at some of the strategic decisions made around content, and the way The Guardian has structured this story using digital content to best meet its overall objectives.

For this, we'll take a quick look at some of the decision making in terms of people, formats, categories, and scheduling.

First though - of key importance - it's vital to note that this is centrally a USA story. The Guardian has historically been a UK newspaper. The potential online audience of a news organisation is now global, with little to no extra distribution cost.

I don't know the international breakdown of visits for The Guardian, but here's a chart I put together breaking down the Daily Mail's audience by country, which may be roughly similar:

Daily Mail Countries

The Guardian recognised the international opportunity, and set up a US office a couple of years ago. I remember the mighty Chris Moran, its SEO editor, disappearing over there as it set up a US presence, and it was something the paper obviously took seriously.

The work there, and the people the paper has managed to hire, have been so good that a 'UK' organisation (in the eyes of their competitors) has managed to break and hold the biggest story of the year in the USA. Quite an achievement.

It's well known that The Guardian loses money. Opening up the existing product to new markets, and turning themselves into a global news organisation is a massive objective in reducing those losses.


A key part of the Guardian's overall 'content strategy' (the key part in the case of this story) was to hire people, create process, and nurture content in a different geography.

2.1 Content and people

First of all, this overall story has come about as a result of The Guardian's people. The creation & spread of it is down to them.

There is obviously a huge amount of process behind that, but The Guardian has managed to hire and keep some interesting journalists - for example Glenn Greenwald, a civil rights lawyer turned journalist formerly of (importantly, an online 'pureplay' news site), and James Ball, formerly of Wikileaks (importantly, someone who's technical).

In addition to that, it has 'pulled in' people on this story. The interview with Edward Snowden was filmed by Laura Poitras, an oscar nominated documentary filmmaker who's made a series of documentaries on post-9/11 USA.

We don't know (yet) why 'the whistleblower' chose to go to The Guardian, or how the paper came across him, but there is little doubt that will be down to their people.

Summary: The Guardian has made some very clever hiring decisions, central to its ability to create & gather excellent content; alongside that, its happy to bring people in.

2.2 Content and formats:

The content put out around this story has been a real mixture of formats:

  • Straight text articles. Most fairly long, but a few very short too.
  • Videos. As mentioned, they've got a documentary filmmaker working on this specifically.
  • Images. Some of the slides, and some very tangentially related, eg. for a jokey 'NSA surveillance as told through classic children's books' gallery.
  • Content posted directly to social networks (mostly Twitter) by their corporate accounts, and also by journalists directly.
  • Live blogs. (for example this, from Tom McCarthy, which you'll see embeds images, tweets & quotes, as well as commentary)
  • Tweets/social updates.
  • Comments. (very popular with The Guardian's audience, and they tend to err on the side of leaving comments 'open', whereas other sites often close on anything with any legal implication).

All of that has to be created, subbed, probably checked by legal in lots of cases, posted, and promoted.


Produce in multiple formats. Centre around straight articles, but surround with multimedia, and content on (and between) social platforms.

2.3 Categories of content:

The primary content here has been (very) 'hard news'. A series of articles with actual hard information that was not available to the public prior to their reporting. Surrounding that are softer pieces, features, Q&As, and even some 'list posts'.

Some of the numerous extras include:

  • Background pieces about the 'Subject' - for example a straight Q&A with the whistleblower, a profile on the company he worked for.
  • Background pieces about the story itself. eg this 'How does PRISM work?' piece by Charles Arthur.
  • Editorial & opinion - for example this piece on how the information brought to light affects British citizens.
  • 'Home' news, tying the story back to the UK (ie. stuff for The Guardian's existing audience).
  • Frivolous, jokey articles like the aforementioned 'surveillance as told through classic children's books'. (this both breaks up the relentless heaviness of the articles, means 'the story' is accessible to different audiences, and means The Guardian pick up traffic for that, as that kind of content is inevitable anyway, and why leave all of that potential traffic to others?)
  • Content related to the broader people, and organisations surrounding this: Google, Facebook, Obama, Hague.
  • Content spread across their own internal categories: News, Comment, Business, Tech.

As just two examples, take a look at the 'Tech' section & you'll see it's a mixture of directly related articles, loosely related articles, and 'business as usual' content:

Guardian Tech

Contrast that with the 'Culture' section, an area onto which this story doesn't really overlap, and you'll see you would not even know the story existed:

 Guardian Culture

And elsewhere on the site, the aforementioned jokey "NSA surveillance as told through classic children's books".

This is a bit of a mish-mash of a gallery post, a buzzfeedesque idea, and an attempt to tie in social media (note that it's collected from a hashtag '#NSAKidsBooks'):

NSA Kids Books


In its essence, this is a single story. 'Digital' means it actually have unlimited column inches to dedicate to it. The paper has neatly broken it down and spread it across different formats & sections.

In doing so its has been careful to take into account different audiences, to break up the 'hard' stuff with background and softer pieces, and to broaden it out a bit to take into account social media.

As a side-note: It's worth thinking about this also from the point of view of the 'inverted pyramid', the basic journalistic principle of writing the key 'who, where, what, when, how' information in the opening paragraphs, expanding on that with the most important info in the body, and then leading out into more granular extras toward the end.

In this case they've done that by atomising parts of it into individual articles. The unlimited shelf space of digital news means it can dedicate full articles to (for example) a factsheet on the central whistleblower's employer, whereas previously it may only make passing mention to that further into an article, if at all.

2.4 Content scheduling:

The scheduling is the big, clever decision really here. The Guardian, it appears, got all of its information from one source. Based on that, it could (if it had wanted to) put all of the information out in one go.

That's what would happen traditionally. Following that, day by day, updates would be written based on trailing events.

In this case, it have not done that. Here's Emily Bell of Columbia Journalism School talking about that: 

Emily Bell

In this case, te paper has(essentially) exclusive access to the person who holds the entire story. There is very little chance of any other news outlet managing to speak directly to him. The Guardian can therefore completely control the pace of this story. The only party who can really interrupt that flow is the US government itself.

It is therefore dictating the pace at which information is released, and at which the US government and other organisations must respond. As those organisations respond, the paper can then cover the reaction (and can of course resource for this, as they know roughly when it will happen).

This plays out for the audience as a bit of a soap opera (or more accurately a thriller). The key players are Barack Obama (who, against The Guardian's political leaning, this probably damages the most), CEOs of international companies, the whistleblower himself, and The Guardian's own semi-celebrity journalists.

Here's a tweet from the reporter at the centre of the case which firstly removes any remaining doubt that there's a pre-planned schedule behind this.

Save Yourself

And here are two tweets confirming the plan to nudge the central actors in the story in a way that further builds it:

In Public

From a practical point of view, that means the Guardian probably has a central grid of 'tranches' of information (or perhaps 'acts' or events), each consisting of key content, additional pre-planned 'background' content, expected response coverage, plus the ability to add around that any ad-hoc extras as they emerge.


The Guardian got a great story. The fact that it got it in the first place was due to a strategic 'content' decision, and the fact that the story has been as high-profile & successful as it has so far was also due to a series of content decisions.

  • At a 'Macro' level, part of the reason it got the story in the first place was a very strong decision to create US-centric content, and to place a team there. Some of the key hiring decisions have been specifically around 'tech' & 'digital' savvy people, and as a result the paper was really well placed for this particular story.
  • At a 'Micro' level, the coverage spans a range of formats, split both by media type, and by content category. This works in that it allows the paper to appeal to different audiences, reduces 'arc fatigue' on the overall story, and means the audience can choose which parts to consume, which to share, etc.
  • Again at a 'Micro' level, the key, big decision was to release the story in a series of pre-planned tranches. This both brings extra traffic & publicity as a 'drip marketing' campaign would, and means that the story itself builds as other organisations respond to it.

Next: The second half of this case study looks at the way the Guardian has marketed this. Check back to read about the digital marketing tactics they've used to support this story.

dan barker

Published 10 June, 2013 by dan barker

Dan Barker is an E-Business Consultant and a contributor to Econsultancy. He can also be found on Twitter and Google Plus

10 more posts from this author

You might be interested in

Comments (11)

Save or Cancel


I don't think The Guardian is overly concerned about revenue. They’re funded by a trust so don’t have the same necessity to turn a profit as The Sun or Daily Mail – which is why they devote time towards stories like this, wikileaks and phone hackling.

about 5 years ago

dan barker

dan barker, E-Business Consultant at Dan Barker

@Tom thanks for that - I think it's easy to see their revenue focus in a black/white manner, whereas it's somewhere in the grey. I agree, they have a range of other objectives outside of revenue, but money is very definitely one of their priorities. You can see by the number of ads (and ad serving technologies) they use, their (massive) job board, their 'advertisement features', (eg:, some of their questionable partnerships (eg., etc.

This story's interesting from that aspect too - it's so big in the US that it can act as a 'brand builder' for them over there, meaning it increases future potential revenue.

about 5 years ago



Fascinating... good piece. I saw this developing and it reminded me of how the Telegraph broke the MPs expenses scandal - drip-feeding at its own pace. But this takes it to another level, as you say, breaking into the US market and developing a whole content marketing strategy. Makes you wonder how long they've been preparing this and when the whistleblower came forward...

about 5 years ago



Interesting. You missed that the Guardian has been targeting US readers for quite a while - going back to the Bush election when they upset half of America but pleading with the country not to vote Bush.

The paper then started a US edition of their Comment is Free section.

Whether this is good or not is open for debate. personally I think they should improve their coverage of the "rest of the UK" - ie Scotland and everywhere outside of London before they give the US their own section.

about 5 years ago


Gerard O'Neill

Great analysis Dan.

One addition to your assessment: what we're seeing from The Guardian is a straight lift from the US military playbook (ironically).

By which I mean The Guardian has gotten inside the US administration's 'OODA Loop' (observe, orientate, decide, act).

In choosing to 'drip market' their story, rather than releasing it in one go, they have kept the administration on a back foot, too busy responding to the last story just as the next story is unveiled.

I'm sure there are wider lessons for the future content marketing from all this. Just as I'm sure the US has more battalions than The Guardian... :)

about 5 years ago


Melany Page, Director at Bastion Graphics

Very well played by The Guardian. A classic example of how news sites should be engaging readers. This is the future of news!

about 5 years ago



Wow. Just wow. Hi there NSA, CIA and other surveillance guys!

All I find in this piece is the blatant hidden-in-plain-sight rhetoric of making every possible argument against The Guardian posting news about the intelligence scandal. "It's wrong", "They shouldn't have done it!", "Naughty newspaper!" and so on.

Newspapers around the globe operate because, as in your list first and foremost, their mission is to publish both domestic and international great stories. And what about revenue? Why shouldn't newspapers target for revenue, since that's the money that keeps them running? Why shouldn't they set up shop in another surefire country where nothing ever stops or slows down. Add to this equasion the superiority of the US and the UK as international powers and you have the result.

Even newspapers in our country publishes both domestic and international news. That still doesn't mean mean that when, for example, Fukushima happened, every newspaper in the world exists just to look for revenue and prominence to support their day-to-day operations. Since when have journalists driven around with top dollar cars and had a flat in Monaco with three powerboats in the pier?

The notion of newspapers influencing thought and policy is old, but obviously holds true as that's what garners interest. Put it otherwise, you could as well have said that "Yellow press exists because sex and scandals sell". Do you think this comes as news to anyone?

What sets newspapers apart from the yellow press is motives. The yellow press primary agenda seems to be digging under rocks for any and all hints of a scandal which could result in a juicy story which they can print on the front page and make people love or hate more or less known celebrities and, ultimately, sell more magazines or web subscriptions.

Newspapers dig for stories about policy making and conduct around the globe so as to further transparency, and in the side, gain revenue to keep doing what they do. If there were no journalists and newspapers, how would the public ever know anything about the decisions that are being carried out "in our common interest" or to "protect our citizens", if there were nobody to publish them?

Point in case:
You speak of content strategy and overall objectives, all the while you "secretly" demonize the Guardian for what they do - and within the same story even purport to actually influence what people think of the newspaper and their conduct. Is EConsultancy not gaining enough revenue? :-D

about 5 years ago

dan barker

dan barker, E-Business Consultant at Dan Barker

@Sven - I think you may have inadvertently left that comment on the wrong article, as it doesn't tally with the content at all. Either that, or I'm afraid you've read between the lines a little bit too much. :)

Thanks for the comment, nonetheless.


about 5 years ago




then please explain to me, what was your ulterior motive in writing this? Why, and for what purpose? Surely there was a reason for taking all that time to sit down and generate interestingly judgmental lines, such as "removing any remaining doubt" as to whether mr. Greenwald was acting on a "pre-planned schedule" or not, in regard to the paper's "content strategy", as if you'd think they were plotting to create a newspaper thriller - to be the Dan Brown of newspapers.

I'm sorry, all I still see in your piece is just bashing written between the lines. Please correct me if I'm wrong - and you're not biased in any manner whatsoever, towards either side.

about 5 years ago

dan barker

dan barker, E-Business Consultant at Dan Barker


"Please correct me if I'm wrong - and you're not biased in any manner whatsoever, towards either side."

Happily - you are wrong.

I'm sorry you got the wrong end of the stick.

If you're based in London, I'd happily meet up for a coffee in a few weeks if you want a chat. (the same offer applies to anyone reading this)


about 5 years ago


Andrea Iannuzzi

"The Guardian has made some very clever hiring decisions, central to its ability to create & gather excellent content; alongside that, its happy to bring people in".

That's the point, guys: without content, there's no content strategy

about 5 years ago

Save or Cancel

Enjoying this article?

Get more just like this, delivered to your inbox.

Keep up to date with the latest analysis, inspiration and learning from the Econsultancy blog with our free Digital Pulse newsletter. You will receive a hand-picked digest of the latest and greatest articles, as well as snippets of new market data, best practice guides and trends research.