The Importance of Minimum Standards for White Papers
Every industry sets minimum standards. To not do so, creates confusion.
At some point in the early days of the computer industry, there was a need to set minimum standards and define what a computer was to differentiate it from an calculator or other tabulation device. Processor speed? storage? keyboard? Physical size? Today, we don’t call an adding machine or scientific calculator a computer. We call it a calculator.
For some reason, we haven’t reached that plateau in the document area, since many marketers are hellbent on affixing the lablel “white paper” to any document they choose, regardless of size, content, or audience.
Take for instance, a document posted on the Alan Weinkrantz PR Web Log, called “The Art of Telling and Selling Your Story to the Media, Industry Analysts, and the Blogosphere”. This document is nothing more than a two-page opinion by the author. There are no references to back up this position, no comparisons to traditional perspectives, no data or statistics. But yet, Alan Weinkrantz is allowed to call it a “white paper” without challenge.
So let me be the first to begin the process of establishing a set of rules that set minimum standards for a white paper.
Pundit’s Rule #1: A document must have no less than six pages to be classified as a white paper.
Why is this important?
If we allow anyone to arbitrarily call any document a “white paper” we risk thoroughly confusing the business audience. Without minimum standards the term “white paper” loses credibility, and we risk losing the opportunity to capitalize on the label when we really need it.
After all, if an in-depth, 15-page perspective on spam by Gartner, and this two-page document are both classified as “white papers”, then what value does the medium have any longer. How will a business customer know the difference between the two.
The term “white paper” should stand for something. It’s about time someone sets some minimum standards to avoid abuse of the term.
Sign up for my free newsletter, "Short Attention Marketing Tips" and receive monthly advice on tips, tricks, and techniques that will grab reader attention in your white papers.
August 15th, 2007 at 6:10 am
Hey Jonathan;
I think a white paper can be as few as 4 pages and still be good.
Personally 6 is about as small as I make them, but I have seen some pretty compelling 4 and 5 pagers (they are rare of course).
I like to say “The white paper is the longest tool in the marketing arsenal.”
Mike
August 15th, 2007 at 7:47 am
Yes, but TWO pages? The document that I referenced won’t cut it as a white paper. Someone has to step up and set minimum standards. We can’t allow mere comments to be classified as a “white paper”.
Longest tool? You mean like a rifle?
May 13th, 2009 at 6:00 pm
Hi Jonathon,
I’ve been thinking for some time of another rule for white papers, and I’d like to get your opinion. I believe a white paper MUST be a PRE-sales document, not a POST-sales document.
To me, PRE-sales = marketing while POST-sales = documentation or support material. At least this applies in the world of technology.
Some people say any type of “bait piece” or “information widget” can be called a white paper. But I strongly disagree. You can make a “special report” out of anything, sure.
But what I think Jonathon and Mike and I mean by a real “white paper” must be aimed at prospects who have not yet bought. That puts these efforts in the realm of marketing where they are considered an “investment.”
So I modestly submit this as another industry standard for white papers.
And I say let’s split the difference on the length, and consider that a white paper has to be at least 5 pages long.
All the best,
Gordon Graham
http://www.ThatWhitePaperGuy.com
May 14th, 2009 at 9:05 am
Hi Gordon,
Great minds must think alike. I just offered that concept in response to your last post on the registration issue.
Again, I wholeheartedly agree, but I think the issue of pre-sales only applies as a business medium. If we get into the other realms where white papers are applied, namely in government, academia, scientific research, or with a highly technical audience, then it becomes a pure educational medium.
I suppose in those areas there really isn’t a “pre” or “post sale” issue other than convincing the opposition to one’s particular point of view.
But I will add your issue to my White Paper Standards Page!
Thanks again,
Jonathan
May 14th, 2009 at 10:22 am
Hello all. Interesting discussion. A couple of thoughts:
I think that more then anything, a white paper must follow rule number #2. The key word here being “educate.” The amount of time spent bringing readers up to speed depends primarily on the target audience. However, I can’t see doing it without addressing the practical and applicable issues on some level.
I think too many leave out the “practical” and “applicable”information in a desire to sell the product. As a result, product features are mentioned in the opening paragraphs and reader switches from learning mode to consumer mode.
Ultimately though, and the reason why I think white papers are so effective (when properly named) is that they do educate as opposed to sell. The provide something of value to the reader.
I wonder about min. length as a requirement. Yes, I agree that a two page opinion piece is in no way a white paper. I also think it would be difficult to provide the depth needed to qualify as a white paper in less then five pages.
It just reminds me of my teaching days when the students put such a high value on number of pages as opposed to content in the paper.
Also wonder about the introduction. I know this one has been discussed before. A Requirement? Is it possible to write an opening paragraph that serves as the introduction (filling the need for those who skim).
Journalists do it all the time.
Thanks for a great discussion,
Jim
http://www.whitepapersolution.com
May 14th, 2009 at 10:35 am
Hi Jim,
Thanks for your input.
I had set six as a standard, but changed it to five in response to Gordon’s comment. I think we may be splitting hairs, but I’m trying to honor the word “minimum”. The question is at what point is a document NOT a white paper. We all agree that one-two- or three isn’t. What about four? This is where we get into a grey area.
On your issue of Introduction, I don’t think a paragraph would qualify since it doesn’t provide the depth needed to thoroughly bring the reader up to speed on the issue. In many ways this is the same discussion as the overall size of the document.
If you believe that there has to be a minimum number of pages for the overall document, then one must agree that there has to be a descent amount of information in the Introduction to fulfill the needs of the reader and prepare them for the rest of the content in the white paper.
Jonathan
May 14th, 2009 at 10:58 am
I agree that we’re splitting hairs with five vs. six pages but I think the problem lies in defining it by number of pages.
Maybe instead of minimum pages we need to look at minimum content. What are the minimum elements a white paper must include (ie. practical and applicable content).
It’s easy to meet a min. page requirement and not say anything. However, if we identify certain elements then min. pages becomes a somewhat moot point.
On the introduction – isn’t that what your “practical and applicable” content does? Bring the reader up to speed on the issue?
I would think the purpose of the introduction is to convince the reader that they need to read the paper – usually done by giving a brief overview.
Again, a good lead paragraph could accomplish the same goal.
Not saying white papers don’t need an introduction but is it a requirement?
I will say though that if we can get enough input to hash this out we all go straight to Wipikedia and update the definition.
Jim
May 14th, 2009 at 11:22 am
I see your point, but the reason I would say a number of pages and hence, the AMOUNT of content does play a role in setting minimum standards.
In many ways this issue is similar to any area where effort plays a role in establishing quality. For example, if you want to become a Microsoft Certified Support Engineer, there is a long laundry list of things you have to accomplish and tests to pass in order to get that title. If Microsoft were to lower those standards, they would get substandard support people which would ultimately harms their customers and their brand.
By setting the bar higher, and establishing a certain number of pages, those that want to earn the moniker “White Paper” know they must put the effort in to produce a substantial amount of content and a certain number of pages. The reader and the marketer win in the end with a thorough presentation on the issues.
If the standard is set on content, then one can produce a short paragraph for each section and end up with a two page paper to qualify as a legitimate “white paper”.
I like your idea of Wikipedia. I have a sinking feeling that getting to the point where we can all agree will be a long, hard, slog.
Jonathan
May 14th, 2009 at 12:40 pm
I think we’re much closer on agreement then you give credit. Isn’t the goal is to take back the term white paper from those putting out sales brochures, opinion pieces etc. disguised as white papers.
We all are pretty much on the same page as our definition of a white paper and I think we all agree on what doesn’t qualify as a white paper.
As for the min. I think it is much harder to fudge on content (ie. short paragraphs) then it is on number of pages. One could easily do the reverse of what you are describing through long winded writing or straight out redundancy.
I think if you build upon content requirements as you do with your second point, you’ve got a good measuring tool.
As for the Wiki idea – the avg. wiki reader is not going to debate these points yet it will help reclaim the term from those who misuse it for some of the examples described above.
Jim