I ranked content channels best to worst

Helloooo content connoisseurs.

It’s Perrin from Content Bites.

Not to be dramatic, but picking the wrong content channel can sink your business. They’re not all created equal, and they all cost either money or time to execute. It honestly might be the single most important part of content strategy. So today, I’m going to rank each major channel — lmk if you agree.

• Appetizers: Links from Copyblogger, Moz, Hubspot, and more…

• Main Course: Content channels ranked best to worst

Let’s dig in.

Appetizers: Content about content 🤯

• How To Write A Headline That Drives More Clicks (link)

• Embracing GenAI-Powered Search — Will Companies Have to Rethink Marketing Strategies? (link)

• How ConvertKit Grew from $98k to $625k MRR by Doing 150 Webinars in 1 Year (link)

• The 2024 State of Marketing & Trends Report: Data from 1400+ Global Marketers (link)

• 15 competitor analysis tools to spy on your competition (link)

Main Course: I ranked content channels best to worst

You guys are all marketers.

Tell me if there’s anything more painful than this (and don’t lie; we’ve all been there). 

You know the story: you spend weeks (or months) on building out a content strategy. You project reach. You calculate the possible ROI. You pitch the whole thing. You get buy in. And you finally hit play and… crickets. 

Or even worse: you get some attention but not nearly enough to make any kind of actual impact. 

Been there? I sure as sh*t have. 

Before I got good at content marketing, I must have run a million lackluster campaigns before I realized that one of the most important things you can do as a content marketer is just pick the right channel. 

Picking the wrong content channel is probably one of the fastest ways to light a budget on fire. 

Picking the RIGHT channels & promoting on them consistently, on the other hand, is one of the best ways to build a massive, profitable content machine. 

So today, I ranked all the major content channels from best to worst. 

Before I show you that list, a couple points of clarity.

First, there are TWO lists below:

• Content channels for B2B businesses 

• Content channels for B2C businesses

Second, every business is different. My rankings below are generalities based on my experience. But just because I say something is good doesn't mean it automatically works for every business. 

In fact, when I build content strategies FOR people, I find that I often break my own rules. So think of these more as a jumping off point for strategy. 

And third: I didn’t include every single content channel. Because let’s be real: there are only a few that are worth it. So don’t slide into my DMs asking me about infographics and other weirdness, ya nerds. 

How I landed on my ratings

When I think about content, one of THE most important questions is: what kind of content do we have the resources to do really, really well? 

For example, YouTube might be a fantastic channel for B2B services, but creating really great YouTube videos typically requires WAY more effort than, say, a LinkedIn carousel.

The perfect content channel (and spoiler alert: it doesn’t exist) would be one that requires minimal effort but produces massive impact.  

So when I’m grading the channels below, I’m mostly thinking about resources vs. impact. 

And that also means that if you have a large budget: some of the content channels below will be much better for you than the grade indicates b/c resourcing will be less of an issue (it might not be a big deal to hire an expensive YouTube agency, for example). 

But in general, I’m thinking about these in terms of resources vs. impact. 

The best content channels

Website/Blog

• B2C Rating: 8.5/10

• B2B Rating: 9.5/10

• Cost: $-$$$$

• Potential reach: Very high

• Probable reach: Moderate

• Audience quality: Usually really high

• Main Pros: Can be scaled like crazy, can be promoted anywhere & in tons of different ways

• Main cons: SEO is unpredictable, and it can be big part of a blog’s success or failure

Websites aren’t the most exciting for B2C companies, but they’re good because of their insane leverage. 

First, SEO is still a thing (for now), and when done right, SEO can = lots and lots of free traffic for a very long time. It also scales really well, but it takes money. 

Second, website content can be promoted almost everywhere. You can promote your website with ads, in comments, via organic search, on social channels, with your newsletter, etc.

For almost everyone, our websites aren’t just a channel, they’re the nexus of all our content marketing, which gives them ridiculous leverage.  

The only reason websites and blogs don’t get an A+ across the board here is because SEO is 10x more volatile than it used to be, which makes websites/blogs slightly less predictable.

But they’re still essential and can be promoted in a thousand different ways. Websites – and usually blogs – are mission-critical for content marketing. 

Why the B2C rating is 8.5. Takes more eyeballs, and it can be more difficult to get eyeballs on a website than, say, a social post in a lot of B2C arenas. It’s still almost always one of the best channels. 

Why the B2B rating is 9.5. Websites and blogs are probably one of the single best things for any B2B company. You do not need lots of eyeballs to make a ton of money. You can literally post a single good blog post & hustle out 2,000 eyeballs and make tens of thousands of dollars. There’s basically nothing better. 

Shorts

• B2C rating: 8.5/10

• B2B rating: 7.5/10

• Cost: $-$$$

• Potential reach: Extreme

• Probable reach: Low

• Audience quality: Low-moderate

• Main Pros: Really strong distribution leverage, can create massive reach

• Main cons: Hit or miss, needs some level of video production, gotta be tapped into the zeitgeist 

Shorts = short-form video.

I think it’s an extremely strong channel with a lot of upside. It also has LOTS of leverage: a single short video can be posted to 4 separate social platforms.

So why not give it a higher rating? 

Mostly because (1) it’s very, very difficult to get right, and (2) you need some kind of video production capacity.

That said, it is easier to do than long-from video a lot of the time, because it can literally just be someone talking into a phone, making the standards for this kind of video much lower than something like YouTube. But it’s still tough. 

Why the B2C rating is 8.5. Shorts really shine with B2C companies because it’s kind of what these platforms are built for: massive reach to extremely large audiences, most of which are individual consumers. It also caters strongly to lifestyle brands. 

Why the B2B rating is 7.5. There is a shocking amount of B2B activity happening in these channels. It’s just not nearly as much as B2C activity, and the B2B activity typically isn’t going to be as valuable as, say LinkedIn. But you can still reach a hell of a lot of people, and it’s particularly good for building a personal brand.   

Newsletters

• B2C rating: 8/10

• B2B rating: 9/10

• Cost: $-$$$

• Potential reach: High

• Probably reach: Moderate

• Audience quality: Very high

• Main Pros: Best possible way to “own” your audience, lots of trust

• Main cons: Takes at least a simple funnel to get subscribers, takes money to scale

Newsletters are unbelievably strong content channels in general; I just think they’re better for B2B businesses than B2C most of the time. 

That said, newsletters are one of the best possible ways to to build a tribe, which means they’re incredibly strong for lifestyle brands. 

The Daily Stoic, a B2C newsletter focused on stoic philosophy, has generated millions of dollars in topline revenue selling simple $25 coins. 

For that reason, I’ve always thought businesses like Calm are missing a massive opportunity by not building gigantic newsletters around the lifestyle they promote (mindfulness in this case). 

And in B2B spaces, they can be absolute monsters. 

Why the B2C rating is 8/10. You generally need lots of subscribers to make a B2C newsletter work at any kind of reasonable level, and for it to work, you need to attach it to an interest. That can be easy for lifestyle brands, but it’s harder for, say, a deodorant company. 

Why the B2B rating is 9/10. Newsletters aren’t easy to build, and you can generally make them profitable quicker with B2B products. They’re also a very, very effective way to build trust, which tends to be much more important at higher price points.   

Content for social communities

• B2C rating: 6.5/10

• B2B rating: 7.5/10

• Cost: $

• Potential reach: High

• Probable reach: Low

• Audience quality: Very High

• Main Pros: Extremely engaged audiences, easy traction

• Main cons: Content usually dies after like 24 hours, need to add tons of value to be accepted

Content for social communities = content made specifically for Reddit, Facebook groups, LinkedIn groups, forums, etc.

It can be a VERY efficient way to access extremely engaged people. It costs basically nothing. I once built a waiting list of 6,000 people for a software product in 48 hours for $0 (I wrote about that here), for example.

The glaring drawback to this kind of content is that it’s massively ephemeral. Post it, let it fly, and it’s gone in 24 hours, which means this kind of content is is basically a hamster wheel. A great one, but a hamster wheel nonetheless. 

Why the B2C rating is 6.5/10. We’re mostly looking at 6.5/10 here because this channel requires so much consistent effort for the revenue you’ll generate at a B2C price point. That said, it’s a GREAT way to get initial sales, test demand, and talk to customers. 

Why the B2B rating is 7.5/10. I know of a company who grew from 0-7 figures literally using a single large Facebook group. Problem usually is: these groups are fewer and more difficult to find. But if you can find groups, add value, and create good content just for them, you can make a killing.

YouTube

• B2C rating: 6/10

• B2C rating: 7/10

• Cost: $-$$$

• Potential reach: Very high

• Probable reach: Low

• Audience quality: Very high

• Main Pros: Might be the highest trust channel of all channels, very easy to sell

• Main cons: Difficult and expensive to execute, takes time to build traction

I’ve personally bought more stuff because of YouTube videos than any type of content. 

I think the level of value and trust on YouTube is unmatched. It’s absolutely amazing for consumers.

It’s often extremely difficult for businesses, though, mostly because video is so much more difficult than other types of content. 

So, the scores here are mostly a reflection of the level of resources required to really do YouTube right, but if you can do it right – and especially if you already have an audience there – it might be one of the best possible channels. 

Why the B2C rating is 6/10. Whatever you’re selling can probably be sold on YouTube. In addition to consuming content for entertainment, people often use YouTube as a search engine, sometimes making it a better place for B2C brands that do not have a strong lifestyle component and/or brands that can speak to solving problems.

Why the B2B rating is 7/10. Even better. YouTube lets you build trust more efficiently than any other platform, which is among the most important things in B2B transactions. Again, it’s just difficult to do well. 

Twitter

• B2C rating: 5/10

• B2B rating: 7/10

• Cost: $

• Potential reach: High

• Probable reach: Moderate

• Audience quality: Moderate

• Main Pros: Wonderful medium for individuals with strong voices

• Main cons: Not all niches work, not great for “corporate” voices

I don’t have a ton of experience on Twitter, so grain of salt. 

Twitter is cheap, and it seems to be a fairly consistent way to build an audience. You can also strike gold with the occasional viral thread. 

But it’s really difficult for most businesses to approach the platform with a voice that resonates with its users (and one that isn’t too “corporate”). 

It’s also much, much easier to have success on Twitter if there’s a singular voice inside your brand somewhere; it’s not so great for the “Hey! We’re the Nike team!” kind of vibe.

It also doesn’t work for every niche, and it tends to work better for B2B niches as far as I can tell.

Why the B2C rating is 5/10. I just really haven’t seen Twitter work consistently well to generate actual business for B2C brands. There are a few exceptions, like Autopilot, who launched what I think is the best Twitter campaign I’ve maybe ever seen. But outside of the outliers, I just haven’t seen it. 

Why the B2B rating is 7/10. Twitter can work really well for B2B brands – but it almost always requires a single strong voice/personality. That makes it a fantastic option for someone with a public, vocal founder, but less so for brands without one.  

Podcasts

• B2C rating: 5/10

• B2B rating: 6/10

• Cost: $$-$$$

• Potential reach: High

• Probable reach: Low

• Audience quality: Very High

• Main Pros: Extreme leverage outside of raw engagement (relationships), lots of trust

• Main cons: Extremely difficult to actually build an audience

If you have an audience, podcasts are absolutely amazing. 

They’re stupidly good at building trust, and they might even be better trust builders than YouTube. 

But it’s extremely difficult to actually build an audience without immense amounts of effort. It requires more volume, consistency, and partnerships than almost any other channel. 

If you can build it, they’re great, though.

Why the B2C rating is 5/10. There aren’t many B2C niches that are all that well-suited for podcasts in the first place. There are exceptions, of course, fitness being an obvious one. But you’re not going to sell socks with a podcast. 

Why the B2B rating is 6/10. Actually a fairly strong channel for businesses. But it’s not necessarily because of the content itself; it’s because podcasts are also amazing relationship building tools. If you have a whale of a customer you want to sell, have them on your podcast. Want to form a key partnership? Have them on. It’s often worth having a podcast just to make VIP friends.

Webinars

• B2C rating: 4/10

• B2B rating: 6/10

• Cost: $$$

• Potential reach: Moderate

• Probable reach: Low

• Audience quality: Very High

• Main Pros: Probably the best overall way to sell of all channels

• Main cons: Of all channels on this list, webinars are probably the toughest to get people in the room for

It’s really, really rare to be able to get people onto a webinar for free.

And if you do, it’s usually because you’re either doing one with a partner or talking to people on a large, existing channel, like a newsletter.

Most of the time, it costs money, and they’re their whole own kind of marketing funnel and sales machine. 

Are they effective? Absolutely, but they take a hell of a long time and a lot of money to get up and running. 

Why the B2C rating is 4/10. I have heard of webinars working for B2C products, but it’s almost exclusively in the coaching space. Outside of that, it can be tough to find a way to get webinars to work. 

Why the B2B rating is 6/10. Really dope way to get people to buy, but tough to build. That said, there are amazing case studies of webinars working crazy, crazy well, like the one about ConvertKit growing to $625k MRR in a year solely with webinars.

Look, there are lots of other ways to do content marketing. 

Plenty of other platforms out there. Print, events, whitepapers, etc. 

These are just the channels that are likely to make up the core of most content marketing campaigns. 

And these are just my opinions. If something’s working for you please continue to do that thing. It’s tough enough to get one thing to work; no reason to change anything based on one dork’s opinions.

That’s the issue. If you missed last week’s issue, you can read it here.

Go forth & conquer.

—Perrin