🔗 Context: The Missing Link in Your Brief

The other day, I came across a post on LinkedIn about how a successful content team needs:

• a strategist
• writers
• a social media manager
• specialists like videographers or designers
• a project manager, and an analytics and tools lead

All true - BUT one thing rarely mentioned is the one that shapes the thinking behind almost every decision, including the writing itself: research.

That made me wonder - how many teams have a defined research process? And if they do, what does it really look like?

The cure for dying briefs

I’ve seen too many briefs die in the first draft.

Not because the writer wasn’t good. Not because the headline didn’t pop. But because the thinking behind the brief was invisible.

Most content teams hand over a Google Sheet packed with links or a Notion doc with generic instructions like, ’’You got this!’’ and call it their ’’research process’’.

The writer is left to piece together fragments, guess which source to trust, and figure out the why and how themselves.

But great writers don’t want to guess. They want to understand:

• Not just Why this angle? but how the angle came to be.
• Not just What problem are we solving? but what deeper context shaped the direction.
• Not just a link to a 2,000-word article, but its key takeaway, significance, and a comment about why it’s worth exploring.

Just dumping a link isn’t helpful. I’ve been there.

Early in my career, I remember getting 15 links and a brief that said, ‘‘Figure it out.” It cost me hours to untangle the info, and I wasn’t even sure I got the angle right.

What writers need is a clear, curated roadmap that shows:

• ✅ What’s relevant in this article?
• ✅ Why does it matter for this piece?
• ✅ What deeper insight can we draw from it?
• ✅ What questions does it raise?

Here’s an example:

I recently worked with a team exploring Reddit for Marketing.

The topic is everywhere. Popping up in LinkedIn posts, case studies, and debates - and I wanted to do a deep dive. But I didn’t want to overwhelm my team with a flood of links or Slack threads that quickly get lost.

So, I used Collabwriting to curate the research. And I built two focused topics:

1️⃣ Insights & Stats: Key statistics, expert opinions, and hand‑picked posts about Reddit’s marketing landscape, with notes about why each insight matters and how it can shape the piece.

2️⃣ Best Practices: A mix of findings from various research studies, blogs, and even Reddit itself, plus tips on how to get started with Reddit, the best practices to follow, what to avoid, and more practical advice.

With this approach, they didn’t have to guess which source to trust, what angle to pursue, or how to piece it all together. They had a clear roadmap, with relevant context, commentary, and connections between ideas.

What we gained

• ✅ Saved hours of frustrating guesswork.
• ✅ Got a clearer view of the bigger picture and gaps we could fill.
• ✅ Built a living knowledge base everyone could add to and use, not a forgotten Slack thread.

That’s what separates forgettable articles from authoritative, memorable pieces.

It starts with research that isn’t just pasted links, but a roadmap, a point of view that guides writers and gives readers a reason to trust every word.

So, if your content isn’t hitting, maybe it’s not the brief.

Maybe it’s the thinking, the context, and the connections that didn’t make it onto the page.

Now I’m curious - how does your team handle research?

Do you send link dumps, or do you have a system to give writers real context and insights?

Share your experience. I’d love to hear! 🐚

Until next time,

Gordana Community Manager @ Collabwriting