Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Android | TuneIn | RSS
Relly Annett-BakerRelly Annett-Baker recently said in a LinkedIn post, “The words are an expression of the solution, the last 20%, but we also need to do the 80% that comes before to know wtf to write. ”
UX writers and content designers spend a lot of their time, arguably too much of it, explaining this core aspect of their work to their colleagues and collaborators.
While she sometimes bristles at the need to constantly defend and describe her team’s work, Relly also realizes that that is, in fact, the most important part of her job.
We talked about:
- her roles as the head of UX content strategy for Google’s corporate engineering group
- her take on how requests for “wordsmithing” can diminish or ignore the many other design and stakeholder-wrangling skills that content practitioners bring to the table
- her identification of the unconscious bias that underlies this dynamic, a concept she calls “soft sizing”
- how she deals with the cognitive dissonance of simultaneously resenting the need for constant explanation of her work and realizing that that is in fact the core of the job
- the importance of tailoring your messaging about your work for the audience you’re addressing
- her observation that prompt engineering is really just UX writing, that is, structured writing designed to result in a good outcome
- how prompt engineering and LLM fine tuning can benefit from insights from the practice of conversation design
- how the “uncanny valley” phenomenon manifests in content design for AI
- a quick overview of content crafts at Google
- what UX writers and content designers can learn from conversation designers
- the importance always tying your content-design work to business outcomes and goals
Relly’s bio
A content strategist for too many years, Relly is the Head of UX Content Strategy for Google Corporate Engineering. She spends her days leading her fantastic content team, writing content strategy docs, overseeing content delivery, and petting the office Dooglers. She’s very good at saying “it depends” to stakeholders.
Outside of work, Relly lives in Brighton, England with her husband and a collection of animals and teenagers. Relly recently finished a Masters in Crime Writing at Cambridge University, and she writes murder mysteries for children. She’s never yet turned a content-doubter into a fictional corpse, but there’s still time.
Connect with Relly online
Video
Here’s the video version of our conversation:
Podcast intro transcript
This is the Content Strategy Insights podcast, episode number 173. Pretty much anyone in any kind of content role has had to deal with colleagues who misunderstand, diminish, and sometimes even disparage, our work. In her role as the head of UX content strategy for Google’s corporate engineering group, Relly Annett-Baker has had many opportunities to help her collaborators understand that the words that we use to express complex concepts are just a small part of the work that we do as content designers and UX writers.
Interview transcript
Larry:
Hey everyone. Welcome to episode number 173 of the Content Strategy Insights podcast. I’m really happy today to welcome to the show Relly Annett-Baker. Relly is the head of UX content strategy for Google corporate engineering. Relly, that sounds like a really amazing job. Tell us a little bit about, well, first of all, welcome. And tell us what you do as a head of UX content strategy.
Relly:
Yeah. So Corporate Engineering is an organization within Google that really builds the internal tools. It’s kind of like engineering the things that Google needs to be Google. So everything from performance management, procurement tools, legal stuff, kind of everything in between. And so the portfolio is pretty big. My team is smaller, but I manage a team of around 20 writers, user experience writers and user docs writers. So we work on those products and tools.
Larry:
Cool. What a meta job like engineering for engineers. That must be a lot of fun.
Relly:
Let me tell you. We get feedback. We’re not sure of feedback. When everything goes out, no problem there. We get to hear how it’s going. Google actually has an internal meme page, and so when big things launch, there’s often lots of memes either celebrating or taking the Mickey out bits and pieces. So that’s always kind of fun to see and it’s always good to put a celebratory meme in your performance management packet at the end of the year and be like, “Look at what I did. I got a meme.”
Larry:
Nice. I love that memes are a metric at Google. That’s nice.
Relly:
A little bit, yeah. Water cooler moments is seeing what’s sprung up around stuff that’s been launched. So yeah.
Larry:
Nice. Well, you’ve been doing this content stuff for a long time and the reason I invited on you the show a few weeks ago on LinkedIn, you made this brilliant post that said a thing that a lot of us think a lot of the time. Basically it was like you were in a conversation about timelines and allocations and planning stuff, and somebody said to you something about wordsmithing and you kind of snapped. Can you tell the folks a little bit that just outline that story?
Relly:
Yeah. So I mean, poor person that was on the end of this that they meant no harm. So many people do, but I think it’s a thing that we recognize a little bit is often people will say, “Oh, maybe you could wordsmith this a bit.” And I kind of snapped and I was like, well, sure if the designer brings their best Crayolas to do the coloring in. Awkward pause. But I think for me it was a culmination of a few different things around that. The diminution, if I’ve got that right, of the role that I often see, and people generally don’t mean any harm from it, but I think it’s often when as writers who often are in a product organization in the minority group trying to cover a lot of stuff and so on, to have this idea that your work is just something or simplified in some way really kind of hits hard because we know how much of that work we have to do to get to that point.
Relly:
I kind of said in that post, really the writing is 20% of it, it’s the expression of the solution and 80% of that is the work that you do to get there, whether that’s the research or being involved in product stuff. And it’s so frustrating when we’re not involved in those things with this idea that we could just come along and tidy things up afterwards. And so another running joke that I sometimes have in my team is that we should send out Christmas cards to the engineers and product teams and designers thanking them for making the pretty borders and clicky buttons to decorate our words. I’m sure they wouldn’t take that too well either. And in this case, it was just one of those things where I think someone just caught me on the rough end of a rough day and I was a bit like, “Yeah, sorry. No, you didn’t mean anything by that, but oops.” So it goes.
Larry:
Yeah. Well, and every once in a while it’s good to have that kind of thing come out, but I think some of the stuff that is implied by your little snapping there, I mean it’s like for crying out loud, if we do a lot of stuff, could you please recognize it? And like you said, you didn’t-
Relly:
Do you acknowledge the effort? The effort that you don’t have to go to to get this result that you clearly enjoy and want more of from this conversation we’re having is that thing. And one of the things that I see a lot with content and the description, so it’s performance management season as it is for so many places. So I’m reading a lot of reviews right now and I also mentor some writers outside of Google and we talk a lot about how their role is described and their understanding, especially if they’re not managed by another content person. And we see a lot of words like, “Oh, the content designer really helped us out.” They helped us get this thing underway, or they helped us deliver this amazing thing. And it’s never really led or drove or delivered, which is what we talk about a lot of the time when we’re talking about that role.
Relly:
And it’s a phenomenon I called “soft sizing.” It’s not quite downsizing, but it’s kind of like it’s really attaching content work to it’s roots as writing as a soft communication skill, even something creative and fun. And again, when that’s at best 20% of the role and 80% of it is massive amount of stakeholder alignment and education, even with your own cross-discipline partners, to see it kind of reduced to be a help meet to the hard problems is intensely frustrating to me. And it’s often coming from people who, again, really benefit from our work, recognize that benefit, but don’t necessarily recognize the systematic effort and the systems layer thinking that goes into that work rather than it being that classic thing of someone waggling a mouse in Figma and going, “You could probably write something better than that.” I probably could, but there’s all this other stuff that goes with that.
Larry:
Yeah, no, a couple things in there. Well, firstly, what wanted occurs to me, there’s an analogous thing that sometimes comes up with design that you just look at a finished design, you go, “Oh, that’s pretty, I could have done that. I’ve got Photoshop, I could have done that.” But there’s just a little different twist on it for content people. But the other thing about that, you mentioned that so much of it is that the writing is just the expression, as you said, of a whole bunch of people stuff that has to happen before you can begin to express agreeing on terminology and functionality and all those things that comes into that. Have you had any, I mean, so you succeeded in not throwing this person out the window who you were talking to, but do you have other success stories about helping people like engineers, product people, and others are colleagues who, and the other thing you just said, it’s clear that they’re not malevolent about it. It’s just like something like ignorance or just-
Relly:
It’s an unconscious bias, attaching that word to this kind of soft skilled feminized almost space. And obviously content does have, compared to other areas of tech, a lot more women as well. And I think it’s fantastic, but also you can see where we end up in this space with language and the descriptions of it. So I mean, some of the things, I think there’s this point at which, and I hold two very different truths that almost can’t be sat in the same place at the same time, but I still believe both of them, which is one, I am desperately sick of educating people as to what my job is. They should just let me do it. So think a lot of content people. And two, also that actually, I’m very fond of saying the bullshit is the work, all of that stuff that goes around helping people understand this is the outcome you want and you’re expressing it through describing UI or you’re expressing it through this specific vision you have in your head, but actually we need to unpack a lot more of what goes under that.
Relly:
And it’s not as simple as it seems on the surface. And to get to that simplicity requires layers of complexity. So a lot of the time I try and draw an analogy from their areas of work. So with engineers we talk about understanding the tech stack and all the different things that have to happen and the fact that you have to have QA at a certain point and you have to have, it has to fit in with an existing architecture. And so that’s one way of doing it. And then with maybe stakeholders and subject matter experts who are like, “Oh, I can write, I’m very good at writing. Let me just write the stuff.” Talking about, well, there are these patterns and we know that the way that people read online and in tools is not the same as they do elsewhere. And I have examples of where pattern recognition is really important so I have those in my back pocket.
Relly:
So it’s this thing of it is frustrating to have to constantly feel like you’re justifying your job, but actually that is the job and it’s not just the job for us. I sometimes hear people say, “Oh, product managers never have to explain what their value is.” And it’s like, well, they do, but it’s kind of this question that’s asked and answered through their work. They set up, this is what we’re going to measure and we’re going to try and get some metrics and we’re going to work towards that, and then at the end we’re going to see how close we were to those metrics and make a plan for next time. And that’s really asking that question and framing it that way.
Relly:
Often with product managers and program managers, I’ll talk about measurements and metrics and what content quality means and what we’re trying to achieve. Often it’s tailoring that to the person that you are talking to. And that’s why I think sometimes the road shows and decks we do about how to work with the UXW don’t necessarily work because until you’re in that situation and you can contextualize it for that person, that’s when I see the light bulb go on and once it’s gone on, it rarely goes off. It’s like, right, this person is useful, I want more of this person. And then the next stage is then working on the description of what we do and the understanding of the process to get there. But you need that moment to have the in, I think.
Larry:
It occurs to me that that story, everything you just said the last five minutes kind of bolsters the difficulty of these allegedly soft skills. You’re wrestling with this cognitive dissonance about, “I’m tired of explaining this crap. Oh no, that is the job.” And figuring it out and having a practical and pragmatic and effective approach.
Relly:
Yeah. And the people who say no one reads online and the people who spend eight weeks discussing a verb is a circle of a Venn diagram. These things do come around and it’s this thing of like, oh, “Well, we’re not sure if we need more writers, but we’ve got loads of content and we can’t get it done.” And so that is unfortunately a lot of the role, and a lot of the role I think of as a content people manager is helping your team manage that cognitive dissonance and alleviating it where you can, recognizing that it continues and will probably continue onwards. And we’re seeing a new one now, which is like, oh, well maybe we don’t need writers, we could just have an LLM do it. And then it’s like people try that and it’s like it certainly creates words.
Relly:
However, it’s not going to be super great at telling your stakeholders why you’ve chosen those words and knowing which of your stakeholders won’t talk to each other if they think the other one’s come up with a great idea. And all that kind of stakeholder management stuff that is so much of this work, and it’s both immensely depressing in some ways to know that so much of it is debating with people and arguing with people and trying to find consensus where there isn’t much. And also we are never going to be out of a job because we can do that and we can also write well. So game over.
Larry:
I don’t want to just focus on your LinkedIn rants, but you’re reminding me of another LinkedIn rant a few months ago, six or eight months ago you said, “Prompt engineering, what are you talking about? Prompt engineering is UX writing.” Can you elaborate on that observation?
Relly:
Yeah. So I mean around that time I saw a lot of fear of like my product manager or my CEO whatever’s just going to see this and then they’re going to be like, “Oh, we don’t need writers. We can just replace them.” And there was a lot of junky posts out there, like 10 prompts to get yourself a 100,000 views on whatever. But I think actually as with anything, these things are a tool and as soon as you start playing with them, and I was doing kind of a, I did an internal Google prompt engineering course and I did an external open source one, both free, and both of them I kind of got two thirds of the way through and I went, oh, it’s really not going to get any more complicated than this, the engineering, but maybe in the sense setting up the model and getting yourself underway, but that becomes increasingly easy every day as these tools become increasingly more available.
Relly:
The writing, the I want to get a particular answer from this thing, that is UX writing top to bottom. It’s basically understanding how to ask a question to get the response that you need to be able to take a next action, that’s product writing top to bottom. And the way that you have to actually structure some of these questions, especially with some of the not so recent models, was very much kind of front load the question with the information that sets the context for the inquiry you’re about to make. That is every form we ever create and so on. And so this idea that it was this kind of difficult scary thing because it was under the word engineering really felt strongly like gatekeeping to me. And I understand why the person who first came up with the term arrived there, but I think it continues to do a disservice to what is essentially structured writing, trying to get to a good outcome.
Larry:
Yeah. And you mentioned, you’re talking about that, I’m wondering if there’s an analogy between that observation that when you talk about the magic word dust that you’re sprinkling on these products, that’s just a 20%. The underlying, the 80% of that iceberg that you’re not seeing, it seems like there’s something analogous to that, all the context setting you have to do when you’re fine-tuning or prompting a model, it seems like the parallels just keep unfolding between content redesign, UX writing, and prompt engineering.
Relly:
Yeah, I mean there was that kind of classic thing in programming just put garbage in, garbage out. I mean that’s also true of most models. And so in most cases, like the big commercial models, so Bard is a good example of the one we have there as a kind of chat paradigm. It can give you some good ideas. Would you necessarily trust it to write your company handbook in the tone of voice that you want to represent you? No, you’d need to do some work around that. So then you need to create your own model so you have a stub to begin with and you’re feeding it content that matches that. And you are also not only feeding that, you’re also having to explain to it why this not that.
Relly:
So I love to test Bard about whether it can manage to keep please out of any given sentence when I’m like please or thank you out of anything that’s meant to be like an error message and it manages it three out of five times and it’s getting better. But internally we can train some models that can be more specific around that. How do we train them? We write things for them. How do we feed it? We create structured content, we build up that model just in the same way you would build up anything to get to personalization, any of that kind of stuff. It’s understanding the structural units that go into that content, the underlying stuff that underpins it, the content model that you’re trying to build to. That’s our work. That’s our work.
Larry:
And you’re reminding me, I’m a big structured content nerd, and as you’re talking, I’m realizing that there’s a whole spectrum from completely unstructured to pedantically highly structured content. And a lot of what you’re just talking about, it’s like even the context you’re setting as you’re writing a prompt that there’s, over time there are conventions and things like structure emerging out of that all the way up to, have you done anything really, I’ve been thinking about this lately. Are there content management systems to manage your prompts? Because we all come up with templates or kinds of prompts that work.
Relly:
I mean I’m sure there will be, right? I am sure that’s going to be one of the ways in which, but then that in itself is almost like a form of conversation design. And again, it comes back to that thing of conversation designers specialize in understanding how to break down this is the outcome you want in a conversation. So if that’s the outcome you want, what needs to be true, what has to be asked? What’s the likely scenarios that, it’s just I think another form of that branching decisioning.
Relly:
So I think I am not surprised to see conversation designers go, “Oh, actually, this is just my job, but with whistles and bells on, we could really do some amazing stuff now if everyone gets out of the way and lets them do it.” That’s the other thing is trusting in the expertise that you have there already rather than assuming this because it’s this new technology that everything about it has to be brand new. We already know a lot of this stuff and what we know is humans can really tell if something is off very quickly and you lose user trust that way very fast as well.
Relly:
So building and testing and creating models that are human-readable in every sense of that and not taking off their sniffy sense, they’re going, this feels a bit off. It’s understanding what’s good for that, which prompts actually make sense to be generated by a large language model. I’m very fond of the example of this, I would like to order flowers as one thing. I would like to order flowers for my wedding is another thing. And I would like to order flowers for my parent’s funeral are three, they end up with a very similar action at the end, tonally really far apart. And which ones we want to handle in what situation, how we want to structure that around personalization, when do we hand back to the human, these are the decisions that we’re going to have to work with as part of this kind of product work. And I think anyone who assumes that humans are going away out of this situation have not met humans, is my best guess.
Larry:
As you’re talking, you’re reminding me of that phenomenon, the uncanny valley.
Relly:
Absolutely.
Larry:
You notice it. I think we first noticed it in Pixar movies and stuff where you have these almost human representations of people, but there’s just something that you’re squirming about them and there’s something like what you were just describing is the language equivalent of that. Yeah, that’s kind of how a human being would say, but not exactly right. We still need-
Relly:
That’s not quite that, that’s a one word that doesn’t quite hit or it feels too formal and an informal thing. I mean, one of my favorite things is to work with big languages and get them to try and use Gen Z slang and define that. And nothing makes my teenagers cringe more than me reading out sentences in which Bard has decided to use the word rizz to describe something because it just makes them want to curl inside out because it doesn’t feel right at all.
Relly:
The example that we have in the UK, I don’t know if we have a similar thing in the States or anywhere else, but we have a lot of ice cream vans and these ice cream vans tend to have hand painted decorations traditionally, and they’re often slightly off Disney character. You can look at them and you go, “I know that’s meant to be Donald Duck,” but it is not Donald Duck. And you can’t necessarily exactly define, but we know the proportions of those Disney characters so well that when they don’t quite work, you go, “Mm.” And immediately there’s some layer of almost disgust that happens and it’s like this kind of, ooh, it’s almost this kind of rejection. I think we see that a lot when the writing doesn’t quite match tonally. And I think a lot of companies are going to find that out.
Relly:
They’re going to experiment in this space and I totally get why, but they’re going to find that the copywriting that’s churned out starts to sound a bit same-ey, starts to have very similar rhythms, and you can do more with that with refreshing the training data to get different syncopations and rhythms in. But to do that well, you still need writers and therefore maybe you just hire writers. This will be the ongoing, I think we’re all finding out together. I’m very confident that a content writer with their head screwed on right who is good at people stuff, as we all need to be, will be successful long term.
Larry:
I want to go back to something you said a couple minutes ago about conversation designers. Is there a craft of conversation design insight of Google? There must be chatbots or voice agents or things like that.
Relly:
Yeah. So I mean the thing with Google is Google is really kind of a company of companies in many ways. So it’s vast. So yes, there definitely is. It’s not huge, but that craft definitely exists and there’re definitely people who are conversation designers in that space. We have a few in mine who work on chatbot stuff and look at those things.
Relly:
We treat it as a slightly separate thing from product content writing. And so they have different specialists, they’re managed by different people, but we do learn there’s good kind of interactions and understanding between each other as to what we’re trying to achieve. And then you’ve got kind of another branch of writing, which is people who are writing documentation. So you’ve got technical writing documentation, you’ve got user documentation, but also things that are like specialist documentation, say HR documentation and that kind of stuff.
Relly:
And so there is a general community of writers, but they can get spread pretty thin around what’s going on. So we sort of wave to each other from across the spaces and come together when we need to. So for example, in my space, we’ve been looking a little bit about what make good patterns for chatbots. And so we work with the conversation designers on those in particular, but it also had some impact on how we were thinking about integrating chatbots into products and what the kind of rules are around that as well.
Larry:
That’s kind of where that question came from because we’re all waving at each other and interacting more it seems like. And one of the ways, because all these new AI agents that virtually all have chat interfaces or a conversational interface that I was just wondering how it’s, because I’ve met a few people, I don’t know, it just seems like it’s not as explicitly a concern and an interest in a lot of orgs, that notion of… But I do know, I know a lot of conversation designers and they’re all really busy and they’re all getting really good jobs right now.
Relly:
Right. I think this is the thing. They’re doing fine right now. And Google’s an engineering led company and that’s really clear in its history and how it goes about its business. And so there’s been points in its history. Before UX was really a big thing, although it’s been around for a while, but before it was really a big thing, there was this kind of concept that the engineers asked for people to come and like, well, I need a screen in which this code is going to manifest into a thing. And sometimes a little bit with the conversation design, it’s like, well, we need a chatbot, therefore we need a conversation designer. So that’s what we should do.
Relly:
And as more of these things pockets happen, it becomes easier to start sharing between those spaces. And we find, again, where are the similarities, where are the differences? What’s going on? But they’re all really busy. There’s good work going on. I think for the most part, I’m sure they’ve got their grievances and problems, but it’s not for lack of stuff going on at the moment. And I’m really glad that for a long time conversation designers have been looking at these paradigms and spaces as the rest of us catch up with some of these things to be able to call on and go, this is important stuff, this is what we need to do more work on, and to understand how that integrates into products surfaces and spaces better.
Larry:
And I wonder if that’ll just become a thing. We’ve all, we’re just constantly adding to our design skillset and I wonder if we’ll just kind of add on conversation skills as well.
Relly:
Yeah, I think it’s one of those things that I’m always looking for a new thing to try out and know a bit about. I’m definitely one of those, I know enough to be dangerous type people for a lot of things, but I think in terms of this stuff, understanding the fundamentals, understanding where it’s very similar to our work in products, where it’s very similar to work even in large scale, kind of long-form website stuff. There’s a lot of fundamentals that are similar. And then understanding when and why you differentiate will also then help you make the case for what format you think the content that you need is best in. Because at the moment, everything looks like a chatbot. Maybe that’s not the best way to do that.
Relly:
And conversation designers are very good at going, “Yeah, I don’t think you want this to be a chatbot,” because it’s going to go 12 ways to Sunday before you get anywhere. But also us being able to say, actually maybe you’re trying to do this thing, but actually maybe it might be better to turn this over to a conversation designer and try and stop it being this multi-step form process and actually do it through a more conversational piece might be a better way to tackle that. I would love to see us do less with forms and more with dialogue around collecting information and only really capturing stuff in forms when we really need to.
Larry:
Yeah, that’s really interesting, that whole notion of progressive disclosure and guiding people through those, you need information from them, however you’re getting it, we now have another little thing in our toolkit.
Relly:
A new way of doing it. Yeah, I think that’s a really interesting thing to explore while also trying to maintain user safety around not just giving any chatbot your information because it’s asked for it, being really clear about when we’re using these things and what for as well as with any parts of product.
Larry:
That’s right. Because especially at a place like Google where you’re designing for half the world or whatever, there’s a lot of education, implicit education about how to consume digital experiences. And we probably have an ethical obligation to be a little bit attentive to that.
Relly:
Yeah. And it’s a thing that I think that the writers within Google talk about a lot like, how much is too much to overwhelm a user with understanding when they really just want to get on with a thing? And how much is important in terms of privacy, safety, understanding of data. I mean, I have just absolutely massive respect for some of our teams, like the grid UX team who deal with the cross-Google account stuff. Just monumentally difficult problems, makes my performance management stuff seem real easy by comparison. So yeah.
Larry:
Nice. Hey, Relly, I can’t believe that we’re coming up close to time, but before we wrap up-
Relly:
My…
Larry:
I know it always goes way too fast, but is there anything last, anything that you want to revisit from the conversation that you just want to make sure we get to before we wrap up?
Relly:
I guess going back to my little rant and where that came from, and I want to recognize just generally my frustration there is not unique to me. I think a lot of us in this space have had moments where you’ve been patient, you’ve been patient, you’ve been patient and find you’re like, I’m done. I am done trying to commit to this. And it’s totally okay to have those moments. And I think one thing that I see is sometimes people then go the complete opposite way and they start being like, “I’m never going to talk about this again. I’m just going to do the stuff.” And we’ve got to find the balance of what are good ways of informing people about our work.
Relly:
I talk a lot about measurements and metrics and things with that, and I’d encourage anyone who’s been in that space and that frustration to turn that frustration into something positive. What did you wish that person knew? What would need to be true? How far back from that can you work? What’s the first step to improving that understanding, without also then, because I see the opposite is sometimes content designers take on, “Well, I just have to explain everything to everyone. I’m going to do this amazing deck. We’re going to do a road show. Everyone’s going to love it. And everyone’s like, “Yeah, this is brilliant. Well done.” And then nothing changes. It is really kind of, it’s an ongoing thing and I don’t think it ever quite stops, but I think I actually found, once I recognized that a few years ago, it could just be a thing I committed to a little bit of my time each time, educating someone along the way, drawing the dots.
Relly:
If I have one piece of advice for any content designer out there, when you are doing something of any kind, attach something to it saying, what is the outcome that you expect to get from it? And how does that attach to the business goals? And just putting that at the top of an audit at the top of a deck, anything like that helps people understand that you are not just airy-fairly taking screenshots of all the bits in the audit because you want to know all the things. There’s a purpose to it, and the purpose aligns to their outcomes and goals, and it can make a really big difference just to drip feed that all the time. Don’t even necessarily have to point it out, but I think it makes a big difference.
Larry:
I love that it hearkens back to what you said earlier about, well, that is the job.
Relly:
That is the job. So if it’s going to be the job, do it on yourself in a way that’s as easy as possible, as automated as possible, as drip-fed as possible so it doesn’t feel like this humongous second job on top of your first job.
Larry:
Yeah, no, I think a lot of people are going to appreciate that, how to balance that dissonance, so thank you. Well, thank you. Oh, one very last thing, Relly. If folks want to connect or following online, what’s the best way to reach out?
Relly:
Yeah, so I think Spicy LinkedIn Takes is my hottest commodity right now. So I’m Relly Annett-Baker on LinkedIn, and feel free to request a connection with me. If you have content designer, someone in your title, I will almost always say yes. Do reach out, send me a message. I try and mentor people when I can. I can’t always answer all questions, but if there’s anything specific that I can help with, I’m always really happy to hear from content designers, especially people starting out on near the beginning of their careers.
Larry:
Fantastic. Well, thank you so much, Relly. I really appreciate the conversation.
Relly:
Thank you for having me.
Leave a Reply