The Content Health Framework
A comprehensive criteria-based approach for evaluating and improving your content quality.
The 15 content health criteria in our framework encapsulate the many aspects of content quality.
Accessible
Assesses whether the content can be consumed by everyone.
Why this matters
Having accessible content maximises the size of your audience. It may also be a legal requirement.
How we evaluate this
We review content structure, language clarity, and identify potential accessibility barriers. The analysis considers whether the content can be easily understood by users with different abilities and in different contexts.
What good looks like
Content follows WCAG 2.1 AA standards at minimum. Alt text is provided for all images and describes their purpose, not just their content. Headings follow a logical hierarchy. Colour contrast meets minimum ratios. Links have descriptive text rather than generic phrases like "click here". Tables have proper headers and are structured logically. PDFs are properly tagged. Content works with screen readers and can be navigated using keyboard alone.
Actionable
Assesses whether content drives user action.
Why this matters
Actionable content creates clear next steps for users.
How we evaluate this
We identify clear calls-to-action, next steps, and actionable guidance within the content. The analysis evaluates whether readers are given specific, achievable steps they can take after consuming the content.
What good looks like
Content has a clear action, or set of actions for the user to take. These might be online or offline. This action is directly related to the content: for example, a generic “donate” action is less good than “donate to this specific campaign to help girls exactly like this”. If the user is helped and encouraged to take this action, all the better. Actions may just be digging deeper into content.
Comprehensive
Assesses whether content covers the important aspects.
Why this matters
Comprehensive content gives users what they need without needing to look anywhere else.
How we evaluate this
We look at whether content includes everything a user would need and want. This may include information, angles, instructions and references.
What good looks like
Content addresses all key aspects that users would reasonably expect for the topic. It provides sufficient depth without unnecessary detail. Important context, background information, and supporting details are included. Content anticipates and answers likely follow-up questions. All essential viewpoints or approaches are covered. References to additional resources are provided when appropriate. The scope matches user expectations and the content's purpose.
Convincing
Assesses whether content builds trust and confidence in its claims and recommendations.
Why this matters
Convincing content establishes credibility and motivates user confidence, whether for purchasing decisions, accepting information as reliable or making a case.
How we evaluate this
We evaluate the strength of evidence supporting claims, presence of credibility indicators, logical flow of arguments, and appropriate sourcing. This includes assessing testimonials, citations, data quality, expert credentials, and trust signals relevant to the content type.
What good looks like
Claims are persuasive and supported by appropriate evidence. Research content includes proper citations and authoritative sources. Marketing content provides social proof, testimonials, and verifiable benefits. Expert content demonstrates credentials and experience. Data is sourced from credible organisations. Links to references are functional and relevant. Trust signals are present where appropriate. Well-made arguments flow logically and acknowledge limitations where relevant.
Engaging
Measures how well content captures and maintains user interest.
Why this matters
Engaging content increases time on page, reduces bounce rates, and improves message retention.
How we evaluate this
We evaluate storytelling elements, emotional appeal, and audience engagement techniques. This includes assessing whether the content uses narrative devices, examples, and language that maintain reader interest.
What good looks like
Content captures and maintains interest through compelling storytelling, relevant examples, or provocative questions. It uses varied sentence structure and active voice. The writing has personality and human warmth when appropriate. Visuals complement and enhance the narrative. It creates emotional or intellectual connections with the audience. Content anticipates and addresses reader questions or objections. It invites conversation or deeper exploration.
Error-free
Evaluates the content for editorial, grammatical, and style errors.
Why this matters
Error-free content builds credibility. It’s professional and more likely to convince and persuade.
How we evaluate this
We scan for spelling, grammar, punctuation, and style inconsistencies throughout the content. This includes identifying typos, grammatical errors, and inconsistent formatting that could undermine credibility.
What good looks like
Content contains no spelling, grammatical, or punctuation errors. Facts and statistics are accurate and properly sourced. Links function correctly. Names, titles, and technical terms are consistently spelt. House style guidelines are followed throughout. Content has been reviewed by at least one editor or proofreader. Technical information has been verified by subject matter experts when appropriate.
Meaningful
Evaluates the presence and clarity of meaning.
Why this matters
Meaningful content aids cognition.
How we evaluate this
We analyse logical coherence, clarity of purpose, and absence of contradictory statements. The evaluation examines whether the content has a clear point and whether all elements support that central message.
What good looks like
Content delivers a message without ambiguity or confusion. Points are made directly rather than being buried in excessive context. Ideas flow logically from one to the next without jarring transitions. The content's purpose is clearly evident. Information hierarchy is logical and straightforward. Examples illustrate concepts effectively. Content avoids contradictory statements, empty language, obfuscation and mixed messages. Readers can easily summarise the key points after reading.
On-brand
Assesses how well content reflects your brand, through voice, tone and style.
Why this matters
On-brand content builds recognition and trust.
How we evaluate this
We compare content against your brand guidelines, tone, and messaging standards. This requires uploading your brand profile to establish the benchmarks for voice and style consistency.
What good looks like
Content reflects the organisation's values, voice, and visual identity consistently. Tone aligns with brand guidelines and is appropriate for the specific context. Terminology is consistent. Key messages reinforce the brand position. Visual elements follow brand guidelines. Content feels like it belongs to the brand family without seeming formulaic. It demonstrates the brand's personality in authentic ways.
Readable
Assesses the complexity of language through words and sentence structure.
Why this matters
Readable content reduces cognitive load, making information accessible to wider audiences and improving engagement.
How we evaluate this
We assess sentence structure, vocabulary complexity, and overall readability using natural language understanding. This includes evaluating whether the language is appropriate for the intended audience and identifying overly complex passages.
What good looks like
Content uses language appropriate for the target audience, with an optimal Flesch-Kincaid reading score for that audience. Sentences are concise and well-constructed, avoiding unnecessary complexity. Technical terminology is used sparingly and explained when necessary. Paragraphs are kept to a reasonable length, enabling comfortable reading across different devices. The content passes readability tests with scores appropriate to the intended audience.
Strategic
Evaluates how well content aligns with organisational goals and audience needs.
Why this matters
Strategic content serves both user and business objectives, creating mutual value.
How we evaluate this
We evaluate alignment with your strategic objectives and business goals. This requires configuring your organisational priorities to establish the framework for strategic assessment.
What good looks like
Content clearly supports both user needs and organisational goals. It fills identified gaps in the content ecosystem. It guides users appropriately through the customer journey. It aligns with broader marketing and communication strategies. Content addresses key audience segments and their specific needs. It includes appropriate calls to action that serve business objectives whilst providing user value. It anticipates and supports future content needs and business priorities.
Structured
Assesses content organisation and information flow.
Why this matters
Well-structured content improves comprehension and reduces cognitive load.
How we evaluate this
We evaluate logical flow, paragraph organisation, and information hierarchy. The analysis examines whether ideas are presented in a logical order and whether the content structure helps readers follow the narrative.
What good looks like
Content follows a logical progression with a clear beginning, middle, and end. Headings and subheadings create meaningful sections that help users scan the content. Information is presented in order of importance or chronology as appropriate. Related information is grouped together. Lists are used when appropriate to break down complex information. Visual elements like images, tables, or diagrams support the structure.
Succinct
Assesses whether the content could give equal value in a shorter form
Why this matters
Succinct content conveys its information or message as efficiently as possible.
How we evaluate this
We assess how quickly content gives value, and whether some of it is unnecessary.
What good looks like
Every sentence serves a purpose and advances the user's understanding. Information is presented in the most direct way possible without sacrificing clarity. Redundancy is eliminated unless used intentionally for emphasis or clarity. Complex ideas are explained as simply as possible. Transitions are smooth but brief. Examples are concise and directly relevant. Content gets to the point quickly while maintaining comprehensiveness. Users can extract value efficiently without wading through unnecessary text.
Up-to-date
Assesses whether content's information still holds, judged by accuracy rather than age. Evergreen content (case studies, portfolio work, foundational guidance) stays current regardless of its date.
Why this matters
Outdated content damages credibility and can mislead users with incorrect information; but evergreen work should not be penalised for its age.
How we evaluate this
We judge whether the information still holds, not the date stamp alone. Time-sensitive content (news, statistics, pricing) is checked for decay, while evergreen and foundational content is treated as current for as long as it remains accurate and representative.
What good looks like
Any time-sensitive claims still hold: references to events, statistics, pricing or external content are accurate and from credible sources. Outdated terminology or superseded approaches have been replaced with current equivalents. Evergreen and foundational content (case studies, portfolio work, methodology, principles) reads as representative regardless of its age, and is not dressed up as newer than it is. A publication or last-updated date is shown where currency genuinely matters.
Useful
Measures whether content delivers genuine value to the user.
Why this matters
Useful content answers questions, solves problems, or provides insights that help users accomplish their goals.
How we evaluate this
We evaluate practical value, relevance to user needs, and actionable insights provided. This includes assessing whether the content solves real problems and provides information that readers can apply.
What good looks like
Content addresses specific user needs, questions, or problems with practical information. It provides actionable insights rather than vague generalities. The depth of information matches the complexity of the topic and user requirements. Content delivers more value than similar resources available elsewhere. Users can apply the information immediately to achieve their goals. It anticipates and addresses potential obstacles to implementation.
A comprehensive criteria-based approach for evaluating and improving your content quality.
The 15 content health criteria in our framework encapsulate the many aspects of content quality.
Accessible
Assesses whether the content can be consumed by everyone.
Why this matters
Having accessible content maximises the size of your audience. It may also be a legal requirement.
How we evaluate this
We review content structure, language clarity, and identify potential accessibility barriers. The analysis considers whether the content can be easily understood by users with different abilities and in different contexts.
What good looks like
Content follows WCAG 2.1 AA standards at minimum. Alt text is provided for all images and describes their purpose, not just their content. Headings follow a logical hierarchy. Colour contrast meets minimum ratios. Links have descriptive text rather than generic phrases like "click here". Tables have proper headers and are structured logically. PDFs are properly tagged. Content works with screen readers and can be navigated using keyboard alone.
Actionable
Assesses whether content drives user action.
Why this matters
Actionable content creates clear next steps for users.
How we evaluate this
We identify clear calls-to-action, next steps, and actionable guidance within the content. The analysis evaluates whether readers are given specific, achievable steps they can take after consuming the content.
What good looks like
Content has a clear action, or set of actions for the user to take. These might be online or offline. This action is directly related to the content: for example, a generic “donate” action is less good than “donate to this specific campaign to help girls exactly like this”. If the user is helped and encouraged to take this action, all the better. Actions may just be digging deeper into content.
Comprehensive
Assesses whether content covers the important aspects.
Why this matters
Comprehensive content gives users what they need without needing to look anywhere else.
How we evaluate this
We look at whether content includes everything a user would need and want. This may include information, angles, instructions and references.
What good looks like
Content addresses all key aspects that users would reasonably expect for the topic. It provides sufficient depth without unnecessary detail. Important context, background information, and supporting details are included. Content anticipates and answers likely follow-up questions. All essential viewpoints or approaches are covered. References to additional resources are provided when appropriate. The scope matches user expectations and the content's purpose.
Convincing
Assesses whether content builds trust and confidence in its claims and recommendations.
Why this matters
Convincing content establishes credibility and motivates user confidence, whether for purchasing decisions, accepting information as reliable or making a case.
How we evaluate this
We evaluate the strength of evidence supporting claims, presence of credibility indicators, logical flow of arguments, and appropriate sourcing. This includes assessing testimonials, citations, data quality, expert credentials, and trust signals relevant to the content type.
What good looks like
Claims are persuasive and supported by appropriate evidence. Research content includes proper citations and authoritative sources. Marketing content provides social proof, testimonials, and verifiable benefits. Expert content demonstrates credentials and experience. Data is sourced from credible organisations. Links to references are functional and relevant. Trust signals are present where appropriate. Well-made arguments flow logically and acknowledge limitations where relevant.
Engaging
Measures how well content captures and maintains user interest.
Why this matters
Engaging content increases time on page, reduces bounce rates, and improves message retention.
How we evaluate this
We evaluate storytelling elements, emotional appeal, and audience engagement techniques. This includes assessing whether the content uses narrative devices, examples, and language that maintain reader interest.
What good looks like
Content captures and maintains interest through compelling storytelling, relevant examples, or provocative questions. It uses varied sentence structure and active voice. The writing has personality and human warmth when appropriate. Visuals complement and enhance the narrative. It creates emotional or intellectual connections with the audience. Content anticipates and addresses reader questions or objections. It invites conversation or deeper exploration.
Error-free
Evaluates the content for editorial, grammatical, and style errors.
Why this matters
Error-free content builds credibility. It’s professional and more likely to convince and persuade.
How we evaluate this
We scan for spelling, grammar, punctuation, and style inconsistencies throughout the content. This includes identifying typos, grammatical errors, and inconsistent formatting that could undermine credibility.
What good looks like
Content contains no spelling, grammatical, or punctuation errors. Facts and statistics are accurate and properly sourced. Links function correctly. Names, titles, and technical terms are consistently spelt. House style guidelines are followed throughout. Content has been reviewed by at least one editor or proofreader. Technical information has been verified by subject matter experts when appropriate.
Meaningful
Evaluates the presence and clarity of meaning.
Why this matters
Meaningful content aids cognition.
How we evaluate this
We analyse logical coherence, clarity of purpose, and absence of contradictory statements. The evaluation examines whether the content has a clear point and whether all elements support that central message.
What good looks like
Content delivers a message without ambiguity or confusion. Points are made directly rather than being buried in excessive context. Ideas flow logically from one to the next without jarring transitions. The content's purpose is clearly evident. Information hierarchy is logical and straightforward. Examples illustrate concepts effectively. Content avoids contradictory statements, empty language, obfuscation and mixed messages. Readers can easily summarise the key points after reading.
On-brand
Assesses how well content reflects your brand, through voice, tone and style.
Why this matters
On-brand content builds recognition and trust.
How we evaluate this
We compare content against your brand guidelines, tone, and messaging standards. This requires uploading your brand profile to establish the benchmarks for voice and style consistency.
What good looks like
Content reflects the organisation's values, voice, and visual identity consistently. Tone aligns with brand guidelines and is appropriate for the specific context. Terminology is consistent. Key messages reinforce the brand position. Visual elements follow brand guidelines. Content feels like it belongs to the brand family without seeming formulaic. It demonstrates the brand's personality in authentic ways.
Readable
Assesses the complexity of language through words and sentence structure.
Why this matters
Readable content reduces cognitive load, making information accessible to wider audiences and improving engagement.
How we evaluate this
We assess sentence structure, vocabulary complexity, and overall readability using natural language understanding. This includes evaluating whether the language is appropriate for the intended audience and identifying overly complex passages.
What good looks like
Content uses language appropriate for the target audience, with an optimal Flesch-Kincaid reading score for that audience. Sentences are concise and well-constructed, avoiding unnecessary complexity. Technical terminology is used sparingly and explained when necessary. Paragraphs are kept to a reasonable length, enabling comfortable reading across different devices. The content passes readability tests with scores appropriate to the intended audience.
Strategic
Evaluates how well content aligns with organisational goals and audience needs.
Why this matters
Strategic content serves both user and business objectives, creating mutual value.
How we evaluate this
We evaluate alignment with your strategic objectives and business goals. This requires configuring your organisational priorities to establish the framework for strategic assessment.
What good looks like
Content clearly supports both user needs and organisational goals. It fills identified gaps in the content ecosystem. It guides users appropriately through the customer journey. It aligns with broader marketing and communication strategies. Content addresses key audience segments and their specific needs. It includes appropriate calls to action that serve business objectives whilst providing user value. It anticipates and supports future content needs and business priorities.
Structured
Assesses content organisation and information flow.
Why this matters
Well-structured content improves comprehension and reduces cognitive load.
How we evaluate this
We evaluate logical flow, paragraph organisation, and information hierarchy. The analysis examines whether ideas are presented in a logical order and whether the content structure helps readers follow the narrative.
What good looks like
Content follows a logical progression with a clear beginning, middle, and end. Headings and subheadings create meaningful sections that help users scan the content. Information is presented in order of importance or chronology as appropriate. Related information is grouped together. Lists are used when appropriate to break down complex information. Visual elements like images, tables, or diagrams support the structure.
Succinct
Assesses whether the content could give equal value in a shorter form
Why this matters
Succinct content conveys its information or message as efficiently as possible.
How we evaluate this
We assess how quickly content gives value, and whether some of it is unnecessary.
What good looks like
Every sentence serves a purpose and advances the user's understanding. Information is presented in the most direct way possible without sacrificing clarity. Redundancy is eliminated unless used intentionally for emphasis or clarity. Complex ideas are explained as simply as possible. Transitions are smooth but brief. Examples are concise and directly relevant. Content gets to the point quickly while maintaining comprehensiveness. Users can extract value efficiently without wading through unnecessary text.
Up-to-date
Assesses whether content's information still holds, judged by accuracy rather than age. Evergreen content (case studies, portfolio work, foundational guidance) stays current regardless of its date.
Why this matters
Outdated content damages credibility and can mislead users with incorrect information; but evergreen work should not be penalised for its age.
How we evaluate this
We judge whether the information still holds, not the date stamp alone. Time-sensitive content (news, statistics, pricing) is checked for decay, while evergreen and foundational content is treated as current for as long as it remains accurate and representative.
What good looks like
Any time-sensitive claims still hold: references to events, statistics, pricing or external content are accurate and from credible sources. Outdated terminology or superseded approaches have been replaced with current equivalents. Evergreen and foundational content (case studies, portfolio work, methodology, principles) reads as representative regardless of its age, and is not dressed up as newer than it is. A publication or last-updated date is shown where currency genuinely matters.
Useful
Measures whether content delivers genuine value to the user.
Why this matters
Useful content answers questions, solves problems, or provides insights that help users accomplish their goals.
How we evaluate this
We evaluate practical value, relevance to user needs, and actionable insights provided. This includes assessing whether the content solves real problems and provides information that readers can apply.
What good looks like
Content addresses specific user needs, questions, or problems with practical information. It provides actionable insights rather than vague generalities. The depth of information matches the complexity of the topic and user requirements. Content delivers more value than similar resources available elsewhere. Users can apply the information immediately to achieve their goals. It anticipates and addresses potential obstacles to implementation.