A useful content brief tells a writer who needs the article, which question it will answer, what evidence is available, and how the finished draft will be judged. It should settle the important editorial choices while leaving room for the writer to explain them well.
Start with one reader and one task. Define the contribution the page will make, mark the boundaries, and identify anything that still needs verification. Then outline the article and add publishing details. A list of keywords and headings alone leaves too many decisions unresolved.
Below is a complete worked brief for a hypothetical guide about preparing website content for a designer, followed by a way to review whether the assignment is ready.
Give the writer one reader and one question
Narrow the assignment to a clear reader task before outlining it.
Write the assignment's purpose as a sentence: “After reading this, [reader] should be able to [specific task].”
For example: “After reading this, a small-business owner should be able to assemble a page-by-page content pack for a web designer.” That sentence establishes an outcome. “Write about website redesign” leaves the reader, stage of the project, and useful result open.
Add the situation that matters. Is the owner starting a first website or replacing an existing one? Are they collecting materials or choosing an agency? An article can mention neighboring questions without trying to answer all of them.
Google's people-first content guidance asks publishers to consider their intended audience and whether readers can achieve their goal. Use those questions when defining the assignment, before deciding how many sections it needs.
If the topic is still uncertain, work through our guide to choosing blog topics your customers need. The brief should turn a chosen topic into a clear assignment.
Specify the contribution before the outline
Explain what the reader will get from this particular article. The contribution might be a worked example, an annotated checklist, a documented comparison, or a useful analysis of a decision.
“Include practical tips” is difficult to review. “Include a filled example showing which page materials are ready, who owns the missing facts, and what still needs approval” gives the writer something concrete to build.
Also state the basis for that contribution. Distinguish supplied records, verified sources, proposed research, and a fictional illustration. A planned interview isn't evidence that an interview has happened. An illustrative worksheet shouldn't become a customer case study in the draft.
Google's content-quality questions emphasize original information or analysis and added value beyond rewriting sources. In a brief, that means naming the specific work that will make the article useful.
For evidence-heavy topics, assign the verification before the conclusion. Record which claim needs support, where that support might come from, and who can confirm it. If the evidence remains unavailable, narrow or remove the claim.
A worked brief for a website-content guide
A conceptual illustration for the fictional content-handoff assignment.
Imagine a design agency commissioning a guide for prospective clients. The agency, assignment, page inventory, roles, and readiness states below are hypothetical. They illustrate an editorial handoff, with no actual client project or results implied.
Reader and intended outcome
Reader: A small-business owner preparing an existing website's content for a designer. They know what the business offers but haven't organized the copy and assets by page.
Main question: What website content should I give a designer?
Outcome: The reader can assemble a content pack that identifies each page's purpose, current copy, relevant assets, review owner, and unresolved decisions.
Answer and scope
Answer to establish near the beginning: Prepare a page inventory, put the copy and assets with the pages they belong to, name a person who can verify each page, and list open decisions separately. Confirm the designer's preferred handoff format before sending the pack.
Include: Existing-page inventory, copy ownership, asset organization, unresolved claims, and a final handoff check.
Leave outside this article: Choosing an agency, estimating project costs, selecting a website platform, and implementing redirects. Link to separate resources where they are genuinely useful.
Contribution and example material
Distinct contribution: A filled three-page inventory that distinguishes available material from material ready for design. Use it to explain why collecting files and approving their content are separate tasks.
Example inventory:
| Page | Material available | Review owner | Readiness and next action |
|---|---|---|---|
| Home | Draft introduction and selected images | Business owner | Confirm the headline and the images approved for this use |
| Services | Bullet descriptions from an older document | Service lead | Verify which descriptions are current before writing final copy |
| Contact | Existing contact details | Business owner | Verify the details and intended enquiry route |
Keep this example labeled as fictional in the finished article. Don't add revenue, turnaround times, customer quotes, or claims that this process reduced revisions unless real evidence is supplied for them.
Source and verification instructions
Use the example to teach organization, rather than imply that every designer requests an identical pack. Confirm any agency-specific file requirements or approval process with the agency before describing them as its policy.
For images, tell readers to record who supplied each asset and whether it is approved for the intended use. Don't imply that finding a file in a shared folder establishes permission to publish it.
Keep unsupported business claims visible in the working record as decisions needing an owner. The article should show how to flag such a claim without silently treating it as approved copy.
Suggested sections and illustration
Build the assigned guide around these reader tasks:
- List the pages and what each needs to do.
- Gather the current copy and page-specific assets.
- Identify who can confirm the facts and approvals.
- Send the pack with a clear list of open decisions.
Use a labeled example inventory as the main explanatory visual. A conceptual folder illustration may introduce the material, but the filled inventory must be available as ordinary text too.
Reader action and review criteria
Next action: Create an inventory for the existing site and ask the designer which handoff format they prefer. A request to discuss a project can follow as an optional business action, without replacing the explanation.
The draft is ready when: It answers the main question promptly, includes the filled fictional inventory, distinguishes collected materials from approved content, and gives an owner and next step for unresolved items. Agency-specific requirements must be confirmed or removed.
That is enough direction to begin a useful draft. It also gives a reviewer a basis for accepting the work or asking for a specific correction.
Turn review criteria into decisions
Check that the scope, evidence and review criteria fit the assignment.
Read the brief as if you were receiving it for the first time. Could two reasonable writers take it in entirely different directions? If so, clarify the decision that matters.
For the example above, one writer might produce a guide to agency selection while another writes a file-organization checklist. The reader task and scope exclusions resolve that difference before either draft exists.
Use a review table when a project has several dependencies:
| Decision | Evidence needed | Action if it isn't available |
|---|---|---|
| State a particular agency's required file format | Confirmation from the agency | Keep the advice general and tell readers to ask |
| Describe a business claim as approved website copy | Confirmation from the named review owner | Mark it unresolved in the example workflow |
| Use a real client example | Authorized records with enough context to support the account | Use a clearly labeled hypothetical example |
| Include a measurable outcome | A documented measure and its limits | Omit the result claim |
This turns “check the facts” into assignments someone can complete. It also keeps a missing dependency from becoming confident prose merely because the deadline is approaching.
If a brief needs external evidence, use the same standard as a page worth citing: connect a specific claim with support a reader can inspect.
Add SEO details after the promise is clear
Choose a working title that describes the assignment accurately. Google's title-link guidance recommends descriptive, concise title text. The brief's title should help the writer preserve the article's scope as the draft develops.
For the fictional assignment, “What website content should I give a designer?” is a useful starting point. “The complete guide to every part of website redesign” would create a much larger promise than this brief supports.
Add the important terms a reader would use, along with relevant internal destinations and the reason each link helps. Google's SEO Starter Guide recommends clear organization and descriptive link text. Give the writer those connections rather than a quota of links to insert anywhere.
Treat a length estimate as a production constraint. Google explicitly says it has no preferred word count. If an example needs more space, adjust the budget or reduce the scope; padding doesn't resolve an unclear assignment.
Use an answer-first structure so the proposed outcome appears early and the remaining sections help readers carry it out.
Hand over a brief that can be acted on
Before sending the assignment, identify the person responsible for resolving open questions and the person who can approve the finished article. Separate a supplied fact from a suggestion for research.
Then ask the writer to restate the reader's task and the article's contribution in a sentence. If that restatement reveals a different assignment, fix the brief before expanding the outline.
Keep the brief with the draft. When the scope changes, update the assignment and its review criteria together. That gives the writer and reviewer the same decision record throughout the work.
References
- Google Search Central: Creating helpful, reliable, people-first content.
- Google Search Central: SEO Starter Guide.
- Google Search Central: Influencing your title links in search results.