An editorial plan still being maintained after three months
An editorial plan rarely fails for lack of discipline. It fails on too many columns, too long a lead time, and on a single missed week making the whole plan look worthless.
In short
- Five columns are enough: topic, question, source of substance, owner, date. Every further one lowers the chance the plan gets maintained.
- One quarter of lead time is the right length — over a year, the plan goes out of date faster than it gets worked through.
- The "source of substance" column matters most and is missing from almost every template.
- A plan needs a built-in buffer week, otherwise one interruption tears the whole series apart.
Why they get abandoned
Three reasons, in this order:
- Too many columns. Anyone having to fill twelve fields per row stops filling them by the third entry. A half-maintained plan is worse than none, because nobody trusts it any more.
- Too long a lead time. An annual plan contains topics in the fourth quarter that were planned in February — and goes out of date before it is worked through.
- No buffer. One week of holiday, one urgent customer matter, and the plan is a week behind. Without a built-in buffer week it looks failed afterwards.
The five columns
| Column | Content | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Topic | a working title, not a finished one | the final one emerges while writing |
| Question | the one question the piece answers | prevents overlaps |
| Source of substance | where your own figures and cases come from | the actual bottleneck |
| Owner | one person, by name | shared ownership is none |
| Date | the publication date | a date, not a period |
Worth knowing
The "source of substance" column is missing from almost every template and is the only one addressing the actual bottleneck. It answers: on this topic, where does your own figure, your own case, your own position come from?
If it says "Müller project, March analysis" or "conversation with Ms K. on the 12th", the piece is writable. If it says nothing, it is not — it then becomes a summary of what is written elsewhere. A topic with no source of substance does not belong in the plan but in an ideas list.
The structure
A quarter, not a year
Twelve weeks are plannable. At the end of each quarter, one hour for the next — based on what substance has accumulated in the meantime.
One buffer week per quarter
Expressly planned in and left empty. It absorbs interruptions without the plan slipping. If it is not needed, one more piece comes out of it.
Topics from three sources
From the substance collected in day-to-day work, from keyword research, and from the questions by which last quarter's piece was actually found.
Plan revisions in
One slot per quarter for revising an older piece. Often works better than a new one, and without a fixed slot it never happens.
The point where most plans tip over is the first missed week. After that comes the feeling of falling behind — and with that feeling the plan becomes a reproach rather than a tool.
The buffer week solves that mechanically: miss a week, move into the buffer, and you are back on plan. Planning one empty week per quarter feels unproductive and is the reason a plan survives into its second quarter.
The quarterly hour
Once a quarter, one hour, in this order:
- Review, 15 minutes. What got published, what did not, and why not? No blame — the answer is planning information.
- Look at Search Console, 15 minutes. Which questions are existing pieces being found by? Unplanned questions are the best topics for next quarter.
- Go through the substance collection, 15 minutes. What has come up in day-to-day work — figures, cases, customer questions?
- Fill twelve weeks, 15 minutes. Topics, questions, sources of substance, owners, dates. One week stays empty.
Help me fill the editorial plan for next quarter. Our situation: - How many pieces we manage per quarter: [number] - Who writes: [people] - Audience: [description] What got published last quarter: [list with title and topic] What did not get published, and why: [list] Search queries our pieces are being found by – including unplanned ones: [list from Search Console] Substance from day-to-day work (figures, cases, customer questions): [bullet points] Tasks: 1. Propose topics for the quarter. For each: a working title, the one question it answers, and the source of substance from my list. 2. Cut topics for which I have no source of substance, and tell me so clearly – those belong in an ideas list, not in the plan. 3. From the unplanned search queries, name the three that deserve a topic of their own. 4. Propose an older piece for revision and justify it. 5. Leave one week expressly empty as a buffer. 6. Name overlaps between the proposed topics. Do not invent substance I have not stated.
In closing
Five columns, one quarter, one buffer week, one fixed weekly slot in the calendar. That is the whole plan — and it lasts because it asks for little.
The one column that makes the difference is the source of substance. A topic without it is not a plan but an intention — and either never gets written or gets written as a summary of what is already elsewhere.
Common questions
Which columns does an editorial plan need?
Five: a working title, the one question the piece answers, the source of substance for your own figures and cases, one named owner and a publication date. Every further column lowers the chance the plan gets maintained.
How far ahead should you plan?
One quarter. An annual plan contains topics in the fourth quarter that were planned in February, and goes out of date faster than it gets worked through. At the end of each quarter, one hour is enough for the next twelve weeks.
Why does the "source of substance" column matter so much?
Because it addresses the actual bottleneck: on this topic, where does your own figure, your own case, your own position come from? If it says nothing, the piece becomes a summary of what is written elsewhere — such topics belong in an ideas list, not in the plan.
Why plan an empty buffer week?
Because most plans tip over at the first missed week — after that you feel behind, and the plan becomes a reproach rather than a tool. The buffer solves it mechanically: miss a week, move into it, and you are back on plan. If it is not needed, one more piece comes out of it.
Where do the topics come from?
From three sources: the running collection of substance from day-to-day work, keyword research, and the search queries by which existing pieces are actually found. The third source regularly delivers the best topics, because it shows what people really ask.
Marketing that sets itself up
The Studio Engine beta is live. Claim your spot and help shape it from the start.
Join the beta →