Editorial Interest Gate
Publish only ideas that earn attention and offer something distinct
- Difficulty
- Moderate
- Time to result
- ~weeks to results
- Steps
- 5
- Confidence
- 98%
The Editorial Interest Gate separates the ability to create content from the decision to publish it. Each extracted idea is evaluated as if the editor encountered it in a feed or search result: would they click, read, or interact with it? The editor then tests whether the idea is distinctive, sufficiently developed, and suitable for a particular format. Weak or familiar points are discarded even when they appeared in the source, while a rich cluster may be expanded into a resource or newsletter series. The framework explicitly permits variable yield: one interview may produce only one useful post, while another may support many assets. This protects attention, brand quality, and audience trust from the temptation to maximize AI-generated volume.
Origin
Barbara Jovanovic uses this gate after AI extracts candidate insights from client transcripts, applying human judgment before anything becomes a content asset. Extracted from Marketing Against The Grain.
Core principles
- 01Easy production does not justify weak publication
- 02Judge an idea from the audience's perspective
- 03Novelty and substance matter more than transcript coverage
- 04Content depth should determine the final format
- 05Some source sessions legitimately yield only one or two ideas
How to run it
- 1
Adopt the audience's perspective
Review the candidate as if it appeared unexpectedly in your own feed, inbox, or search results.
Pro tip Judge the idea before polishing its headline or prose.
Watch out Production effort can create an attachment to an otherwise weak idea.
- 2
Test for attention
Ask whether the idea would make the intended audience click, read, or interact.
Pro tip Use the actual target audience rather than a generic reader.
Watch out Curiosity without substantive payoff creates clickbait.
- 3
Test for distinctiveness
Check whether the idea adds a new mechanism, experience, example, or point of view.
Pro tip A familiar topic can still qualify when the speaker contributes a distinctive explanation.
Watch out Do not publish an idea merely because it was discussed.
- 4
Assess available depth
Determine how fully the source supports the idea and what format that depth can sustain.
Pro tip Combine related, well-supported insights into a larger resource when appropriate.
Watch out Stretching a thin observation into long-form content produces filler.
- 5
Publish, expand, or reject
Choose a short asset, a larger treatment, or no output at all based on the preceding tests.
Pro tip Allow content yield to vary naturally from one source session to another.
Watch out Quotas can pressure editors to approve material that fails the gate.
In the wild
AI extracts ten ideas from an interview, but eight repeat common industry advice. The editor rejects those, develops one distinctive product lesson into a post, and combines several related remarks into an email.
→ The team publishes fewer assets with clearer informational value.
Common mistakes
Confusing availability with value
An idea being easy to generate does not mean an audience benefits from receiving it.
Forcing a fixed yield
Expecting the same number of assets from every interview encourages filler and repetitive content.
Evaluating only the prose
A polished draft cannot rescue an unoriginal or underdeveloped underlying idea.
Is it for you?
Best for
Teams that can produce content quickly but need a consistent editorial decision rule.
Not ideal for
Compliance communications or exhaustive documentation where completeness matters more than audience interest.
From the transcript
“Does this sound interesting? Does this sound like something that can be turned into a bigger piece? If not, let's move on to the next…”
“Sometimes I'm like, okay, that's not really interesting.”
“But I think we can use AI to really zero in on the most unique and interesting and insightful types of content instead of just…”
From the episode
I Run a 6-Figure Agency with ZERO Employees (AI Only)
Barbara Jovanovic