Content Audit

A content audit is a systematic inventory and evaluation of existing content. It catalogs every piece of content, assesses quality and performance, and produces actionable recommendations. Content audits are essential before redesigns, migrations, and strategy shifts.

stellae.design

Design Principles

A content audit creates visibility into the actual state of your content. Most organizations have no idea how much content they have, how old it is, or how much of it is outdated.

Audit process: 1. Inventory: Catalog all content (pages, articles, emails, in-app copy) 2. Assess: Evaluate each piece for accuracy, quality, relevance, and performance 3. Categorize: Keep, Update, Consolidate, or Delete (the KUCD framework) 4. Prioritize: Rank actions by impact and effort 5. Execute: Implement changes with assigned owners and deadlines

Before/after: • Before: 2,000 help articles, many contradictory, some from 2018 → After: 800 current, accurate articles organized by user journey, with review dates assigned

Why It Matters

A content audit is the systematic process of inventorying, evaluating, and categorizing all existing content across a digital property to understand what you have, how it performs, and what should be kept, improved, consolidated, or removed. Without regular content audits, digital properties accumulate content debt at an alarming rate — pages that no one reads, documentation that contradicts itself, blog posts with broken links and outdated information, and duplicate content that confuses both users and search engines. A thorough audit provides the evidence base that transforms content decisions from opinion-driven debates into data-driven strategy, revealing which content actually serves users and which exists only because no one has taken responsibility for removing it.

Real-World Examples

GOV.UK's content reduction initiative

When the UK government consolidated hundreds of departmental websites into GOV.UK, the team conducted a massive content audit that revealed enormous duplication: dozens of departments had published their own versions of the same guidance, often with conflicting information. The audit-driven consolidation reduced the government's web content from roughly 75,000 pages to around 3,000 authoritative pages, and user task completion rates improved dramatically because users could find a single definitive source instead of wading through dozens of competing pages. This case demonstrates that the most impactful outcome of a content audit is often deletion and consolidation rather than creation of new content.

HubSpot's historical blog content optimization

HubSpot conducted a content audit of its blog — which had accumulated thousands of posts over a decade — and discovered that a small fraction of posts generated the vast majority of organic traffic while hundreds of thin or outdated posts were dragging down domain authority. The team systematically updated high-potential posts with current information, consolidated overlapping topics into comprehensive pillar pages, and removed or redirected content that was beyond rehabilitation. The audit-driven optimization increased organic traffic by over 100 percent on updated content, demonstrating that improving existing content often delivers better ROI than producing new content.

Counter-example

Enterprise knowledge base with no audit process

A software company's knowledge base grows to 2,500 articles over five years with no content audit process — articles reference deprecated features, screenshots show interfaces from three major versions ago, and five different articles explain how to reset a password with slightly different instructions that confuse users about which one is current. Support ticket volume increases year over year despite the growing knowledge base because users have learned that the content is unreliable and prefer to contact support directly rather than risk following outdated instructions. The company eventually discovers through a belated audit that only 300 of the 2,500 articles are accurate and actively useful, meaning they have been maintaining 2,200 pages of content that actively harms user experience.

Role-Specific Guidance

Common Mistakes

• The most common mistake is treating a content audit as a one-time event rather than establishing it as a recurring operational process — teams invest significant effort in an initial audit, implement the findings, and then never audit again, allowing the same accumulation problems to return within a year. Another frequent error is auditing only for content quality without examining content performance data, leading to subjective decisions about what to keep or remove based on internal opinions rather than evidence of what users actually access and find valuable. Teams also scope audits too narrowly, inventorying website pages but ignoring email templates, help center articles, in-app microcopy, social media content, and onboarding flows that are all part of the user's content experience and suffer from the same governance gaps.