Content for Executives, Buyers and Specialists: Who Wants to Read What

Why does a good specialist article often fail to reach the person who decides?

Many businesses write content for the person they talk to most often: the specialist at the customer. That is understandable, because they ask the questions and understand the answers. But decisions are often made elsewhere. The managing director releases the budget, purchasing negotiates the terms, IT checks whether the solution may be used at all. A specialist article that serves only the specialist often ends up in that person's inbox.

This piece asks: What content do executives, buyers and specialists need in the buying process, and how many different versions make sense for a small business? To answer it, we first clarify the model that describes the roles in a purchase decision and a less well-known distinction within it. Then we weigh up two views and derive a simple grid.

The article personas in B2B describes how to build personas based on roles in the buying process rather than hobbies. This analysis builds on that and asks what the roles want to read.

In B2B you never write for one reader. You write for a group that never reads you together.

The thinking model: the buying center and two kinds of motives

In 1972, Frederick Webster and Yoram Wind described the buying center model: a purchase decision in companies is made by several people in different roles, even if they do not formally act as a group. They distinguished five roles: user, influencer, decider, buyer and a role that controls the flow of information into the group, the gatekeeper.

Less well known is a second distinction in the same article. Webster and Wind separate influences directly related to the buying task from those that go beyond it. They call them task variables and nontask variables. The first include, for example, the desire for the lowest price; the second include personal values, standing within one's own company or the need to avoid risk. In their words, both kinds of motives overlap in many respects and need not conflict. Personal involvement can even lead to better decisions for the organization.

For content, this distinction is valuable. Each role reads a piece of content with two questions in mind. The factual question might be: is the solution technically sound? The personal question is: will I look good if I recommend it, and what happens to me if it fails? Most content answers only the first.

What executives, buyers and specialists want to read

From the model, requirements for content, form and length can be derived for each group. They are assessments based on the model, not measured preferences.

Executives: impact, risk, timing

Managing directors of small and midsize businesses have little time and are responsible for the result. They want to know in a few sentences which problem is solved, what it costs, what it brings and what happens if it does not work. Technical details interest them insofar as they affect risk. Well suited are a one-page summary, a worked example of the benefit in euros and an honest description of the risks and how they are handled. How to express benefit in euros is described in the article expressing customer value in euros.

Buyers: comparability and justification

Buyers have to compare offers and justify their choice. They need clear information on scope of services, price components, terms, payment and delivery conditions and the supplier's reliability. Helpful are an overview that can be placed next to other offers, references from comparable businesses and information that fills in a supplier form without follow-up questions. For the personal question, anything that makes the choice justifiable to third parties helps.

Specialists: depth and honesty

Specialists check whether a solution holds up technically and improves their daily work. They read most thoroughly and spot exaggerations fastest. They need details, limits, prerequisites and practical examples. A specialist article that also says what the solution is not suitable for gains their trust. How to describe reference projects so that they convince specialists is shown in the article writing case studies.

One piece for everyone or one for each role: two views

The first view demands separate content for each role. Writing for everyone means writing for no one. A text that covers technology, costs and strategy at the same time becomes too long for the managing director, too shallow for the specialist and too unclear for the buyer. Each role has its own questions, so each role needs its own answers.

The second view considers this neither feasible nor necessary for small businesses. Writing separate content for four roles quadruples the effort. Besides, the roles do not read separately. The specialist forwards the article to the managing director, purchasing receives it with the proposal. More important than separate content, in this view, is content the specialist can pass on easily.

I consider a combination of both views correct. The core is worked out once and thoroughly, usually as a specialist article for the specialists, because they have the most questions. From it, two short versions are derived: a summary for the decider and an overview for purchasing. This gives the specialist what they need to pass it on. It matches the role that the article how business customers buy today assigns to the salesperson: enabling customers to make better decisions instead of just delivering information (Kalwey, Krafft, Lim and Mantrala 2025). Gron (2026) describes the same shift from the buyers' side: they search for information themselves, compare suppliers through digital channels and rely on the data they obtain. Content that can be passed on suits this behavior.

The specialist is rarely the decider but almost always the messenger. Give them something they are glad to pass on.

The role grid: one core piece, three versions

For practice, I suggest a grid that I call the role grid. For each topic, it defines which role is the main reader, which factual and which personal question is answered, and in what form and length.

1. Choose the topic from a customer question

   Topics come from sales. Every question customers ask repeatedly is a candidate.

2. Assign the roles

   Who asks this question first, who decides on the answer, who checks the terms?

3. Write the core piece for the main role

   Thoroughly, with limits and examples. This is where most of the work lies.

4. Derive two short versions

   For the decider, impact and risk; for purchasing, the comparable information. One page each.

5. Define the route

   Which version comes via the website, which does sales send after the first conversation, which accompanies the proposal?

How the question shelf assigns specialist articles to the stages of the buying process is described in the article B2B content marketing. The role grid adds the question of who reads within a stage. Whether a detailed downloadable document is worthwhile for a topic is answered in the article white papers and checklists.

What the effort brings

The extra effort for two short versions is small compared with the core piece. Anyone who has written a thorough specialist article knows all the figures and arguments that belong in the summary and the overview. The following worked example shows the distribution.

Where the return lies becomes visible in the buying process. A decision that stalls in the buying center because one role does not get its question answered is delayed or goes to the supplier who did answer it. Content that addresses a role's personal question, for example with an honest risk overview for the managing director, anticipates an objection that would otherwise never be voiced.

Scope and limits

The model by Webster and Wind is over fifty years old and still useful today because it captures a simple truth: organizations do not buy, people in organizations buy, with their own tasks and their own worries. Content that answers only the factual question overlooks half of what carries a decision. This is not a call for flattery. The personal question is best answered with honesty: with limits, risks and evidence that make a recommendation justifiable.

The limits of the statement are clear. Webster and Wind themselves stress that their general model does not describe any specific buying situation in detail and cannot be quantified. In small customer businesses, roles often coincide: the owner is decider, buyer and user at once. Then one well-structured version is enough. Which content each role actually reads has hardly been measured for small businesses. The assignments in this article are therefore assessments derived from the model. The easiest way to check them is in conversation: who read what before the decision was made?

How touchpoints across the whole customer journey and the participants in the buying committee are connected is described in the article the B2B customer journey, based on the model by Lemon and Verhoef (2016).

Conclusion: who wants to read what?

The guiding question was what content executives, buyers and specialists need in the buying process and how many versions make sense for a small business. The answer: executives want impact and risk in brief, buyers comparable information, specialists depth and honest limits. Each role also reads with a personal question about its own risk, which most content ignores. What makes sense is one thorough core piece, usually for the specialists, and derived from it one page each for the decider and purchasing. That way every role gets its answer without multiplying the effort.

• Choose the three topics on which sales receives the most questions.
• For each topic, note the main role and the roles involved.
• For the most important topic, check whether there is a summary for the decider.
• Create an overview for purchasing that can be placed next to other offers.
• In the next first conversation, ask who else is involved in the decision.
• After three orders, ask who read which documents.

The best answer to the question of who wants to read what is given by the customer, if you ask who else besides them will read.