Let’s talk about the content gap honestly:
You: 85 posts
Competitor: 300+ posts
That’s a 3.5x content depth disadvantage.
What this means:
Topical authority requires COMPREHENSIVE coverage. If competitor has covered your topic from 300 angles and you’ve covered 85, AI and search engines see them as more comprehensive.
The content depth calculation:
| Topic | Your Coverage | Competitor | Gap |
|---|
| Core topic | 40 posts | 150 posts | -110 |
| Related topics | 30 posts | 100 posts | -70 |
| Adjacent topics | 15 posts | 50 posts | -35 |
How to close the gap:
- Audit their content - What topics have they covered that you haven’t?
- Identify clusters - Group topics into content hubs
- Prioritize by impact - Cover highest-value gaps first
- Increase velocity - Publish 2-3x more while maintaining quality
Timeline to catch up:
At 4 posts/week vs their 2/week, you’d close the gap in ~3 years.
The alternative:
Don’t try to match volume. Win on QUALITY and ORIGINALITY instead.
One original research report = 50 generic posts for authority.