Getting Useful Input From Subject Matter Experts

Subject matter experts make content credible. Engineers, product managers, customer success leads, founders and customers know things a writer cannot easily find anywhere else: the mistakes that actually happen, the trade-offs that only show up in practice, and the examples that make an article worth reading. The problem is that experts are busy, and vague requests such as "Can you review this article?" tend to produce slow, shallow feedback or none at all.

Subject matter expert interviews at a SaaS company work best when the writer does most of the work and the expert spends a small, focused amount of time adding what only they can add. This guide covers who to ask, how to prepare, how to phrase questions, which formats suit which experts, and how to turn raw input into content without burning goodwill.

Who counts as a subject matter expert

At a small SaaS company, expertise is spread across more people than you might expect. Founders know the market history, the reasons the product exists and the arguments they have had with customers. Product managers know why features work the way they do and which requests keep coming up. Engineers know how the system behaves under real conditions, where the limits are and what goes wrong during setup.

People in customer-facing roles are often the most underused experts. Sales leaders hear the objections and comparisons buyers make every week. Customer success managers see where customers get stuck after they buy and what separates accounts that thrive from accounts that churn. Customers themselves are experts in their own work, and their experience is often the most persuasive material you can include. Outside the company, industry practitioners such as consultants, analysts or experienced operators can add perspective your team lacks.

Choosing the right expert for a topic matters more than choosing the most senior one. A support lead who handles integration tickets every day will usually give better input on a troubleshooting guide than the chief technology officer.

Prepare before you ask

The most common reason expert input disappoints is that the writer arrives unprepared and the expert ends up explaining basics. Experts should add depth, not teach the fundamentals. Before contacting anyone, research the topic thoroughly: read the top-ranking articles, your own documentation and any internal notes, so you know what is already commonly said.

Then prepare four things. Know the topic and the goal of the piece, such as helping prospects evaluate whether they need a feature, or helping customers set something up. Know the target audience and their level of knowledge. Draft an outline that shows where the expert's input will go. And write specific questions aimed at the gaps in that outline.

The outline is especially useful because it shows the expert you have done the groundwork. It also helps you spot where generic content would otherwise fill space. Any section where you could only write what every other article already says is a section where expert input will make the biggest difference.

Ask specific questions

Broad questions produce broad answers. Compare these two:

What do you think about onboarding?

What is the most common reason customers get stuck in their first week?

The first invites a general opinion that may be hard to use. The second asks for a specific observation the expert has almost certainly formed, and the answer is likely to contain a concrete example.

Several question types reliably draw out useful material. Ask which mistakes the expert sees most often, because mistakes are specific and memorable. Ask what advice people commonly get wrong, which surfaces contrarian points competitors miss. Ask for a real example of a time something went well or badly. Ask what they would do differently if they were starting again, which tends to produce honest, practical lessons. And ask what trade-offs readers should know about, which adds nuance that makes content more trustworthy.

When an answer is interesting, follow it. "Can you walk me through what happened that time?" often produces the best paragraph in the article.

Choose the right format

Different experts and topics suit different formats, and offering a choice makes a yes more likely.

Live interviews

A live conversation, by video or phone, is best for stories and nuanced explanations. Experts often say things in conversation they would never write down, and follow-up questions let you dig into the interesting parts. Record the conversation with permission so you can listen rather than scramble to take notes, and keep it to the time you asked for.

Async questions

Some experts prefer to answer a short set of questions in writing, by email or chat. Three to five questions is the right size. More than that and answers get shorter as the list goes on. Async works well for people with unpredictable schedules or in different time zones, and the answers often arrive already close to quotable.

Voice notes

Voice notes sit between the two. The expert records answers whenever it suits them, such as during a commute, and you get the natural phrasing of conversation without coordinating calendars. Many experts find speaking much faster than writing, and the transcript gives you plenty to work with.

Comments on a draft

Sometimes the best approach is to write the draft first and ask the expert to comment on specific sections. This suits experts who find it easier to react than to generate, and topics where you already have most of the material. The key is to point them at particular sections rather than the whole document.

Keep requests short

Ask for 15 to 30 minutes, or a handful of focused questions. A short, specific request is easy to accept and easy to schedule. A request for "an hour to go through the topic" competes with everything else on an expert's calendar and often gets pushed back for weeks.

State the time commitment up front and stick to it. If a 20-minute call runs long because the expert is enjoying it, that is fine, but let them decide. Experts who find the process respectful are much more willing to help again.

Turn input into content

Raw input needs work before it becomes useful content. Start by transcribing recordings, either manually or with a transcription tool, so you can search and quote accurately. Then read through and highlight the key insights: specific claims, examples, numbers the expert is confident about from their own experience, and opinions that differ from the common view.

Preserve meaningful quotes, but use them sparingly and where they add authority or personality. A strong quote about a specific mistake is more valuable than several quotes restating general points. Add context around the expert's examples so readers understand them, since experts often skip steps that seem obvious to them.

Be careful not to dilute what made the input valuable. Writers sometimes smooth an expert's sharp, specific point into a generic sentence because it fits the article's tone better. Keep the specificity.

A focused review process

When the draft is ready, ask the expert to review only what they contributed: technical accuracy, their quotes and the examples drawn from their experience. Highlight those sections so they can find them quickly. This respects their time and makes it more likely they will review promptly.

Avoid sending full drafts for broad feedback unless there is a real reason to. A full draft invites comments on style and structure that may conflict with your editorial direction, and it turns a 10-minute review into an hour. If an expert pushes back on an accuracy point, take it seriously. Their name may be attached to the piece, and they are usually right about their own field.

Give credit

Credit experts visibly. Options include an author or co-author byline for substantial contributions, named quotes within the piece and a contributor note at the end. Ask how they prefer to be credited, since some people want their name prominently featured and others would rather stay in the background.

Recognition matters because it makes future participation more likely. When an engineer sees their name on a well-read article and gets a few messages from peers about it, they are more willing to help next time. Credit also strengthens the content itself, because named, relevant expertise makes an article more trustworthy to readers.

Build an SME program

Once a few interviews have gone well, make the process repeatable. Keep a simple list of experts and the topics each one knows best. Schedule regular, short interviews, such as one conversation every couple of weeks, rather than chasing people only when a deadline is close. And share every published piece with the people who contributed, along with any notable responses it gets.

A program turns expert input from a favor into a normal part of how content is made. It also spreads the load, so the same two people are not asked for help on every article.

Common mistakes

The mistakes that undermine expert input tend to repeat. Vague questions produce vague answers. Requests for too much time get delayed or declined. Unprepared drafts waste expert time on basics. Failing to credit contributors makes them less willing to help again. And ignoring expert feedback on accuracy damages both the content and the relationship.

A worked example (illustrative)

A content marketer at a SaaS security company needed an article on preparing for a SOC 2 audit. Their first attempt was a 30-minute meeting with the head of engineering, titled simply "SOC 2 article." The conversation wandered, the engineer offered general comments, and the marketer came away with nothing specific enough to use.

The second attempt was structured differently. The marketer first read existing articles on the topic and drafted an outline covering the common steps. Then they sent five specific questions in advance: what took longest during the company's own audit and why, what the team did in the first month that it would do differently, which controls caused the most back-and-forth with auditors, what customers most often misunderstand about SOC 2, and which tool or document the engineer wished the team had from the start.

The conversation was a 20-minute recorded call focused only on those questions. Afterward, the marketer asked the engineer to check three highlighted sections for accuracy rather than reviewing the whole piece. The finished article included specific lessons, such as which evidence took longest to collect and a document template the team had built, that no competing article contained. The engineer spent under an hour in total and was credited as a contributor.

A reusable request template

A short, specific request does most of the work of getting a yes:

Hi [Name], I'm writing about [topic] for [audience]. I've done the background research and have an outline. Could you spare 20 minutes for five questions about your own experience? I'll send the questions ahead and only ask you to review the sections where you're quoted.

The takeaway

Expert input turns generic content into credible content that reflects real experience. Do the research yourself, ask a few specific questions, offer a format that suits the expert, keep the time commitment small, review only what they contributed and credit them clearly. Specific, time-boxed requests get faster yeses and far better answers.