Companies Realizing That Content Is Advertising Via Web Series

from the well,-it's-a-start dept

The NY Times has an article about the rise of online "web series" shows that are suddenly popular, noting that many brands are creating such things as a way to produce interesting content online while getting some attention for their brand. It's yet another realization that advertising is content and content is advertising. The key point, that many say they realize (and hopefully they live up to it) is that none of this works if the content itself sucks. So they're working on these shows with a focus on making them good and enjoyable to watch first, and including the sponsorship as a secondary part of the effort. I'm sure there may be some backlash over this idea, but it actually makes quite a lot of sense. It gets more good content out there, and helps brands get themselves noticed and remembered not for intrusive and annoying advertising, but for sponsoring something cool.

12 Comments | Leave a Comment..

With Viral Media, It's The People Passing The Links Whose Brand Is At Stake

from the important-to-think-about dept

There's obviously been a big push by companies these days to embrace "viral media" that gets passed around. There's lots of talk about the value of "passed links" or "earned links" within marketing and ad agencies. The idea is that if a friend passes along links to content, that content gets taken a lot more seriously than if it's pushed out there by a brand. But, still, some of these agencies don't quite realize what's at stake. Tim O'Reilly points us to an interesting discussion on this topic by Mike Walsh, where he notes that marketers seem to forget whose brand is at stake when it comes to passing around links. They are, of course, focused on the company who is their client (or employer), but ignore that it's actually the person doing the passing:

Stunning art direction is useless if no one actually watches your ad. In a world of audience networks, people will only forward your content to their friends and followers if it makes them look smarter or cooler by doing so. Their brand, not yours is at stake. You would be surprised how few marketers take that into account and are left wondering when their viral campaigns are socially vaccinated before they get off the ground.

This works in other ways as well. We often write about the fact that advertising is content and content is advertising, such that smart advertising these days is good content. So, we're always interested in awesome examples of this in practice. Yet, we recently received a submission for a video, sent via a marketing agency's IP address, pointing to a cool YouTube video. The video itself was, in fact, cool and has been getting sent around a lot lately. But, the video was actually an ad. At the very end, a brand pops up. I don't mind this at all, because it fits with the recognition that content is advertising. If the marketing agency had sent it in making that point, I might have been interested in posting it. Instead, the marketing agency pretended to be some random guy (hint: we can check your IP address!) who had "just found this totally cool video." It was so transparently fake that it turned me off from the whole campaign (and that particular marketing firm). Passing on links is a reputation play -- and while it can do good for some people, if you're just out there faking it, it can do a lot of harm as well.

2 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Is Hulu 'The Greatest Destruction of Media Value In Our Lifetime'?

from the that's-one-way-to-look-at-it dept

Hulu, the online video site that has content from most of the major networks, has largely been an early success. While it's thrown up some barriers to users, it's done a decent job of putting attractive content in an easily accessible format, and users have flocked to it. Still, we've wondered if the site will be able to survive in the long run because of the demands of its content providers, which seem to be behind its user-unfriendly moves. To get a glimpse of the thinking that drives these actions, check out a piece over on Paidcontent called Memo To Networks Re Hulu: You're Making A Big Mistake, written by a former TV development exec. He says that giving users what they want -- in the form of Hulu -- isn't a good idea because it undermines the TV networks' brands. He uses the example of NBC, saying its value isn't its programming, but rather "the more than 70 years that it has taken the network to create expectations for generation... The years that it has taken the network to train consumers to expect a level of quality that can't be matched."

Wow. We've talked a lot before about how media companies overvalue their content and don't realize the importance of the services that distribute it, but completely ignoring the value of the content in favor of a TV network brand seems only slightly ridiculous. The guy is right in that network brands don't have any meaning any more, but it's not Hulu that did this. It was because the networks failed to keep up with changing viewer preferences and demands, and responded to the rise of the DVR and other new technologies with attempts to set up obstacles, rather than innovation. Viewers' loyalties now lie with individual shows, and the channel upon which they're transmitted is meaningless. The strong brands are the shows, not the networks. People simply set their DVR to catch all the programs, or they go to Hulu, ignoring the network. Even people who watch their TV the old-fashioned way don't have much awareness or interest in the network brands, beyond the evening newscasts (maybe). The former exec's advice for networks is to keep their shows locked up on their own sites so they can "stand by their brand." But where does the brand ever deliver the value that he thinks they have? Sure, the networks can try to prop up their brands by making things more difficult for their audience online -- but they've tried that strategy, and it hasn't worked. So perhaps opening up access to their content, and getting themselves (and their brands) out of the way, is a better way forward.

Carlo Longino is an expert at the Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Carlo Longino and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

32 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Advertising: The Revolution Won't Be Through Friend Requests

from the skip-this-step dept

Yesterday Facebook announced its long-awaited advertising program. This was inevitable: if you're going to justify a valuation just shy of Iceland's GDP, you've got to eventually propose a means of generating revenue. Facebook will no doubt earn quite a bit of money at the ad game. But the initiatives disclosed yesterday are likely to be a mixed bag — and not at all as innovative as founder Mark Zuckerberg would have you to believe.

The most straightforward of the new offerings is Facebook's contextual advertising system. Drawing on the vast amounts of data provided by its users and supplying metrics and query capabilities will no doubt prove to be lucrative. Much has been made of Facebook's particularly rich user data — perhaps too much. Although that data is likely to be better structured and therefore easier to leverage, it's not obvious that Facebook will be able to target ads to its users more precisely than, say, Google does within Gmail. Still, it's hard to imagine these ads being anything less than a huge financial success.

The same can't be said for Facebook Pages, which will provide brands with profiles on Facebook. Facebook has already tried this approach with Wal-Mart, and the results were disastrous. Not only did the nominally back-to-school-oriented page fill up with complaints about the retailer's business practices, but — perhaps more tellingly — many users attacked Wal-Mart and Facebook for bringing corporate shilling to their beloved social network. MySpace's brand profiles have met with a similarly lackluster response: An Inconvenient Truth's MySpace page was something of a marketing coup, but once the novelty wore off the practice failed to produce anything of significance. Although other companies will attract less ire than Wal-Mart, it's hard to imagine users being any more keen to engage with them (except, perhaps, for already-elite brands like Apple or Nike).

The final and most interesting prong of Facebook's strategy is Beacon, a system that will allow partner sites to post users' actions back to Facebook. Having your Amazon purchases or Netflix selections displayed in your mini-feed are the sorts of applications that are being hyped. As you might imagine, Beacon carries privacy concerns, as well as worries that the move will result in a further dilution of Facebook's already annoyingly low signal:noise ratio.

But to my mind the biggest unknown is whether the new data will be considered meaningful by consumers. There's no question that endorsement of a product by a peer is the most effective form of advertising available. Beacon is built with the hope that there are many marginal cases in which users would be willing to recommend the products they're consuming, but can't be bothered to take deliberate action to do so. But does purchasing a product necessarily mean a user wants to endorse it? Or do consumers prefer to curate their public purchases, picking and choosing the brands that they want to use to define their online identity?

It's not clear what the answer is, but I think there's reason to be skeptical of any initiative that attempts to automate individual peer recommendation. After all, genuine human enthusiasm is the sole reason why such recommendations are so effective.

Tom Lee is an expert at the Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Tom Lee and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

9 Comments | Leave a Comment..