Content Is Advertising, Advertising Is Content: Media Company Buys Ad Firm That Makes Good Content

from the that's-how-it-works dept

There’s an interesting Technology Review article about a new YouTube video campaign called ThinkR, which is trying to create videos of smart people talking about interesting things (think sort of TED-like, but a little flashier. and at least of the ones I’ve seen, with less substance). However, the Tech Review article highlights the oddity of an ad firm owned by a media firm making interesting content:

Here’s how Radical Media describes its “entertainment” division:

AS THE LINE BETWEEN advertising and entertainment blurs, our Entertainment division is a solution to a changing media landscape. In conjunction with our Design + Digital Group and Integrated Marketing team, we work closely with our agency, network, and brand partners to integrate their visions into the DNA of the content we create.

In addition to films and music videos, Radical Media also makes television commercials and, well, “transmedia.”

Here’s where it gets really confusing: While Radical Media is essentially an advertising firm, it was purchased in 2010 by the RTL Group, which owns 46 television channels and 9 radio stations and is Europe’s largest mass media company. In other words, a media company owns an advertising firm that moonlights as a media company. Huzzah!

It goes on to note that some of their videos… have advertisements before them, and it’s possible that “Radical Media produced both the “advertisement” and the “content”!” Of course, I’m not so sure why or if that’s all that surprising. As we’ve been pointing out for years, it’s not just that advertising is content, but that content is advertising as well. Good content always advertises something. Bad content doesn’t advertise anything, even if it’s designed as an “advertisement.”

Having an “ad agency” that knows how to make good content, first and foremost, is a lot more important than having a firm that knows how to make a “good advertisement.” If you can make good content, you can figure out how it advertises something and act accordingly. If you’re just focused on making a good advertisement, you’ll often make bad content. So I actually think it’s a good thing that ad companies and media companies are focusing on content first. I recognize the risk that many people worry about: that this makes “content” into something that’s more “advertorial,” but that’s not what we’re discussing here. It’s the exact opposite. Purely “advertorial” content isn’t good content. It’s deceptive and annoying. When the mix of content and advertising works, it’s because people want the content and actively seek it out (think Old Spice Man) rather than “hiding” an ad in the content — which is more likely to turn people off.

Somehow, these two ideas too often get conflated. But if everyone’s focused on creating good content first and foremost, that seems like a good thing — even if that content comes from “an advertising” firm.

Filed Under: , , ,
Companies: radical media

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Content Is Advertising, Advertising Is Content: Media Company Buys Ad Firm That Makes Good Content”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
LibreMan says:

Well, I very much disagree with the assessment that it’s not that bad to have content and advertisement intertwined and molded together. It’s even more deceptive than the direct ads because you can not separate the two – content BECOMES advertisement.

As the techniques progress people do not even realize they’re being targeted. This is VERY bad in my opinion.

I do not like the concept of advertisement in general. Why do we have to go in a roundabout way of paying for content by paying for products and then having those sellers pay for our content by ads? Why can’t we pay for quality content directly? Why do we keep paying for our own brainwashing?

I think it is symptomatic of immaturity and lack of responsibility of the society if we need to do this.

You may say that some adverts are useful because they offer you relevant information or something you probably want anyway but that’s not the case because if it is useful to you it’s a service NOT advertisement. Advertisement masquerading as a service is not a service. If it’s primary purpose is not to help you find what you want without bias towards most paying sellers, it’s no good.

Why wouldn’t I pay for a service that helps me find what I want? It’s again symptomatic of the lack of responsibility if we need to do it in the way of advertisements … this is not a good situation, and having adverts as content is even worse – we’re moving in the wrong direction. We should be moving away for adverts and towards responsibly paying for what we like and want in a direct way without middleman that distorts what we get.

Niall (profile) says:

Re: Re:

First of all, because it saves a lot of people who can’t afford to buy content from having to spend silly money. Look how many people can’t afford DVD box sets.

Secondly, because advertising does actually serve a purpose for most people. No matter how many useless or annoying ads you see, some ads will be interesting, relevant or entertaining – or hopefully all three! The trick is to improve the ratio of good:bad. I know that there are many things I have found out about, bought or become interested in from ads, and so I know that they can have a value. Obviously that value declines when they are intrusive/annoying(auto-video clips anyone?) but you can’t write them all off as they are a workable model.

On the flip side of this, ads as entertainment has a long tradition. Look at the effort going into Superbowl ads, or some of the really funny ones from the past. We get ads that become a mini-series, such as the Gold Blend ads with Anthony Stewart Head (pre-Buffy) in the UK, or our current Meerkat ads that have been so popular that they have spawned their own product line.

There is also the creativity that the entertainment element provides. For all that I hate smoking, cigarette companies have had fantastic ads. In the old days, Hamlet had some really good ads, and later when they couldn’t depict cigarettes, Silk Cut did some really good plays on their name – simple but powerful.

Ads are a genre like any other, and they can serve as entertainment. If it is done carefully and tactfully, I don’t see any reason why it can’t be done the other way, using entertainment to advertise products or services. (“Ooo, Chloe in Smallville is using an Alienware, looks tasty I want one!” for example.)

If nothing else, a clever advertiser (with a good brand) could even promote their product/service without mentioning it. For example, mentioning on screen that X character can do/buy Y might lead people to for Y and discover brand Z.

John Fenderson (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

If nothing else, a clever advertiser (with a good brand) could even promote their product/service without mentioning it.

To me, this is the epitome of objectionable advertising. If an ad isn’t giving me useful information about the product, it’s not an ad, it’s propaganda. If an ad doesn’t mention the product at all, then it can’t be giving me any useful information about it.

John Fenderson (profile) says:

Re: Re:

I do not like the concept of advertisement in general.

I despise modern marketing & advertising, and it’s only been getting worse over the years. I go to great pains to avoid it. That said, I have no problem with the concept of advertising.

If ads did what they should do (tell me that a product exists and give me the facts about the product), I would have no problem with them at all. But they don’t.

What I hear you objecting to is not the concept of advertising, but the way advertising is done today. I agree with your characterization of it as “brainwashing”. Advertising today is not about informing me of products, it’s about making me feel a certain way about products. And they do this by intentionally trying to bypass my brain, by giving me few actual facts (and what facts are given are lies or highly misleading).

In short, it’s propaganda.

So I find myself agreeing with Mike in that there’s nothing wrong with good advertising and at the same time agreeing with you (and disagreeing with Mike) that his idea of good advertising is precisely the type of advertising that I consider harmful.

And the trolls around here say that we don’t do nuance!

Anonymous Coward says:

If all advertising became entertainment, we would be back in the same problem as always: attention span. Humans can only do so much, they can only see so much, they can only re-tweet and repost so much.

Right now the “special” ads get a special place because, well, they are special. But if all ads were equally special, would they not just fade into the background again, unable to reach a truly viral level?

Also, what about the tuneout factor? If all of the ads are “special” will there be a point where people will stop paying attention, looking for the next big thing? Ask the guys who run MySpace what happens when you are suddenly everywhere… the next stop is apparently nowhere.

Niall (profile) says:

Re: Re:

MySpace’s problem wasn’t that it was everywhere, it was that it failed to have enough for enough people, and that it failed to keep and maintain enough perceived value amongst the public. I know, as someone in my late 30s when it was big, and not that bothered about music, that it really had nothing to interest me, whereas Facebook had more people, more simplicity, and a less throwback-to-early-webpages look/feel. And the less said about Bebo the better…

Even if these things are ubiquitous, some will stand out due to word of mouth, better (cross-)promotion, or just sheer better quality. It’s the same as any other ‘entertainment/educational’ thing vying for our limited attention and dollars. There are millions of blogs out there and I can only read a fraction of them, so to keep my attention they have to provide me with something – even if it is just amusement value for the trolling/stupidity.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Older Stuff
16:10 David Braben, Once Angry At Used Games, Now A New Business Model Embracer (33)
18:40 Artists Embracing, Rather Than Fighting, BitTorrent Seeing Amazing Results (10)
15:41 Vodo's Big Brother Bundle Shows How Bundles Can Improve The 'Pay What You Want' Concept (12)
23:06 Price Elasticity Can Work: Dropping Ebook Price To $1 Catapulted Year-Old Book Onto NYT Best Seller List (58)
16:03 The Good And Bad In Chaotic eBook Pricing (35)
05:18 Game Creator Finds That Knockoffs Can't Match His Awesome Game (33)
23:09 The Value Of Kickstarter: Connecting With Fans On-The-Fly (18)
10:02 Massive Growth In Independent Musicians & Singers Over The Past Decade (101)
23:54 Cool New Platform For Supporting Artists: Patreon, From Jack Conte (23)
05:46 A New Hope: How Going Free To Play Brought Redemption To Star Wars MMO (48)
11:16 There Is No Logic To The Argument That Zach Braff Shouldn't Use Kickstarter (105)
06:00 When Startups Need More Lawyers Than Employees, The Patent System Isn't Working (55)
03:14 Hitchhiker's Fan-Site Started By Douglas Adams Shows Why Authors Shouldn't Panic Over Derivative Works (27)
09:21 Patents As Weapons: How 1-800-CONTACTS Is Using The Patent System To Kill An Innovative Startup (54)
07:19 How EA's 'Silent Treatment' Pushed The SimCity Story Into The Background (55)
13:30 Deftones Guitarist: People Who Download Our Music Are Fans, They're Welcome To Do So (29)
13:10 Macklemore Explains Why Not Being On A Label Helped Him Succeed (29)
03:45 Successful Self-Published Ebook Authors Sells Print & Movie Rights For $1 Million, But Keeps Digital Rights To Himself (43)
11:53 Musician Alex Day Explains How He Beat Justin Timberlake In The Charts Basically Just Via YouTube (52)
00:09 Publishers Show Yet Again How To Make Money By Reducing The Price To Zero (42)
20:13 Flattr Makes It Easier Than Ever To Support Content Creators Just By Favoriting Tweets (61)
16:03 Case Study: Band Embraces Grooveshark And Catapults Its Career (21)
19:39 Amanda Palmer On The True Nature Of Connecting With Fans: It's About Trust (131)
16:03 Kickstarter-Funded Movie Wins Oscar For Best Documentary (89)
13:41 It's Fine For The Rich & Famous To Use Kickstarter; Bjork's Project Failed Because It Was Lame (20)
17:34 Connecting With Fans In Unique Ways: Band Sets Up Treasure Hunt To Find Fan-Submitted Sounds In New Album (10)
07:27 Just As Many Musicians Say File Sharing Helps Them As Those Who Say It Hurts (131)
20:00 Skateboard Legend Stacy Peralta Demonstrates His Latest Trick: Cashing In By Going Direct-To-Fan (13)
23:58 Wallet Maker Shows Everyone How To Make Their Own Awesome Wallet (16)
11:27 $274 Million Raised Via Kickstarter In 2012 (8)
More arrow