Two weeks ago in this space I wrote a column called
"Does Content Matter?" in which I expressed concern
over the business model of assembling deeply discounted targeted audiences, regardless of content environment, across a long-tail array of Web locations. My concerns are twofold: (1) that such a media
placement approach disregards the value that quality branded content brings to the advertiser -- the branding and environmental halo effects of that content, something we can conceptualize as vehicle
engagement; and (2) that such branded content is in fact the content of much of the rest of the Web. Which means that removing the financial incentive of providing differentiated original branded
quality content undermines Web entities like Twitter, for example, where much of the content that users find valuable is in fact retweets referencing interesting content found elsewhere.
I
got more responses to that column -- both in the comments section and directly via email -- than I have for anything I've written here in MediaPost. Clearly the topic hits a nerve. Check out the
comments (link above) -- 23 of 'em, some agreeing, some disagreeing, all lively.
Here's some of what I've heard.
My friend Steven Armour from Café Mom reminded me of some
work the Online Publishers Association has done on the topic. John Dietz of Adometry pointed me to the latest findings of the OPA's work, which are
here.Kevin Smith of Edmunds.com shared this anecdote with me: "I've
always remembered an interesting reader survey result shortly after we launched
Automobile Magazine in 1986. We were striving for a more graphically compelling and literate environment
compared to the typical car magazine of the time, and I was struck when many early readers noted how much better the ads were in our book. They were, of course, the exact same ads running in
Car
and Driver and
Road & Track, but something about the context made them seem better."
Several people mentioned the recent work that Scott McDonald of Conde Nast and Rebecca
McPheeters of McPheeters & Company presented at the ARF's re:think conference in April. This research ("Opportunities to Influence: Increasing Ad Impact in a Multi-Platform World") deals more with
cross-media comparisons of ad recall, and shows that individual ad recall online lags behind that for TV and magazines. However, the implication of these findings for online advertising is that
increasing allocated screen real estate should increase ad recall -- for example, page takeovers and commercials in full-screen online video. I believe that ultimately these types of creative
executions will reinforce the value of quality content sites, because the benefits of vehicle engagement will invariably lend themselves to ad engagement (and you'll have to work directly with the
publisher to take over the home page.)
Kathleen Ramirez from Fahlgren noted (and I'm editing her post to the comments section, you should read the whole thing): "It is important to
recognize that today's really good advertising is built on trust building content... Advertising has real power to start a discussion, but it's the opinions, friendships, tweets and connections of
people that will ultimately help complete a marketing journey." Nicely put.
There is also a flavor of a generational divide. Younger, new-media types -- people who have grown up
professionally in the digital age -- are more likely to express the opinion that, and I'm paraphrasing here, the media content business is much like the music business; consumers expect to get it on
demand and for free, and to believe otherwise is 20th century thinking. To which my response is, content has been free for almost 100 years, since the advent of radio. It is the sale of advertising
that enables free content, and thus meets the expectations of today's digital consumer. No question advertising has to adapt -- shout less, please more, deliver relevance -- but if content wants to be
free, advertising wants to make it so. The disintermediation of the provider of differentiated content in the buying and selling of advertising ends up providing the consumer with less content, less
free content, less quality content.
This has been a great conversation. I'm sure I'll come back to this topic again. In the meantime, what's on your mind?