Lots of people in the UK are watching video online (300 million hours per month*) and marketers know this represents a great opportunity to connect with potential consumers
They are of course right, people online are hungry for content or all sorts, its not just Hamsters shinning up lampposts on Youtube (65%**) or ‘Proper Telly’ from the BBC and commercial stations (3%**).
There is a significant amount (32%**) of video being watched which has been termed as ‘boutique’ video and this consists of professionally made short form content that appears on all sorts of sites and covers all sorts of topics....
from gardening to building, from behind the scenes at The Royal Opera House site to the enormously successful Make up tips on You Tube by Lauren Luke.
What binds these successes together?
GOOD CONTENT
The principles of good content hold true of any kind of production whether a talking head or a costume drama or even a game.
The excellent book Madison & Vine by Scott Donaton written in 2004 examined the relationship between brands and entertainment with particular reference to TV and movies. (Interesting at that time how the Internet while important had not taken over all talk about branded content)
In his book he isolates a number of principles with regard to content that hold true now for all content marketing whether high or low production values and however it's distributed.
He argues that good branded content is achieved through brand integration and this covers a number of different disciplines - Product Placement, Sponsorship and Advertiser Funded Programming. He is talking about films and TV but this applied even more to the new model of Internet viewing.
In effect he is saying don't just make a programme in your name, have your name everywhere and put your product in, he is saying make sure the brand fits or just don't do it. The viewer will find you out.
He quotes lots of excellent examples on the marriage (or irreconcilable differences) between brands and content but my favourite is about author Stephen King.
His books contain lots of brands. His characters guzzle cokes, drive Chevys, love Skippy peanut butter and large passages of his books are given over to brand interaction.
Donaton approached him at the National Book Awards where he was receiving a lifetime achievement award and asked him whether he purposely put brands into his books and he replied...
"It's not something I'm conscious of. The one thing I do know is that when you open your medicine cabinet at home you don't see Brand X"
I say this as I sit tapping away on my beloved Mac Book, looking at notes I made earlier on this post in my Moleskine notebook and gazing across the office at at least 20 brands that are part of my everyday life
So if brands are such a natural part of our lives, and we all have a selection of brands we adopt and love why is it so difficult to make compelling content that features brands?
Brands dont get the 'natural fit' principle - they are still too steeped in advertising principles and they have to learn to let go a little, to cede the 'control' that was so much a part of the traditional way of marketing and complete anathema to the new Internet powered principles of consumer powered interaction.
KPI's need to be adjusted to what a piece of entertainment can provide. It may well drive sales directly but is that really what you want it to do?
Do you not want it to engage, connect with consumers so that when they make their purchase decisions you are top of mind?
Ask yourself this before you invest in content in your brands name...
"Would this content exist if it wasn't for my brand?" or even more pertinently
"Should this content exist regardless of my brand's involvement?"
If the answer is yes then chances are you have the makings of good content if not you're probably about to make another advert.
*source:Comscore
**source:hitwise
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment