Content pollution: Is your brand guilty?

I feel you have blurred the lines between branded content and advertising. V/Line Guilt Trips was an advertising campaign with both above the line and digital component, this does not make it “Content”. There was nothing to read, nothing to watch. It was an advertising campaign to create awareness of a product.

So what the article is saying is that audiences will engage in good content and won’t engage in shit content? Revolutionary stuff there!

I loved the premise of this article and it started so well — calling out the BS content drivel that is called “content marketing” these days — listicles, eBooks that nobody would read even if you paid them to do so, podcasts nobody listens to, “social newsrooms” nobody reads, the list goes on.

But it kind of failed to deliver. Your B2C examples are ad campaigns, not really “content” campaigns. Yes, the line blurs. But a 30sec TV spot or billboard / OOH ad is not “content marketing” in the sense that you describe marketers/advertisers as “polluting”: they’re ad campaigns.

I don’t really even understand the second last paragraph. I’m confused by all the buzzwords crammed into such a small space, and it doesn’t really seem to link back to your message of encouraging a “breath of fresh air”, unless the intent was to be ironic.

Love the idea. And it’s so hugely valid. Yet I almost feel like this piece is meta in itself – is it valuable? Or is it pollution?

Is this article saying much more than “good content is good, bad content is bad?”

Mumbrella – these self-promotion, substance-lacking, buzzword articles are diluting my reader experience of your website.

Yes, Karen, ‘content can take many forms’. Your content? Incomprehensible.

Burp…

Yep content can be awful and compelling. What’s new? I tell ya’s something that is getting on my nerves…..: Corporate fcktards polluting Linkedin with total drivel. I use Linkedin a lot (not to find work, nor to recruit), to network.

Somebody on Monday posted a list of time management techniques with the hashtag #tgim and then spelled out his fcktard hashtag, which means ‘Thank God it’s Monday’ (just in case you hadn’t guessed); true ‘nob end’ behavior to the max. Some people, quite frankly need to get a life. I am going to post #tgio soon. Oh sorry that is ‘Thank God it’s Oxygen’, because that thief probably needs to be reminded how to breathe.

Should personality tests be carried out before somebody is let loose on a companies communications asset’s? A little EQ should enable a company to ensure that it drips out quality v fodder? Empower the self aware crew and play to your strengths and all that…

“I feel you have blurred the lines between branded content and advertising.”

There is no line.

Back to year five maths – all these buzz words are subsets of the single set. It is all advertising.

And when your audiences catch you out, they’ll be pissed off at both the medium and the message.

I loosely agree with the premise of this article but fear Karen’s understanding of content marketing is inaccurate. The question of good content is obvious. Bad content is more difficult it understand, and pick apart. Content marketing often falls into the PR basket because it features one or more fundamental PR principles but the ‘launch and leave it approach’ is no longer valid in a modern framework of digital/social media marketing, which work so hard to promote two-way interaction. Content marketing is about what happens to content once launched. Yes, absolutely data is relevant to selecting the narratives to pick out, presentation of the story is critical to audience, and brand message integration is massively relevant but these considerations are not exclusive, and massively relevant to other forms of marketing disciplines such as the examples given. Content marketing involves creation, production, distribution, and what happens with that content once launched. I can’t escape the feeling content marketing should be a method of bringing a brand and its audience closer together through a cycle of collaborative, utilitarian and value-add conversations.

@Bec

Yes. Thank you for the lesson. Of course it is all advertising but in this case I referring to the concept of “Branded Content” such as newsrooms being a slight deviation from “Traditional Advertising” and the examples mention fell more into the “Traditional Advertising” area.

But thank you for your particularly aggressive comment.

“Branded content,” “Newsroom”

Mutually exclusive zones.

Yes, yes, many of yas salivate trying to overlap them, but the only reason “newsroom” holds any value is because it’s meant to be “branded content” free. That’s it’s inherent value to the audience.

Once your audience realises it isn’t – poof. Off they go.

You’re arguing the best way to kill of off a trusted messenger. Fuck me.

@Bec – i think you are making the mistake of thinking that John and Janette middle Australia are as worldly and cynical as you. They aren’t. This is why Brandpower still exists and makes a dollar blurring editorial with advertising. Inner-city latte sippers will do exactly as you say – but they’re a niche market for most consumer goods. The bulk of ‘straya will be suitably sucked in.

Karen, can you please tell us which industries, in your opinion, are the biggest content polluters? Thanks

Wow! So many ridiculous comments! Have you not noticed that this is just her opinion on content pollution! Unfortunately social media and the like allow narrow minded morons to say or state stupid comments they probably wouldn’t say to someone’s face. Content Digester, you really need to get off Linked In if it gets on your nerves (lol, really it’s on,y Linked In)!!

Get a life and stop being highly critical dip shits.

And no, I don’t know Karen.