Sean Cummins: ‘Branded content bothers me, since when did we need to disguise advertising’

Love the headline…. completely agree.

Content marketing in a way that you trick the reader. How disappointing when you find out its a brand trying change your perception with a skewed article, video, audio, etc ?

Ps. Just look at Fox News in the US trying to sell guns on behalf of the National Rifle Association. Its so blatantly biased the reporting that no person with a half a brain would watch (maybe for comedy relief) or trust it.

You always did have a way with words Sean! Totally agree .. and love your observations.

Nail on the head, Sean!

I guess I’d argue that people like H Gossard, D Ogilvy and B Bernbach were the pioneers of brand content – ie drawing attention to brands by being the stuff people are interested in (aka creativity). Guinness Guide to Oysters is a great example.
Was it content? Yes.
Was it advertising? Yes
Was it brilliant creative? Yes
Was it interactive? A million posters and tea-towels sold says Yes.
The idea of brand content is not wrong or even opposite to advertising – they are one and the same, they just operate in different ways – one is (slightly) less dependent on paid distribution.
A lot of the ‘content’ rhetoric is questionable, I would agree.
However a cursory glance at the comment threads in these pages would also confirm that there’s a lot of advertising people who’s knowledge of how their own industry actually works is less than optimal. (Sturgeon’s Revelation, I know)
Should add that, yes, it’s this ‘content’ part of the industry I’m working in so I’m bound to defend it but I’d also argue that we’d be better served if our top creative people looked at this emerging (since 1950 or so) discipline as an opportunity or vehicle for creativity.
If anything, content has to work a little bit harder, it needs a bit more consumer attention to do its work.
Whereas lot of advertising can work with little or no attention (or even creativity) if enough money is stuck behind it.
We need to have this conversation, though.

Content is just a con.

It’s the new ‘conversations’ bullshit we had 5 years ago repackaged and resold.

Very sound words. Although out of interest how would the Andre Agassi and Novak Djokovic pieces be defined?

oh, noessssss! Brandpower TVCs focus on the product? What a mortal sin! Let’s have some far-fetched allegories and metaphors indeed. Let’s make sure the TVC looks like some kiddie effort from AFTRS.And let’s be sure to conceal to branding and product benefits while we’re at it! Wankers.

Saw him.

Great..Great content unbelievable performance.

Content marketing is 115 years old – where do people think Michelin Guide/Michelin Stars came from?

Brilliant view.
I would suggest however,that disguised advertising (product placement, infovertisments et al) is part of the marketing arsenal. Is it a good thing? Is marketing tobacco or junk food to children surreptitiously OK? Is marketing high sugar soft drinks as a sexy product placement in a vidoe game played by people with diabetes OK? Is marketing a car as being eco friendly in a sponsorship deal (prize) when the car is actually eco unfriendly OK? All are disguised.

Isn’t this article branded content? Arent we reading editorial content that subtly sells Sean Cummings and co as industry players? Sean appears to be talking short films here and has a point.
Problem is that 2 minute films are out of the skill level of most advertisng creatives, or any creatives — Just look at the crap at the Trop. Plus, having experienced clients picking over every nuance in a 30 sec spot, it’s not hard to imagine the approval hell of getting 2-4 minutes, if you do pull off a good script. And first you’ve got to get it through the CD and accounts people. (Try even presenting a 2 minute script)
I know that branded content makes sense but is realistically, it’s wishfull thinking.
But wishfull thinking is a perfect description of what we do as a creatives.
Discliamer. I’ve just written a 4-minute content short. Wish me luck.

All marketing involves content; even a logo on a sleeve. Some of it is boring and irrelevant. I think that’s the kind that Sean is boldly criticising. In these ‘but our audience is on Snapchat and Instagram’ days, you’ve got to make all sorts of great content to win the game.

@Eaon

Re-read what Sean said, especially this bit, ““I think the role of advertising is to not blend into the medium it is put in.”

The Guinness Guide to Oysters is very clear that it’s created by Guinness.

An article reviewing the Top 5 Lipsticks This Spring that was funded by Revlon and only features Revlon products is very different. And you know it.

@qt3.14

You’re right … to an extent.

A top 5 lipsticks that only showcases Revlon lipsticks is pretty obviously overtly branded content funded by the marketer.

But let’s go to less mainstream content (which is what I took Sean to be alluding to). Let’s look at beauty Bloggers. Most large beauty brands pay beauty bloggers to promote their brands & products, which is branded content. BUT how many women really do believe the Blogger when she says that [insert product name here] has changed her life and everyone should go out and buy it now? The majority of them.

I really don’t think the branded content issue is as black & white as it first appears.

@qt3.14 Not disagreeing with you there. I’ll argue for creativity, standing out and clear branding and against subterfuge all day long.

@q3.14 @Eaon

The Guinness example is a poor one, since the Guinness Book of Records has long diverted from its association with the Guinness brand. Most people don’t even know that the two are linked, so how is that helpful to Guinness the company?

That said, I disagree with Cummins position. It’s dated and fails to take in the big picture. Branded content is here to stay for a couple of reasons.

1. The rise and rise of AdBlock is proof that the consumer hates the current bombardment of display and PPC digital advertising. If they preferred it, Ad Block wouldn’t be used. Another form of advertising needs to be present (enter branded content).

2, Times are changing and studies show the new Millennial audience don’t mind branded content. A UK study this year – “6 out of 10 Millennials will engage with branded content.” So the fear that the consumer is being “deceived” is bunk. They know what it is and they don’t care.

3. Perhaps most importantly, the publishers themselves want branded content to stay because it makes them money where all other streams of their revenue are falling. Again Ad Block is having a huge affect on their bottom line and until Ad Block learns how to block native content, publishers will embrace the technique.

This is the new era and those that just complain will get left behind very quickly.

If we take the example of “Mammamia” recaps or any Fairfax ‘recaps’ and pieces commercially tied to the programs they are ‘recapping’ on or discussing then yes – there is a murky and grey line between what the public is being fed – THIS IS PAID FOR – NO QUESTION ABOUT IT and very little way in the way of a disclaimer and the public would find it hard to discern it… totally agree… …. But if we take emotive and engaging pieces clearly paid for by XXXX company that is more about engagement rather than hidden selling then we are comparing apples and pears…. Its quite obvious if you put a sports star within a compelling piece of work they haven’t forked out for it themselves!… To all the naysayers – I imagine you work in a very traditionally led agency…. This is a bit like the Taxi Vs Uber fight…. its a bit silly… Completely agree nothing should ever be hidden but to suggest content isn’t the way forward is to say video didn’t killed the radio star….. We are on the frontier of a beautiful age of advertising… Where we have the opportunity to take the consumer on a journey through content that is fun, engaging, playful and ultimately drives to sale (which is why we are ultimately employed)…. Whether they choose or not to buy…..Wonderfully – its still measurable. Our social feeds and viewing platforms are the new frontier of being ‘invited into our lounge-rooms’ … No one has the science nor the formula right yet and this is the pure excitement of the space…. 20 years ago it was a question of ‘how do you enter this space without being intrusive nor unwelcome’ and today we have Instagram, Facebook, snapchat, tinder, Vine, Youtube the list goes on….. So the question TODAY – is how do we politely interrupt these channels in an engaging way without being unwelcome…. I find it a highly exciting time to be in the position we are and If you want to hold onto the old taxi model,…. well the very best of luck… Content isn’t a fad and to think as much would be to be remiss of where our capability around interconnectivity is heading…. So bored of the old volvo drivers!…

No argument. At all.

I disagree. Mr Cummins is conflating “branded content”, “native content” and “digital video”. Ethically, he is welcome to take the position that editorial and advertising should never converge — sure. That’s his opinion.

But to argue that brands or their agencies shouldn’t create content – i.e. marketing assets, that don’t feel like persuation-based ads; in unconventional formats… I can’t agree, based on the evidence.

Old Spice anybody? Macy’s Day Parade anybody? Whopper Sacrifice? Pepsi Superbowl Half Time Show? Levis Commuter Space. I can think of a hundred potent examples.

Mr Cummins position that “consumers don’t mind being sold to” is naive, in my opinion.

Branded content is lying. You know it’s lying. You’ve written essays to justify the lying.

When the audience discovers they’ve been deceived they’ll be rightly pissed and ad folk will fall another notch in least trusted professions (along with the revenue desperate media orgs branded content is inflicted on).

That stirred them up, Sean. I believe you’re correct. Well done.
Robbo.
Alan Robertson
Kinesis Media.

Yes! thank you for saying this.

I did find the following paragraph interesting though …

“Cummins met the duo, who won 30 grand slam events between them, when filming the branded content Open Up series for wine brand Jacob’s Creek which saw Agassi reliving anecdotes from his playing days as part of the brand’s sponsorship of the Australian Open.”

It’s referring to Andre Aggasi and Steffi Graf being into Cummins & Partners as the agency plans a London push – http://mumbrel.la/1OsBh2n

“Branded Content” – Definition : Write brilliant copy. Call it a speech. Not an advert. Find a forum where you get eyeballs in your target Audience to watch your ‘not-branded content speech’. Find a PR firm to get your agency proposition supported on Mumbrella. Now thats Advertising, not branded content. Oh hang on. What. Oh sh*t sorry. I’ve got this all wrong.

Sean sells his argument well. Then again, all 80s ad men do.

What I took out of this article…

“It’s my opinion that consumers don’t mind being sold to…”
(“The communications industry is confused about the role of branded content”)

“I think the role of advertising is to not blend into the medium it is put in.”
(“The communications industry is confused about the role of branded content”)

“The whole idea of branded content kind of bothers me because since when has there been a need to disguise advertising”
(“The communications industry is confused about the role of branded content”)

“…you can have all the data in the world but it won’t motivate people unless it is used cleverly and imaginatively.”
(“The communications industry is confused about the role of branded content”)

“It is tough to find new stories”
(“The communications industry is confused about the role of branded content”)

“Branded content is going to become shorter, snappier, until its 30 seconds and then its basically a television ad again.”
(“The communications industry is confused about the role of branded content”)

If you’re confused about branded content, maybe it’s time to try a branded content agency. They really don’t get advertising.

there’s one thing that consumers hate more than being sold to – and that’s being lied to by a supposed news source in the form of native ads/content marketing

as Cummins said – creativity and brevity will once again win the day – because this content binge is just filling the internet with millions of orphan content items that’ll barely be read and watched

just like ads, the good stuff will float to the top – and it will be advertising creatives who write it, not ex-journalists eking out a living as corporate sell-outs because their ideal profession is kaput

‘Why do we need to disguise advertising?’

When you are flogging cancer causing foods, which harm society and add weight to an already high health bill. Erm… Why do you think?

Or should an ad read:
“Drink this fizzy drink and have a stroke, or catch diabetes, but weight; order now and cancer will come with your drink also!”

but wait* (although they will help you to put on weight too).