What’s in a word? Why ‘branded content’ makes no sense
In this guest post, Tim Hodgson argues that ‘branded content’ is a misnomer for the business of brands creating original content.
Whilst the industry seems to have settled with the broad term ‘Branded Entertainment’ to capture disciplines such as sponsorship, events, activations and branded content there still seems to be a fair bit of debate around the right term for branded content itself. Everyone seems to be trying to find a new angle, a market leading term. Well, at risk of instigating multiple eye rolls, and even the odd Dame Edna sag of the side of the mouth, I wanted to share the only term that I believe works.
You see, “ad funded programming”, “brand funded content, custom content, “editorially led marketing”… None of these say what they need to say.
Brands don’t just write the cheques any more. They aren’t marketing in the old sense of the word. They are not paying for the right to just customise content.
Let’s start by banning the word “brand”. Todd and co used it in almost every sentence on Gruen last night. It’s become planter wart painful.
And “content” that’s another word that’s driving me nuts.
“Inspired” has no meaning, just disappears into the air –Vup! gone.
Reckon you probably shouldn’t use “hence” anymore either Tim.
I suggest we call it “Soapbox” : when you create entertainment as a specific platform for your advertising. “Soapbox”. Just remember who first thought of it.
So terms like ad funded programming, brand funded content, custom content, and editorially led marketing are wrong. But you reckon brand inspired content is better? Talk about tap dancing on the head of a pin.
Great article Tim
I agree with almost all of it wholeheartedly, with the exception of the ‘brand inspired’ bit. I realise this may be the main point of the post, however you make many excellent points in it, so I hope it’s OK to say that ‘brand inspired’ gives me the creeps, just a bit.
Although it really doesn’t matter what it’s called, as long as it’s good!
Who cares what we call it, let’s just make it count
Yes, well that’s easy enough for you to say , but there are as many nasty traps awaiting the unprepared agency wading into this pool as there are in the proverbial shark infested custard.
“Soapbox” has been used to death, ideas men have stood on it for years, empty vessels have used it to lift their profile, and it’s even been covered with crepe paper and used to support the Christmas tree. The problem with “soapbox” is that the value has already been removed, washed down the drain and thrown out with the bathwater; oh there were a few remnants, but they were nothing more than glossy bubbles in the air.
Remember “This programme brought to you by”? There was an idea that out shone the Chrysler Show or the Palmolive hour or the Dairy Maid Milk Cookies show, and the voice-over could have been generic, had there not been such petty and defensive behaviour by some brands. Think how much could have been saved by the universality of a voice saying “This programme brought to you by” and a pack shot suddenly appearing at the end.
When a think tank runs out, you can bet that it wont be very long before someone will suggest changing the nomenclature.
Christ, we marketers love our labels, don’t we?
Maybe I’m just stupid, but I got the impression this article pretty much says nothing…
Let’s just call a spade a spade: ‘branded’ = advertising; ‘content’ = stuff
Advertising stuff.
Nomenclature! Are you for real?!?
Interesting thought, I think brand inspired content is a good name for it.
In a content cluttered world and where people are skipping TV ads with DVR, creating content that tells stories, entertains or provides utility is more important than ever. As an indicator of where things are heading, we know that 66% of 16-24 year olds state that they would like brands to entertain them and 71% of 16-18 year olds claim that they are more likely to purchase a brand that has tried to entertain them over one that hasn’t (Stats via The Next Web’s article http://thenextweb.com/socialme.....rtainment/).
Whatever we end up calling it, all signs are pointing towards it being the future of effective marketing and brand building.
-Harrison Winter
http://comissioncontent.com
Sharable Brand Stories.
I get entertained by pressing “skip” on Youtube and therefore only catching the first 3 seconds of a TVC before watching a video uploaded by a random earthling, which happens to be more entertaining than any of the tripe rolled out on Australian television.
Times are changing and most of the vid’s I watch do not have a brand in site.
(Plug myself here)
branded content shouldn’t be narrowed to entertainment because it covers information as well….hopefully the rise of branded content in print will be a new opportunity for some of the journos who’ve taken up redundancy offers this year….
Let’s create some new words because we can commercialize them and make a lot of money.
We’ve done it before so it will work again!
Like ‘advertisement’ instead of ‘positively biased communication of a product’s characteristics to encourage purchase’.
Or ‘multistreaming’ instead of ‘sending the same message to people through different communications channels’
And better than stockbroking (where they create new things to sell all the time – called ‘derivatives’ for short), there’s no regulators who will pull us up for faking out the people with the money.
What dross, really. An article of naught but marketing jargon that makes absolutely no progress in any direction at all. If this is a thought piece, time to stop thinking, sorry. Honestly, it reads like classic Rumsfeld:
“There are known knowns; there are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns; that is to say there are things that, we now know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns – there are things we do not know we don’t know.”
Peas in a green organic enveloping encapsulator.
Really…what dribble
sponsorship… brand engagement… promotions… Branded Content…its been around for donkeys…
I was doing it from my dark rock cave on TEN when Scott and Charlene were getting married… It really is “new” because now brands HAVE TO engage and talk with customers (instead of at them)… engagement is the new norm… and this new fangled “banded entertainment” is a fabulous way to engage… if you get it right.
Can somebody translate this column into English? I mean, I ran it through Google Translate and it spat it back with a “WTF?” comment.
Seriously, can nobody in marketing speak in plain English, without throwing in every bit of jargon into every second line.
If this column could have given a few examples of whatever the f*ck is being talked about – could be real-world, or could be made-up – but a few examples to help me understand what is being said, because right now I have no idea what he is on about, and that can’t be good for his brand (ba-boom!).