NY Times Discovers That Advertising Is Content; Content Is Advertising
from the about-time... dept
For many years we've been repeating the idea that advertising is content and content is advertising, and if you think one is different than the other, than you're not going to understand today's content business models at all. More and more people have been figuring this out over the years, and it's nice to see the concept finally warrant a mention in the NY Times, where it covers a recent T-Mobile ad that aired on TV only once, but spread like wildfire online. You can see it below:
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: advertising, content
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's backwards everything. The whole point is that all content IS advertising already. It's just a question of "for what." And people don't tune out, they TUNE IN, on purpose, because the content itself is enjoyable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"...but at the point where everything is advertising, there is no longer content, and the public tunes out."
The moment the public realizes that they aren't getting actual content anymore, but actually are just eating an ad, they tune out. True, you think that everything is marketing for something, but that isn't the case, at least not directly.
I find myself tuning out TV programs and magazines that spend too much time on inline ads and not as much on actual content. Example would be your friend Chris Anderson's Wired magazine. More and more, the magazine is a giant inline, editorialized ad space, often promoting the "cult of personality" branding systems. Heck, they have allowed Guest editors to pretty much hose the magazine end to end, and have selected graphical layouts that make the content hard to seperate from the advertising. The results? Wired is a very, very thin magazine right now, starting to look like a Business 2.0 rather than a Byte - both of which died.
When the overall scheme of things is all ads, people do tune out. Keep it subtle and keep them entertained, you can go forever. Cross the line, and you lose people's trust and they mentally head for the exits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Almost every form of visual entertainment has embedded advertisement these days, so much so it's hard to separate the advertising from the content. That's the whole point Mike is making and you are in violent agreement even if you can't see it...
Chris.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The point is that it IS actual content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It does hit similar campaigns from the 80s and 90s where companies pushed off ads that often never had their products in them at all, just a small logo at the end or a single catch phrase. They were popular for a while, and then the public tuned them out and they were gone.
You cannot look at any single moment in time (current ad methods) and extrapolate them out of time. The public as a whole is stupid and slow, but there is a tipping point where even the morons stop paying attention (see the decline of MySpace for more info on tuning out over commercialized things).
A few years from now, the new trend will be "ad free content" or "no product positioning movies". Remember in the 60s where every TV show had an "official car" and every car in every outdoor shot was a brand new "that model" car? Hawaii 5-0 was good at that (Jack Lord always drop a big Ford product). The public got tired of looking at it, it stopped being effective, and was dropped for years. This is something that has only in the last few years started to make a comeback in movies, although they are now being a little smarter by only outfitting the good guys with the product, and making the bad guys drive junker versions of other products. That will be fine until the public zones out on it again, and then it starts over.
Advertising (TV ads) as content isn't a new idea, but it is rarely done well enough to bother. There are a few good ones that have happened, but it doesn't really scale.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wait, I thought you said people ignore advertising. But that's an ad. But you said people watch it... I'm confused. Or maybe you are! The point is that people will watch good content, and ignore bad content. It does not matter if the good content is an advertisement and the bad content is a feature length movie. All that matters is what's interesting and what's not.
I think there are differences. If you're reading an editorial, you would definitely care if it's sponsored by a company involved with the issue. In that sense, there is a difference between ads and non-advertising content - one is a message coming from a company selling a product, the other is produced without any such motive. Or at least I hope there is still such content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The content part is great, but the transition to being marketing again is where the audience gets lost. 30 second commercial with 26 seconds of attention of 4 seconds of channel surfing it not going to be a huge success at selling stuff. It might go viral, blah blah, but will it actually sell anything?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
(sarcasm) Yeah, like they stopped going to Disneyland since Disney became just one big commercial for itself.(end)
Disney is a great example of content that is all advertising. Content sells resort visits, resort visits sell souvenir gifts, all in one big 'circle of life'. But people keep eating it up, because it is ALSO fun, entertaining, and well produced.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
99% of the commercials out there are crap. It's not that they all have to be that way, plenty of people have been creative and relevant. Those are no longer "premium" things, those are standard/required to be worth anything. These things are the parts of advertising that make it content.
You have to be creative, compelling, you know all those things that happened before people just took money and thought they could just keep throwing the same old ideas out there.
Short summary of the problem: lazy/old bad execs, for the most part.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now that is a beautiful commercial
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This works are so many levels...
The followup sing along in Trafalgar Square is equally brilliant. Bravo, well do. The ad agency earned it's money and more. Awesome, I watched it twice.
Chris.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Great Video, Lousy Commercial
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Great Video, Lousy Commercial
The idea is the next time you go to buy a mobile phone, T-Mobile will either be your first choice, high on your list or even, now back on your list. And if you are an existing customer, they are hoping that by making you feel good, being cool and entertaining, you won't switch carriers.
Basically, it doesn't need to sell you anything, just be memorable in a positive way.
Chris.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"best commercials"
Or all those viral ad clips on youtube. People know it's an ad from the description but it still 'goes viral' which is pretty much the polar opposite of 'tuning out'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "best commercials"
"Wacky Waving Hands Inflatable Sign!"
"Wacky Waving Hands Inflatable Sign!"
"Wacky Waving Hands Inflatable Sign!"
"Wacky Waving Hands Inflatable Sign!"
What "goes viral" is what is unique and good - but there is little unique and good. Oh yeah, most of the viral ads I get from friends are usually European and involve something to do with sex - Americans are so freaked out by frank sexuality that they have to secretly share it with all their friends.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
:) Nothing more to say!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here we go again.
Semantics aren't a good argument to make a case, Mike.
Backward thinking consumers will never accept an ad as content, regardless of the definition. There's a reason they're separated, and consumers want to maintain this.
There's no question an ad can be successful "content", but as you've stated, it must be good. Do you know how many times I hear people whistling the latest song from that credit report ad?
But the moment this line is crossed, and people (in effect) get charged for this ad disguised as content is when objections begin to increase.
It's bad enough cable subscribers are paying to stations having ads, imagine how they'll feel if the ad-supported shows are nothing more than ads themselves.
I get your point, I accept your point, but I can't agree with your point. If it was all the same, then why are companies still calling them "advertisements" instead of "short reality segments"?
If our thinking is backward, so to is theirs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NY Times Discovers That Advertising Is Content; Content Is Advertising
I wrote a post about this type of content spreading like wildfire because, the web user thinks of himself as a "owner" vs. the TV watcher is more of a "renter."
http://christophermingryan.typepad.com/thewaywewatch/2009/05/television-viewers-are-ren ters-web-users-are-owners.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Exceptional Content Is King!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]