Content + advertising = ?

 

There's a subject near and dear to my heart, even more so than holiday shopping dad style: how content creators will get paid in digital media. It's clear we're going to see dozens of newspapers fail this year. The blame for this is mostly on the newspapers themselves -- and the reporters for resisting changes based on "tradition." Battelle has it right when he invokes the parallels to the auto industry: too many workers spending too much time creating products people don't want. Yet I wish it was as simple as the "cult of free" people make it out to be. It's not just a matter of trading in print for digital.

We'll see from the carnage that will surely begin in 2009 is the rise of more independent voices. It's inevitable we'll see olo personal brands, collectives and stripped down aggregation+original content models like The Huffington Post. Still, I worry. Display advertising is a race to the bottom. Fred Wilson had a harrowing post on this last week, welcoming in the era of permanent $1 CPMs. Let me tell you, $1 CPMs won't pay for quality, professional content. The idea of more intrusive ads is a non-starter.

All this interests me in new advertising models that move beyond relegating brands to be ignored on the sidelines. Don't get me wrong, I hate it as a content creator, but there's a clear need to think in new ways about how content is supported. It's a nexus of my selfish interest and my professional job to find new ways advertisers connect with consumers in digital channels. In this week's issue, I looked at a range of "influencer" programs in which brands rely on independent content creators to create content for them. There is purposefully a range. The reason I wanted to look at this is because I firmly believe the innovation in ad models will not take place at large organizations. I can promise you that. It's going to happen at the edges. Battelle's Federated Media, IZEA and Crayon are three groups trying interesting things that, however indirectly, might give part of the solution.

For a while now, I've thought IZEA CEO Ted Murphy was onto something with PayPerPost, even when everyone shit on him. (I figured Jason Calacanis hated him so he couln't be so bad.) What Ted got, I thought, was that advertisers need to come off the sidelines and be part of the content. You can quibble with the implementation with PPP, but it was onto something. I looked at an influencer program Izea ran with top bloggers, giving them $500 gift certificates and instructions to write about their Kmart shopping spree. It was met with mixed reviews, although not as much virulence as Izea has generated in the past. To me, the interesting part is that it generated a lot of buzz for Kmart at a low cost.

I also looked at programs run by Crayon for Panasonic at CES and Federated Media for AmEx OPEN.Panasonic pays bloggers to go to CES, meet with Panasonic execs, see its new products, etc. Sure, they weren't told what to write. But come on, the fix was in -- and, surprise, they dutifully live Tweeted the Panasonic press conference. Crayon's Greg Verdino objects to the term "advertorial," something I discussed at length with my editors. Here's how I described this "new form of advertorial":

"Rather than relying on magazines, {brands} are contracting with influential bloggers who bring with them their own powerful distribution networks. Rather than a long-form narrative, content is fit for the Web via blog posts, Twitter updates and  YouTube videos. And the key differentiator: instead of dictating the content to lead to a sale, brands typically keep their distance to maintain credibility."

Greg says it's like "press junkets," which I don't get because the A-listers on this trip make points to say they're not journalists. Maybe the tech press is different, but good luck Panasonic getting Walt Mossberg to cover your press conference while you pick up his hotel room, flight and provide him equipment. Not going to happen. This is fine. Chris Brogan's audience seems OK with him taking these trips, so that's good enough for me.

There is a growing class of more journalistic-minded bloggers that are dipping their toes in these waters. Chas Edwards at FM has long held to me that FM hiring out its stable of writers to write on a specific topic for an advertiser site is no different than my publisher selling a special section, then the editors filling it with copy. I don't really buy this argument. I'm not creating copy for advertiser Web sites, but often FM writers are. There's nothing wrong with this. It's just new. The side effect is a Guy Kawasaki writing on "the art of laying people off" for an AmEx small-business site also lends his online network to the content. That means both direct traffic by his promotion on Twittter and his own blog site -- and Google help thanks to his high Page Rank. Again, this is new territory. FM got its snout hit over a program with Microsoft a couple years ago. I wouldn't be surprised if it crossed some lines again, since they're fuzzy.

The bigger question, which in retrospect I don't think I spent enough time on, is whether this works for brands. Does hiring out these influencers to blog, Tweet and shoot videos around a topic or event really pay off? At some point, won't attempts to arrive at "authenticity" just lead to content created that has nothing to do with what the brand is trying to achieve?

What I hope is people keep thinking (and trying) these new models -- and actually quantifying whether they work better for advertisers than regular banners. Again, it's selfish, but I'm with NYT's David Car in hoping for an iTunes for news. Beyond my selfish concerns, it's important for our country and society to have a healthy press. I"m a firm believer it's going to be one thing but several things that supports professional content. I'm sure it'll happen, but it's time to move beyond talking about it to doing it.

Comments

[Greg Verdino]

Hey there - You fail to mention that Chris Brogan included some not so positive tweets in his live tweeting of the Panasonic press conference, or that both Brogan and Steve Garfield wrote mixed reviews of the gear. Or that the vast majority of Steve's content had nothing to do with Panasonic at all - and that's OK. One of our bloggers hasn't blogged a single word yet - that's OK too.

Walt Mossberg aside, you're telling me reporters never get anything for free? Hmmmm - I spoke to several at CES who were being gifted so much equipment that the manufacturers were shipping it home for them. Interesting, that...

I just didn't think the word was quite right, that's all. And it's all cool.

[Brian Morrissey]

@greg: As i said, I have no idea how tech reporters work. at most places, I can't imagine you can take equipment or free trips from manufacturers wanting coverage. Yes, Chris included critical takes on Panasonic, but he wouldn't even be writing about Panasonic or at the presser if it wasn't for, um, Panasonic. It would be fair for readers to wonder if, even with his light critiques, he's holding back. Again, his readers don't seem to care. That's probably a writer by writer issue. Some won't be cool with it, others will.

J-school ethical hand-wringing aside, the larger question is figuring out the value of this kind of stuff. How can "influencer marketing" be any different from those lonely Second Life islands that seems like such a great new form of marketing but didn't seem to have much impact? Thanks for swinging by -- and with alacrity no less.

[Alan Wolk]

Been giving this some thought since last night.

I think we need to start at a real macro level: what is a blog/blogger.

Because your site and mine are called "blogs" along with Huffington Post and the online-only part of the New York Times and I think you'd agree there's a difference.

So with that in mind, let me throw this out at you: Not all bloggers are journalists. For some, their content and style is such that they bear a closer resemblance to a television talk show of the Ellen DeGeneres/Ricki Lake genre than to the New York Times op-ed page.

It's not that much of a stretch then to imagine Ricki Lake showing up at CES as a guest of Panasonic and hosting a show that approximates what some of the bloggers put out in terms of content, style and "we wouldn't even be thinking about this if someone hadn't paid our way here" tonality.

Also, as you note, their readers tend to accept the entire premise as valid: they're not put off by it because they don't view the blog as "Journalism" (Capital "J" intended.) Your readers (and mine, for that matter) likely would be very put off by it, because what we produce is an entirely different animal. Not a better or more noble animal. Just a different one.

So in conclusion, I'd say the onus is on the blogger to determine just what category they want to be in and to determine what their audience will bear. Accepting a pay-for-post gig does have a chilling effect on journalistic integrity, but if you're content not being thought of as a journalist, then it's a moot issue.

Finally, not sure if you knew this, but "Alacrity" is actually Verdino's middle name. If you see him listed sometimes as "Greg A. Verdino" you now know the A stands for Alacrity.

[Brian Morrissey]

@alan: I completely agree. FM found that some of its "authors" could do things that others, like Om Malik, couldn't and shouldn't. There will always be a line, although I do think the needs for a new business model will blur that line. Every story has stuff not included. One of the things that ended up on the cutting room floor was some interesting stuff Slate is doing. Check out some "Explainer" content it commissioned for AT&T's rollout of the BlackBerry Bold. AT&T is pushing the "speed" theme, so Slate got freelancers (not staff writers) to use its familiar Explainer franchise for a special section. This is tricky because the same freelancers have written for Slate. (http://speedexplainer.slate.com/) Even the NYT is letting advertisers aggregate its content (along with corporate-written stuff) in advertiser sections. (I can't find the example I was given, a Chevy "green" section.)

But again, I wonder what this means for brands. Will any of this stuff move the needle? Will the need to take a hands-off approach just mean throwing away money in the name of "social media"?

[@davehonig]

Hey Brian,

Don't buy this one. I really do not see a scalable value by Forcing a conversation to occur, and incenting the blogger to do so. The message will only get diluted, and end up pissing off people. Brands need to all start focusing on what matters to them and use it as a spring board. What matters to them are people who have shown interest and/or buy their products. They need to start observing the data that is there for them and scale that, and use it to help power their Search, ecrm, widget, application and banner/roadblock strategies. ( perhaps it will tell them something they can use to better their offline strategies )
They should be focusing on building their own custom social graph, and target ads to these scalable groups. This will allow for them to never end the conversation. Its constant, its a commitment, and the technology is here. Another Point is that peoples connections on Twitter is truly a large Rolodex of people that most likely you may not even know. Quite different from Facebook, which still is a Rolodex but it is more likely you know a larger percentage of those you are connected in Facebook.

[Moonboots]

Manolo Blahnik is even celebrities, but he nevertheless refused to marketplace and people dull, he thinks that ss17 woman fame is ridiculous (small secret is referred to conjecture,nike max, Manolo Gaga are)? Manolo Blahnik shoes for individuals who have undeniably trendy perspective, Uma Thurman (Uma Thurman) and Audrey Hepburn (Audrey Hepburn) is his coronary heart feminine model.

[home security systems]

I was stunned how this information looks like.