What's New

In the pre-digital days there really wasn’t a need for brands to produce more than the ads that went on traditional media. Now they need to produce an almost constant stream of fresh content to keep up with digital channels and social media. For most companies it’s a pretty tall order because making content is a completely different business from what they know. And it gets even harder when so much of the content that they now need is video.

Since cheap bandwidth has made high-quality video so easy to get, people want more and more of it. Projections have video representing over 85% of all Internet traffic in a couple of years. So brands need to make lots of videos. The problem, of course, is not just the quantity, but how does a brand make videos that are good enough to stand out? While cameras and equipment are cheap and easy to get, creativity and know-how are still in short supply. Of course, what makes a video good is in the eye of the beholder, but most of us know bad video when we see it, and the last thing any brand needs is to be spreading bad videos.

So the challenge is for companies to put in place the capability to produce lots of “good” videos, consistently over time. The problem is that because the budgets are much smaller, it’s not like producing TV commercials, which brands have a lot of experience with. According to the 4A’s, the average cost to make a TV spot is over $300,000 — but for video content, that may be your entire budget for the year.

The big question is — do you try and do it in-house or hire pros? While you may need a lot of videos, you may not need enough to justify the large expense of hiring a full-time team. So another approach is to hire an in-house video producer whose job it is to put together freelance teams for each production. This is not a creative person, but a video project manager, and you still need to be doing enough work to justify a full-time person.

For most brands the answer is to hire pros. The advantage, of course, is the wide range of talent and capabilities you can access. The problem is how to keep the costs down. Most agencies focus on developing the creative, and then hire a production company for the execution. As a result, the costs mount quickly. Some TV production companies do creative, but their focus is really on the production and they are rarely able to develop the creative or the strategy for the video, which is critical. So that leaves companies and agencies that specialize in video content for digital channels.

The ideal is to have digital content strategy, plus creative, plus production under one roof. A company that can do all of that — and that is set up to produce a lot of video content over time, cost-effectively — has found the perfect solution. Of course, the videos still have to be good in the eye of the beholder, which to start with would be you.

As a growing copywriter with a print journalism background, I love the idea of “branded journalism.” Editorial content written for brands, targeted at consumers, supported by analytics, published in digital spaces, that raises a big middle finger to the rule that advertising and journalism can never mix? Sounds good to me.

For brands, the need for journalistic content stems from growing branded communities in social spaces. As brands and consumers engage in more personal conversations via social, consumers simply demand more from them.

More than ever, consumers want brands to give them things of value outside of their products or services. A sense of community that includes transparency, responsiveness and quality branded content. That’s where brand journalists and copywriters come in.

Last week, I stumbled on the work of Kevin Maney, a veteran USA Today reporter who turned his attention to advertising after two decades of writing and reporting as a journalist.

After a successful reporting career, Maney made an interesting move. He started working with big brands like IBM to create journalistic content.

Maney co-authored a book in conjunction with IBM, but branded journalism can include works of art, articles, blog posts, books, photos or videos produced by a brand to reach an identifiable market.

Couple creating content with the market downturn, and many wannabe journalists and former reporters are turning to jobs in advertising, marketing and digital. Many seek jobs that offer more security but still challenge them to use skills from writing in the newsroom like critical thinking, deadline management and creativity.

According to Robert McChesney, co-author of Will the Last Reporter Please Turn Out the Lights: The Collapse of Journalism and What Can Be Done to Fix It, public relations professionals now outnumber reporters 4-to-1. With print journalism seeing a continual decline in revenue, it isn’t surprising that some journalists are now writing for brands. Market aside however, branded journalism still causes some debate.

Critics fear that branded journalism might fully eclipse traditional journalism. Will the news report about a damaging tornado suddenly be sponsored by a home insurance company? I highly doubt it. The audience would be too quick to call a news organization on it, like they did with The Atlantic’s big advertorial fail in January.

The Atlantic fiasco highlights that we’re working in a time where the line between advertising and journalism is blurrier than ever. Marketing, digital and journalism just came crashing together, giving us a choice. We can either sit here staring or use this opportunity to create new, innovative content that people will respond to.

By we, I mean brands or agencies working on behalf of brands. New organizations don’t have the freedom to pepper advertising content in their editorial work, but ad professionals now have the unique opportunity to produce journalistic content. If done right in digital spaces, that journalistic content will likely produce results.

The key lies in planning responsibly. Branded journalism needs to be intentional, driven by strategy as much as it is by good writing. It must be targeted and audience-specific and not overstep it’s bounds. Producing journalistic content doesn’t equate to producing a Pulitzer winning news article, so brands shouldn’t try to.

How each company executes branded journalism will vary, but hopefully by the end of the year we will see more fact-based, journalistic content reaching consumers and generating revenue.

To track branded journalism, its growth and the debate surrounding it, a good place to start is Maney’s blog. Ignore the clunky WordPress theme and focus on the journalistic content. After all, content is becoming very valuable.

–

Want to learn more? Email IQ

Everyone knows that digital channels and devices have changed how consumers connect to brands. So today we are focused on enabling the consumer’s journey rather than just talking at them, as in days past. But it’s a trap to believe that people are enamored with process and mechanics. Even with the never-ending stream of technologically driven consumer empowerment, the dynamics of connecting to human beings are the same as they were a million years ago. Stories that speak to our archetypal drives are the most powerful buttons we can press. Stories that touch on family, love, loss, death and safety cut across culture and geography. They can be expressed in many ways, and offer endless opportunity for creativity and originality, but in the end the archetypal story is what resonates. Our challenge is to integrate today’s growing number of consumer touch points into, not only a connected process, but into an archetypal story. It’s easy to think in terms of content, functionality, usability etc. but the need for a resonant story is as important as ever. The difference is that the narrative now happens over many connections and many channels. So keeping the essence of an archetypal brand story at the center as we create and connect tactics is the new challenge for brand’s and their agencies.

Pennington TV Commercial from Pennington Birds on Vimeo.

Today we went live with our latest piece of the Pennington Wild Bird Seed campaign, a TV spot featuring the Wild Bird Band, four animated birds in the tradition of Pixar style movies that brings home the promise of “Great Entertainment for your Yard”. The TV commercial features the four birds wisecracking at a bird feeder and includes their rendition of “A’int we got fun”. Tactics also include radio spots, outdoor, banner ads, in-store display, print and a Facebook page complete with a yard entertainment guide. This is a really fun consumer campaign that shows off not only our well known digital skills, but even more so our design and traditional advertising know-how which is where we started.

Ira Glass (the genius behind This American Life), shares techniques for telling fascinating stories.

(via anecdote)

This is a great example of brand storytelling. It’s wonderful to hear a company’s founder describe the philosophy behind the brand and the origami visuals  are really engaging. Even though I’m a barefoot runner, I sort of want to go out a buy a pair of ASICS now.

(Conan’s March 2nd Tweet)

Conan O’Brien tweeted for the first time on February 24th, 2010 and already has close to 600,000 followers. Unlike other celebrities who tend to tweet either too much, too little, or inconsistently, he only posts one message a day. If you’re a follower, his single tweet stands out to you. Why? For the same reasons things are collectible — scarcity and quality. He’s only sending one a day and he makes it worth it. In fact, the picture in the post came from a tweet he made about how many people it takes to write his daily message.

He didn’t follow anyone for the first few days. Not listening to others is a newbie mistake brands make and seemed a little strange. Then on Friday, Conan did something that is a combination of altruism and marketing genius. He picked one person to follow at random. We all had to know who this lucky person, Sarah Killen, was and her followers went from 3 to over 10,000 in a day. Conan’s tweet said her life would change and it looks like it will. She’s engaged and like any bride-to-be, she’s been overwhelmed by the costs. Now she’s got offers for free invitations, dresses, and more. She’s Twitter-famous and every wants to be a part of it.

What makes this brilliant is that Conan probably thought, “Wouldn’t it be cool to make one of my fans famous so they can experience what it’s like?” We feel like we know him and over the years and he’s proven to be a really nice guy who recently got a raw deal. I don’t think he was thinking, “Let me show the world that I’m so famous, I can make anyone I want famous.” You know, like in “She’s All That.” If we thought that’s what he was up to, we’d be turned off by the lack of authenticity. The sincerity of his intention is important.

With that sincerity of intention, his success in lending his fame to another person, and innovative approach, Conan’s Twitter account is telling us a story about who he is. If it were a brand statement, it might be:

Conan O’Brien uses innovative media approaches to build connections between fans, celebrities, and sponsors.

If you’re a fan, he’s the everyman who allows you to experience celebrity. If you’re a celebrity, aspiring celebrity, or advertiser, he’s the trusted gatekeeper to his engaged, loyal fans. And his innovative approach to a medium (formerly TV, now Twitter) keeps us all tuned in.

This Oscar-nominated animated short uses over 2,500 logos to tell a disturbing story about American culture. And you can only watch it on Facebook. It’s got some rough language, so you’ll definitely want to wear headphones for this one.

More about this film at Gizmodo.

This is a short documentary on climate change shot with the Canon 5dmkII.

Greenpeace: Voices of change. Shot on Canon 5dmkII from Philip Bloom on Vimeo.

While watching the Oscar nomination announcements this morning, I was surprised by some of the nominees. Well, first off, I was surprised by my own interest. I usually don’t see many of the nominated – and even winning – films. I’m not the hugest film buff, and I honestly tend to spend my money and time on big releases like the annual Harry Potter or, recently, Avatar.

Yeah, you can judge me for my movie taste level, it’s cool  : )

Anyway, after thinking that Anne Hatheway looked really great for 5:30 a.m. Pacific, I began to notice a slight trend. It seemed like more popular movies were getting award nods, like the animated UP for best picture, and Sandra Bullock for best actress in The Blind Side. I’ll just say these are both films that my random high school friends on Facebook HEARTED.

When you compare the two films that got the most nominations overall (Avatar and Hurt Locker) you can see the Oscars challenge in a nutshell: Should we award the most popular (and honestly, technologically groundbreaking) movie of the year, or one that much fewer people have seen but may have more artistic (certainly storytelling) merit?

Pundits have suggested that the Oscars are trying to find their footing – and their audience – after years of dismal broadcast ratings for the award ceremony. It will be interesting to see the results, but for the first time in years, I personally can say I plan to watch.