Johan Liedgren responds to this op-ed from Adweek.
I found Barbarian Group CEO Mr. Palmer's article on "Branded
Content: Not a good idea" interesting and misguided at the same time. I
applaud any call to action at this point but take objection to the
solution suggested: "We, the big agencies, should build our own
channel...." First and foremost, the separation between "church and
state" that Mr. Palmer assumes in the 30-second-spot-driven television
model of today, is not there. No, Mr. Palmer, it's not art supported by
patrons. TV is, for the most part, serialized content designed
specifically for the very model that supports it. Art it is not.
I was also puzzled by the cavalier approach taken to ad
spending. Yes, spending $50M on television ads is easy, as the article
points out, but it completely ignores the fragile state of network
viewership—and more to the point, the fundamentally broken model of
30-second spots. Just because it's easy doesn't make it a good idea. I have said it before:
All content is paid for by someone for a reason, and this always has
been the case—but it doesn't make the world a better place if we can save season 16 of ER. But hey, anyone selling ad space should call Mr. Palmer now. There aren't many buyers like him left out there.
The core issue that the article's conclusion fails to deal with
adequately is highlighted earlier in the text: Brand messaging doesn't
make for a good story. I couldn't agree more. But, Mr. Palmer then
simply suggests we accept that and move on. I refuse. This is exactly
why I don't see the future of content—or marketing—put in the hands of
large agencies.
What I would suggest is that Mr. Palmer call out to his peers in
the industry instead to stop making ads that don't have anything
meaningful, relevant or soulful to say. We can talk structures all we
want, but if we are still, at the end of the day, trying to feed an
audience massive amounts of messages that aren't meaningful or
relevant—often just stupid and annoying—we will have to continue to
battle the audience, bribing and interrupting. On-line, mobile or
television—it doesn't matter.
The article gives one good example in Mutual of Omaha’s sponsorship of the nature show Wild Kingdom.
I can't speak to specifically to the show but I am an advocate of the
"Brought to you by..." model. Unlike the 30-second spot, it will
promote better content and not just eyeballs. I agree with the
long-term viability of this approach. As much as I think it will put
most traditional agencies out of business, I think they need rescuing
as much as season 16 of ER needs art grants. Instead, perhaps
it will help turn the focus to what story the brands are actually
telling. The great brands will take the opportunity to leverage a
richer and more relevant message in their association with great
content. You can't do that with bad content. And if all you have are
jingles and taglines, a new media platform managed by large ad agencies
is probably the last thing you need.
At the end of the day, I want great content. Even art. What else is really worth saving?