What You Don’t Know About One-Night Stands

If you’re reading this text, clearly I’ve captured your attention. I’m sorry to say this isn’t an article about one-night stands.

At some point in recent years, many of us have likely clicked on what we thought would be an interesting article only to discover that it was a paid advertisement in editorial guise. Content marketing is not a new concept, but it’s becoming an increasingly popular strategy for media companies and brands to team up on new ways to drive revenue. According to Pew Research Center, sponsored content increased by 56% in 2011 and is still on the rise.

Edelman’s Chief Content Officer Steve Rubel stresses that sponsored “content is no longer optional. It’s imperative.” At BRITE ’13 Rubel explains, “It’s hard now to amass large audiences the way you used to. And that means money problems for everyone.” He notes, however, that “out of economic disruption come great opportunities.” Rubel says that display advertising has become less lucrative in recent years, and can even drive down CPM. Content marketing, on the other hand, is a fraction of the cost with the potential for greater results.

Linda Boff, executive director of global digital marketing at GE, explains that it’s more Consider Wine Enthusiast magazine. Sure it’s a media company, but it’s also a brand. By incorporating custom content, Wine Enthusiast successfully increased site traffic by 154% and boosted monthly email opt-ins by 50%. Director of Internet Marketing Erika Strum tells MarketingSherpa:

We put time into creating… content that helps people either make a buying decision or entertains them. Even if they aren’t making that purchase in the moment, we feel that they will come back to us as a… source of information.

Rubel has identified three ways that brands are partnering with media companies—syndication, integration, and co-creation. These partnerships borrow from traditional marketing models like paid media and product placement, but they now overlap with owned and earned media as an additional driver of revenue.

• Syndication: Rubel describes this method as “advertorial reinvented.” Sometimes the sponsor scripts the content, sometimes the publisher assumes this role, and sometimes they work together to design content.
• Integration: Similar to syndication, integration stems from product placement. But rather than placing a product within eyeline (think Wayne’s World) the brand becomes part of the narrative (think Mad Men).
• Co-creation: The primary difference with co-creation is that the sponsor provides the funding, but the media company takes responsibility for the content. Rubel likens this to a sports stadium. Gillette bought the naming rights to the home stadium of the New England Patriots, but Kraft Sports Group, which owns and operates the venue, is responsible for the action on the field. Okay, okay, “action” may not be what non-New Englanders would call it. But you get the point.

While many media companies have embraced sponsored content, some are still resistant. Google for one refers to this as “commerce journalism” and explicitly states on its website:

Stick to the news–we mean it! Google News is not a marketing service…. [If] we find non-news content mixed with news content, we may exclude your entire publication from Google News.

As with anything, there are associated risks. It can offer control of content, data and measurement, and opportunities for innovation. But there is the potential for backlash. You may recall this past January The Atlantic issued an apology for posting a content piece from the Church of Scientology. Readers complained that it resembled a traditional editorial, not clearly identifying that it was a sponsored article. “We screwed up,” were the words of The Atlantic‘s media relations team.

Rubel emphasizes, though, that sponsored content isn’t going away, at least not any time soon. He advises businesses to adapt to this marketing model. “You have to put a content engine inside your company. If it’s not there already, you have to think about how to get it in there.”

What do you think?

Watch Rubel’s BRITE ’13 talk to learn more about the benefits, and the risks, of these new media-brand relationships.

By Allie Abodeely

A Culture of Experimentation: More Innovation, Less Spend

In the world of marketing, there’s not always one right answer. Kaaren Hanson, Vice President of Design Innovation for Intuit, has applied this thinking to product development at Intuit.

At last month’s BRITE ’13 conference, Hanson discussed how rapid experimentation enhanced Intuit’s product innovation process enabling them to find better solutions, cut costs and drive employee engagement. The focus at Intuit is no longer weighted on finding the correct answer, as traditional thinking dictates. “Often you spend time in a room discussing and debating that answer… there are so many politics,” explains Hanson. Instead, the folks at Intuit have shifted focus to what Hanson describes as a culture of experimentation.

Hanson elaborates, “There are many right answers with so many different possible right answers… it behooves those teams to come up with potentially varied solutions. And then rapidly experiment.” In this phase, Intuit places trust in the customer before launching the product. “Let the customer decide, through their behaviors, what works and what doesn’t…. We build the users up before we make the decision to actually build it out. ”

Cycle time is much shorter and total spend is much lower, enabling them to reallocate those savings to product development. “Our hit rate… from the old way to the new way is not necessarily significantly different.” Because the process now takes less time and money, Intuit runs 50 different ideas in the same time and resources it used to take to run three.

To truly benefit from rapid experimentation, Hanson emphasizes the following:

• Fall in love with the problem, not the solution: having several solutions will enable more objective judgment.
• Scrappy doesn’t mean crappy: rapid prototypes must not sacrifice quality.
• Get started: to see results, start small and work up to developing a culture of rapid experimentation across the entire organization.

Watch Hanson’s talk at BRITE ’13 to learn more about Intuit’s implementation of rapid experimentation.

BY ALENA CHIANG AND ALLIE ABODEELY

BRITE ’13 Will be Live Streamed!

For those of you who can’t be with us at the BRITE ’13 conference, we’re excited to announce that we will be live-streaming two of our event sessions this Monday, March 4.

Anyone around the globe can watch and engage with the conference via our live coverage powered by Watchitoo, an interactive streaming platform used for live events, webinars, and distance learning initiatives. Through Watchitoo you can chat with fellow viewers and pose questions which may be included in the speaker Q&A. Plus, while you’re watching online you can participate on Twitter via #BRITEconf.

Mark your calendar, tune in and spread the word!

March 4, 2013

8:45-10:35am and 2:05-3:35pm Eastern Standard Time

LIVESTREAM: http://BRITEconference.com/

BRITE ’13 AGENDA: http://BRITEconference.com/BRITE13/Agenda.aspx

BY MATTHEW QUINT

What’s Next for Brands in Online Video

In the last few years, marketers have increasingly turned to visual storytelling through online video platforms, like Vimeo and YouTube, to get their brand’s message across to consumers. As a result, the competitive landscape for online video went into overdrive in 2012.

With new kids on the block like VooPlayer, LeadPlayer and Wistia, established companies such as Vimeo and YouTube have had their work cut out to differentiate themselves and retain their lead in the marketplace. These players are offering features that marketers can tap into. According to Business2Community, these sites allow creators to brand their content, conduct data analysis, create call-to-action overlays and automatic video sitemaps, as well as offer a more intuitive interface. The options for uploading and sharing high quality video online are endless these days.

So, how is Vimeo, the IAC-owned video platform, handling this uptick in competition? CEO Kerry Trainor is more focused on generating revenue for the user than increasing functionality.

Trainor tells Fox Business, “It’s always been part of the vision to not just provide that great environment to showcase this content, but to start to empower these creators as they build businesses.” Last fall, Vimeo launched a new feature, a virtual “tip jar.” Take for example an amateur filmmaker who posts a timelapse video of the breathtaking Aurora Borealis in Alaska on Vimeo. Say a viewer is wowed by that video.  At the click of a button that person could tip the content creator anywhere between $0.99 and $500. When you consider the fact that Vimeo attracts about 41 million unique viewers each month, that’s a tremendous audience to potentially reach.

Vimeo does pocket 15% on every donation. And only creators who subscribe to Vimeo’s premium services can participate. Trainor, however, alludes to an option down the road where content developers and brands will be able to bypass cable companies and offer their unique video content directly to their audiences on their own terms and pricing.

Regardless of how the fast-moving video industry continues to evolve, Trainor is confident that bolstering Vimeo’s top-line is the best course of action in the short-term – perhaps to seed future innovations in features and usability.

See Mr. Trainor speak about the changing role of online video in brand strategies at the BRITE ’13 Conference (March 4-5).

BY NANDITA RAY

To gTLD or to Not gTLD?

If you haven’t already heard, there’s a new word in town. It’s called “dotBrand” and it’s about to crack the dotcom world wide open.

In January 2012, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), the non-profit organization that governs the internet’s naming system, is opening the opportunity for global businesses, communities, governments, and even geographical locations, to apply for generic top-level domain names (gTLDs)—such as .canon, .wine, and .nyc. Many are now weighing the pros and cons of “dotBranding” themselves.

The news surrounding ICANN’s new gTLD program, has stimulated a broad discussion raising questions such as “How could my business benefit from this?” to “Do I need to protect my brand?”

Like all things, there are a wide range of considerations to factor in when deciding whether to apply, among them trademark protection, brand equity, and cost. To help business leaders evaluate the benefits of investing in a gTLD, Columbia Business School’s Center on Global Brand Leadership hosted a video webinar, “Who Should Invest in a dotBrand?” this fall. The event brought together branding and internet experts to discuss the strategic questions decision-makers are facing. To view this free webinar, click here.

First, it should be clarified that ICANN isn’t simply handing out gTLDs to the first person or organization that applies. Just because Jane in Arizona is applying for .madonna doesn’t mean that she’ll get it. There are “checks and balances” in place including a trademark clearinghouse providing authentication of trademark information, and an objection-based process enabling rights holders to demonstrate that a proposed gTLD would infringe their legal rights. Of course there are valid concerns for businesses, organizations, and communities who do have common or even similar names. A company like Patagonia may be legitimately concerned about securing the same domain name as the region of Patagonia. ICANN has created a dispute resolution program, and even auction procedures, to handle such issues.

While some brands perceive gTLDs as a risk and may be considering applying for trademark protection, others envision possibilities involving brand extension and brand architecture. For example, a parent company like Unilever with multiple sub-brands could employ “dove.unilever.” B2C businesses like Citibank could create a more personalized consumer experience through their websites with url’s such as “www.michael.citibank.” But this also begs the question about the appearance of a brand’s homepage—is it “home.bmw” or “bmw.bmw”? Brand consultants seem to still be hashing this out.

And many opponents to the new gTLD program feel the financial commitment is a hefty price to pay for a top-level domain system that they feel works fine with its 22 existing TLDs (.com, .gov, .jobs, etc.). The application costs US$185,000 as well as a reported US$25,000 annual fee. Then there are the additional expenses such as technical, administration, and maintenance fees. For big name brands, this could be worth the investment. When compared to the cost of a single, 30-second television spot, it’s not a huge chunk of change. For small to mid-size companies, however, it is an expensive endeavor that may take deeper consideration.

“The kinds of benefits we see from a brand-building perspective are things like controlling your brand and your content,” explained Karl Isaac, Executive Director of Landor’s digital branding practice, during the Center’s webinar. “If you are a business that transacts with your customers or that protects very private and confidential information for your customer, the increased security benefits alone may outweigh the risks of doing this.”

The application process may be preempted, however, as the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation has called for a hearing this month to discuss the merits, implications and concerns surrounding ICANN’s new program. If the gTLD application process does move forward as planned, businesses and organizations will need to do due diligence if thinking about applying.

BY ALLIE ABODEELY