Content Marketing Upshifts- Behind the JPG Purchase

I am not so sure I agree you. "The next phase of media (at least professional new media) is building projects that are ideal for a sponsor/owner." - Although I think for a creative agency this is great business, however the risk is duplication. Think if Gap bought Threadless - it would loose it's authenticity. Threadless and JPG and others are about community content and that's it. Having it adhere to a corporate themes or agendas could/would alienate the exact audience that keeps these models strong. I'm torn because I am happy JPG will be around. I bought the initial issues and have blogged about the concept. I just hope it doesn't loose it's authenticity.

Chris,

One of my favorite examples of the fully integrated content marketing approach is EAS founder and "Body for Life" author Bill Phillips's creation of Muscle Media magazine. He ran into "transparency" problems with his MET-Rx relationship and learned from it with this later approach.

With Muscle Media, everyone knew that a majority of the ads were for EAS products and many of the articles supported his book "Body for Life" but the approach worked. People ate it up because they were fans of his approach and the products were at or near the best in the market.

Mike

@Marc - but Threadless isn't a media company. That's not at all what the article points to. Instead, I'm saying that Gap would buy a blog or videoblog featuring content of interest to the fashion folks.

@Mike - That's interesting. I think that's a risk, too. Having it be all about one product might not work if there's a single product. But Adorama is a retailer of multiple products. Would that make it different?

Nice post, Chris. As you probably know, in print, there's a long history of marketers owning content projects: it's known as custom publishing, and the sponsor relationship is sometimes obvious to the reader, sometimes not. Either way, in journalism and publishing circles, custom is a bit of black sheep because the publications have direct interests behind them (though some pubs, like in-flight magazines, are generally well regarded). It will be interesting to see whether sponsored online entities are regarded any differently by content creators, especially when those creators are Everybody.

"It’s not about your show. It’s about entertaining the perfect audience for the perfect sponsor, and making sure that relationship stays tight and solid." That maybe my new motto.

@bookerx3

The line between content creator and advertiser has become much blurred in the last few years in sports. Check out Red Bull - rather than be content to sponsor a car, they own a team. They create their own events and series as well so they can control the message.

@Sarah - I know about custom, but I'm thinking this is different. To me, the custom publishing didn't really have much soul. It was there to serve marketers, but it wasn't really there for the audience. (That's my really jaded POV.)

I think this is bigger. I think it starts with the audience and finds the sponsor, as opposed to the other model. Mileage may vary.

We talk and write about this topic every day at my company, as our work is supported by advertisers and sponsors --but we only gained that support after earning the trust and loyalty of a very "cynical" audience. So we have to publish journalistically relevant topics, and have steared clear of straight-up product reviews (as that would immediately be thorny). But we do weave in our sponsors' business objectives into our posts, and negotiate how much coverage they will receive in a given time period over the course of the sponsorship.

I think the key has been TRANSPARENCY, as well as CHOOSING our sponsors carefully (meaning, brands that are already trusted and loved in the community you're serving). For us, ZIO is an arts-and-entertainment site, so we've worked mainly with media and luxury brands: Apple, HP, Sundance, HBO, MSFT and Toyota. It's tricky business to build and keep an audience online --especially an online video watching audience-- so to jeopardize that for 1 corporate backer who wants their logo in every shot I think is really unwise. I'd rather find a partner who your viewers already like and trust, and promote them in your show...far less likely to create a flurry of negative comments.

At the risk of seeming self-promotional, I'd like to point our new online video series, VIEWFINDERS...I loathe self-promoting posts, but it happens to be on point, and timely (as it just launched today.) Adobe sponsored the series, which profiles a new photographer every day and then culminates in a reality-show-style "challenge" where they defend their portfolios. (http://tinyurl.com/czkffc) As a sponsor, they are incorporated in 4 ways: (1) they have the right to have one of their employees appear as one of the "judges" in the show; (2) their products are on screen for the 'challenge' presentation (Lightroom and Photoshop products are used as presentation tools, and only by the photographers that already know and use those products); (3) we produced 30 second post-roll video ads for them, using one of the VIEWFINDERS guests who is a very passionate fanatic of their products; (4) we wrote surrounding blog posts that include "Quicktips" on their products, and are labeled as "sponsored by Adobe."

It's only been live 5 hours, but already the blogosphere has responded positively to the videos, syndicating them based on pure interest. I would love to hear what people here have to say: did we cross a line? Is this interesting content, in and of itself? Do you think the sponsor is mentioned *enough*?

We hope to do more sponsored-series that are authentic and where the sponsor is involved in ways that do not offend our audience. This is new territory for everyone, and it's critical to agree on the best way to brand our entertainment.

Hi Chris-

What a timely post! But, that's usual for you isn't it? : )
I think you have hit a key point. It is much more about building your audience and then finding a sponsor. This is contrary to how it has been.

This is what I am aiming to do now with Shama.Tv. I am working on growing that audience, and if it works out-sponsorship will follow.

- Shama

The JPG sponsorship proves that the forward momentum is with projects/sites/whatever that grow organically rather than forcefully by shoving money down its throat and growing it around said sponsor or advertiser. Brilliant!

Lani - I actually think the fact that JPG was *extremely* close to bankruptcy (in bankruptcy?) before they were adopted by this sponsor is not a vote for taking big risks with no clear path towards sponsorship-pursuit.

Megan, I totally agreed. No one should willy nilly jump online with a prayer that their efforts will become sponsor-worthy and high risks don't usually pay off, however, organically growing in the social media space (blogging or otherwise) appears to be garnering the highest success in current web culture terms. You're right thought, JPG isn't necessarily the best example of that, however Chris' assertion that "the next phase of media (at least professional new media) is building projects that are ideal for a sponsor/owner" is true and I would simply add that building projects *organically* rather than based around a potential sponsor that may or may not pan out is critical.

Lani - You're right, we're in agreement! ;-) Thanks for clarifying your point, it's a good one.

@ Marc - I think the point you missed is that publishers too can develop custom content solutions and then, combining content from different sources (magazines, books, newspapers, photos, etc.) go to market for a dedicated sponsor for that destination. Think Pharmaceutical portals targeted to one physician specialty made up of content from multiple journals and having one single pharmaceutical company sponsor....

Good post Chris. Bang on!

@Megan - I love your site. What's missing is more information about who "we" are in the About section. It's not transparent enough.

I love your point about tutorials.

This post spoke to me--no, yelled at me--from my RSS reader, so I had to click on over and comment.
I'm in the process of starting a digital publication called The Style Sample Magazine, targeted towards a very specific niche audience: fashion bloggers. It's an extremely passionate group that wants/deserves recognition, and all content (photos, articles, illustrations, etc.) is created or submitted by the bloggers. The point here is that the audience came first, then the product, then (perhaps) a sponsor.
Though the magazine is currently the very definition of a labor of love (no ads, no paid media, etc.) created for and by the community, I can't help but see the potential in "building projects that are ideal for a sponsor/owner."

Look at what American Apparel did on Chictopia: they used three of the most popular members of that online fashion community--members they knew were loyal to their products--in their advertising on the site. It's authentic, accessible, and aspirational. I can definitely see this sort of thing becoming more common as organizations try to find different ways to connect with their customers.

Sorry about ^that^, guess I need to work on my HTML coding. It's called The Style Sample Magazine.

Chris,

Couldn't agree more. I've been preaching about this "next wave" since 2007 and actually thought 2008 would be the year it would take off given that the cost of digital creation and distribution has all but reached zero. Thus, it is actually cheaper for a brand to create a community around smart, interesting content than it is to create a single national ad campaign.

I'm not sure I agree with those in the comment stream that say you have to build the audience first. Certainly easier to get a sponsor that way but I think it could actually work better the other way around.

Find a smart, "get it" advertiser that wants to build a Micro-Content community around a passion (one that uses their product obviously) and then build a high-quality content stream and deliver that stream where the consumer is - much like Gary V does. You don't have to go to WineLibraryTV - you can see his shows on Vimeo if you choose.

Done right, the content is the ad and thus no traditional styled (this content brought to you or splash banners/pre-rolls) are required. It's seemless and transparent as the brand isn't trying to "sell you" but instead providing you good content you want to invite into your life.

Won't work for every brand, but if your product is used as part of someone's passion -- I think this marketing approach is a no brainer.

@TomMartin

Good post Chris...you are right on about this. Back in 2002 while at Penton (large btob trade publisher), we actually had a few conversations around the idea of eBay buying our magazines/websites - very similar to your point about JPG.

Today, that idea makes too much sense. Built in audience, great content, loyal following, credible brand...why buy advertising space and rent when you can own it outright.

To Marc's point - smart marketers won't screw this up, although the potential is there to want to sell sell sell, when they should be focused on true engagement.

Regarding Sarah's point, I understand about you (CB) being jaded regarding "traditional" custom publishing. Most "popular" custom publications for the last decade don't present themselves like being all about the customer - like MyFord magazine or even some of the inflight magazines, which are also custom. That said, I've worked on (and seen) some amazing corporate publications that have some incredible and loyal followings that completely focus on the customer's informational/entertainment needs. Look at Corvette Quarterly for instance. If a reader somehow doesn't get an issue of that panic ensues in the streets. That is a beloved custom publication. Also, some of the b-to-b custom pubs are amazing (and I would argue have better content than some of the trades that fill the space).

Anyhow, this is much bigger (to your point). Had a conversation with a group of marketers today that in five years it will be hard to distinguish between a media company and a product/service company. Media companies are learning how to be marketers and sell product. Marketers are learning how to be publishers and create consistent and relevant content to customers. It then makes sense for marketers to look at purchasing a play like Adorama has.

Kudos to Adorama...and much more of this to come.

Thanks Chris.

Speaking of all this, RCR Wireless just called it quits after almost 30 years. http://www.rcrwireless.com/

If I'm a mobile technology company, I'd be all over that.