erniesblog

The Content Creation Conundrum

It's all about content.  Content is everything. etc. 

I preach that a lot.  Because I believe it.  Last week, a post I wrote for the Brunner Digital blog chronicled the evolution of corporate websites from what I call "kitchen sinks" to fresh-content-driven cut-flower arrangements.  Huh?  Click through.  You'll get the analogy.

Not every corporate site is going to be a full-blown web 2.0 site.  Not every one is going to be a 3.0 site, whatever that is.  Right or wrong, there are going to be sites that continue to present a defined experience, and attempt to put up a wall or two to try to keep people in for as long as possible.  But increasingly, instead of walls, marketers are beginning to understand that rewards work far better than punishment.  And increasingly, those rewards come in the form of fresh content, delivered by the technology and worldview that defines web 2.0.  Which means, new sites are going up every day -- every minute, really -- that have all kinds of shiny new gizmos embedded in them.  Video embeds, podcasts, blogs, feeds -- seems every single site we build now has one or more of these elements. (A big "duh" to the more tech savvy of you who read this, but keep going...)

The catch is, that stuff has to remain fresh.  Not good enough to deliver a video, and leave the same video as the only choice for a long time.  Gotta have new videos.  From here on out.  Perpetually.  That consideration isn't always a consideration when the concept for the site is presented.  But it's a reality, once the thing is built.

So, who's going to make all that content?  Who's going to write the CEO's blog for him when he realizes it takes up a lot of time he didn't have anyway?  Who's going to deliver that new podcast from the CMO every single week for the next 52 weeks?  Who's going to deliver fresh video content every month?

Seth, I'm sure -- and I know the 2.0 purists -- will say it's part of the marketing job now, and that the CEO should absolutely write his own blog, because it's all about transparency.  And that's the spirit of the thing, to be sure.  But the reality is different. It happens, but it's rare, and although it'll increase, it'll remain relatively rare.

Corporations can turn to less expensive video production companies to shoot what they're told - and they do.  And how many talking-head, marketing and tech jargon-filled videos have you recommended to friends lately?  The spirit of the brand, and, sadly, the creativity, are frequently victims of either (A) budget; or (B) a less-than-intimate knowledge of the brand and its target.  There are blogger-for-hire and podcast services, but they haven't truly tapped into the mainstream yet, as far as I can tell.  Which leaves marketers -- if they even realize that they need fresh content regularly -- turning, mostly, to the agencies (including full-service, with digital capabilities as well as digital-only) who built the site in the first place, to deliver new content regularly.

Except, most agencies aren't really set up to do that.  They're set up, for the most part, to make money on the biggest, most visible, and first element of the project -- the site itself.  The first iteration that's delivered, is, of course, chock full of content.  But the creation of new content down the line, without the financial support that is provided by the much bigger job of creating the site itself, is difficult to staff and budget for. At least, the way agencies are set up now.

Is it a conundrum - or an opportunity?

Technorati Tags:
Advertising  Marketing   Creative   Interactive   Online Marketing Design  Digital Design Blattner Brunner  Ernie Mosteller  BB Digital 

del.icio.us this      

Something to read while I'm on Vacation

I'm at the beach.  I love the beach.  I miss the beach.  Well, ok, I don't miss the beach right this second, because -- I'm here.  Back to regularly scheduled ranting later.  For now, here's the piece I just wrote for adotas.com.  And here's the link to the other stuff I've written for them.

Technorati Tags:
Advertising  Marketing   Creative   Interactive   Online Marketing Design  Digital Design Blattner Brunner  Ernie Mosteller  BB Digital 

del.icio.us this      

The Online Video Curve

Last week, I didn't write much, because I was worn out after a week in Mexico directing interactive video.  It was every bit as much of a shoot as many of the network spots I've done in my career. The budget, however, was significantly smaller than most of those network spots.  At the same time, though, it was significantly more than anything even approaching home-made. Yes, this is online video, but it's not your kid brother with a camcorder.  The finished content is good enough to run anywhere.  But it won't, because that wouldn't make sense.  It was designed for the web.

In one week back at the office, I had three separate meetings about a total of five pending online video projects, with budgets running the gamut.  Clients get online video, and they want more of it.

Some agencies react to online video with disdain: "It's crap.  No production value - just some Schmo with a camcorder and kids doing stupid stuff."  Others react with misguided glee: "You can shoot anything you want for a nickel, and the audience will buy it, because they're used to looking at DIY." Both views are missing what's really happening.

Clients are all over video because of the benefits we've always known are inherent in a moving-image piece.  It tells a story, it conveys emotion, it demonstrates concepts, ideas, and products better than anything else.  And because it's an affordable way to get an engaging message in front of the people you want interacting with that message.

Done well, video for the web is developed with the same kind of thought that goes into the development of a site:  Who are the users?  What are they looking for?  What do they want to see?  What are they used to looking at? What do we want them to do?  All of that in context with the omnipresent parameter for all communications projects -- how much money can we spend on this? Video for the web, from an agency standpoint, isn't simply grabbing a camcorder, and shooting your kid brother on a rocket-powered skateboard.  However, neither is it re-purposing a spot made for tv.  But it could have some elements of either one of those, depending on its context.

Video for the web is just that.  For the web.  There's no defined style, duration, context, production value, or even, defined format.  There's no one way to make it.  Which means each video project done for the web is going to have its own set of conceptual and production requirements, based on content.  Content that resonates with users, within the voice of the brand, and the budget.  Content is, as always, everything.

When I wrote Use A Stick several years ago, I harped a lot on the overall cost of production -- how creative has to be developed for a new world where agencies compete for people's attention against kid brothers everywhere.  When I wrote it, I didn't simply say, "Make it cheaper."  I said agencies have to learn how to develop good stuff to play on a whole new playing field -- which includes new competition, and new budgets.

I don't know if people didn't read, believe, or pay attention, or if it wasn't all that important a concept back then.  After all, online video was just an interesting blip on the radar at that point.  Something that was surely coming, but at the time, was relatively experimental. It was, actually, relegated to the kid brothers of the world -- or, maybe, to early-adopter agencies re-purposing tv spots for this new thing called YouTube, hoping to somehow get more eyeballs. 

It doesn't matter.  What matters now is this:  If you haven't developed an expert knowledge of how to concept, write, and produce quality video for the web on budgets that are reality for the web (not tv) -- and if you don't have a deep understanding of how very different an online video piece and its audience can (and should) be from anything you'll find on tv, there's a curve coming.  It's ahead of you.

Technorati Tags:
Advertising  Marketing   Creative   Interactive   Online Marketing Design  Digital Design Blattner Brunner  Ernie Mosteller  BB Digital 

del.icio.us this      

The Process

Short post today.  Spent a good bit of the day writing my next piece for adotas.com, which is due this week.  Here's the link to my author page there, where it'll appear, in addition to the adotas homepage, once the editor posts it.   (A note about that -- I don't write the titles.  Just the stuff under them.) Spent the rest of the time yesterday and today with my kids, because I've been out of town for a week.

I just got back from a shoot in Mexico.  One of the cool things about my job is that I still get to direct from time to time.  I suppose 15 years doing it all the time counts for something.  The job I just shot was an interactive piece, and the shoot came off incredibly well, considering the lack of A/C in the studio, and plenty of 10Ks.

I was reminded how much I like the process.  Not the process as most agencies think of the process -- scheduling time and talent, filling out the proper forms, making sure everyone's informed and on the right conference calls and email cc's.  Not that.  That stuff is necessary, and it's process, but that's not the process I'd call fun.  I'm talking about the process of making stuff. Of creation.  Coaxing a great performance out of an actress who isn't sure she's got it in her.  Inventing new shots the client would have never envisioned, but that add a ton of style and punch to the end product.  Being there, in the moment, creating the right moment, hopefully, while the camera is rolling.  It's fun.  And it's even more fun when it's done with a deep understanding of the strategy behind the whole project.

There's a lot of creative out there that strives for cool, just for cool.  There's at least an equal amount, or maybe more, that has decent strategy, but fails the cool test.  Neither are the kind that get me up in the morning, or get customers to your door.  The kind that does that -- is the kind that's fun.  And it's fun through the whole process.

Technorati Tags:
Advertising  Marketing   Creative   Interactive   Online Marketing Design  Digital Design Blattner Brunner  Ernie Mosteller  BB Digital 

del.icio.us this      

The Elephant in the Integrated Room

Danny G has an interesting piece on TalentZoo that kind of re-sparked some thoughts that I've been having a lot lately about how we're all handling this integration thing.  During the course of a typical day, I probably have four or five conversations about integration, as it relates to advertising -- or sometimes, media in general. 

In our industry, we perceive two sides of the integration fence.  But truth is, there are many.  The most obvious ones to us are traditional agencies who want to become more digital -- who solve that any number of ways -- and digital agencies who either want a bigger share of the overall marketing pie, or who want more credit for the stuff they come up with.  In the tech world, where they're (a little) less concerned about the development of marketing messages, there's lively debate on delivery options, connectivity, integration of platforms, and, of course, the relative usefulness, and frequent downtime of Twitter. 

Those are integration discussions, too -- because they deal with the integration or adoption of new technologies into the real world.  And that, to me, is both the essence of the agency debates, as well as the big, fat elephant sitting in the room that no one bothers to talk about much.

Because how this stuff integrates into the lives of real people is, really, the only thing that matters.

The talk for some time around agencies is about how consumers (users, people) are now in control.  News flash:  They've always been in control.  You just didn't notice it as much, because they didn't have as many ways to express their displeasure or acceptance, and the ways they had were nowhere as far reaching or immediate.  They are now.  Which means, if you're used to putting out drivel, you'll get called on it much quicker.  If you're putting out stuff that's appealing, you'll see faster acceptance.

Discussion about integration too frequently centers on what the other integrating party needs to do to make it happen.  Traditional marketers think that if the digital set would just think more about the big idea, they'd be better off.  Digital folks think that the traditionals need to finally get on Facebook and Twitter, and try to keep up.  Both are right, and both miss the bigger point.

New technology has enabled human interaction to happen through new conduits.  But it hasn't changed the essence of that interaction one bit.  Dig deeper through the delivery mechanisms and the pithy headline-visual combos, and you'll find, if you're smart, that we as marketers are simply surrogates for our clients in a great big room full of regular people, and we're just trying to be noticed and liked. 

My seven-year-old doesn't think about the mechanics of how he interacts with Sponge Bob.  Sometimes it's with a mouse, other times it's with a DVD remote.  They're different to him, to be sure, but what ultimately matters is that Sponge Bob (and, well, Patrick) crack him up.  Nick has given him a variety of ways to interact with Sponge Bob, and he uses them all, right down to the new toothbrush.  What they've done right is to deliver meaningful experience within two contexts -- one, the context of the medium itself (meaning the site he plays on isn't simply a re-hash or alternate distribution of the tv content), and two, within the context of his relationship with the character -- there's creative continuity without the use of, or need for, content duplication.

Analogy Alert: Say you're at a summer barbecue, and you meet a really nice woman, and buy her a beer.  She enjoys hanging out with you for the day, because you make her laugh with your sometimes loud, but consistently funny behavior. She gives you her number.  When you call, she invites you to go with her to a semi-formal garden party.  When you go, do you (A) wear the same Hawaiian print shirt you wore to the barbecue, tell the same loud jokes, and offer to buy her a beer (after all, that seemed to work before) -- or (B) dress appropriately for the garden party, but keep her giggling with subdued humor?

Option (B), clearly, is the way to go.  Because it recognizes the essence of your brand (humor) that is the attraction to the audience.  Yet, it alters the nature of the creative to be appropriate for the delivery mechanism.  It sees the underlying message ("please continue to like me") and delivers that message as basic human interaction that's appropriate to a specific time and place.

If I haven't lost you, here's where I'm going with all this:  Digital - it's not all about the new cool stuff that's out there.  Traditional - it's not all about forcing the same old stuff into new places.  Everybody - it's always been about the people you're trying to attract, but none of us noticed as much before.  Now it's clear that it's not partly about them, it's only about them, and what they want.  It's our job to deliver it, in the ways they want it delivered.

Technorati Tags:
Advertising  Marketing   Creative   Interactive   Online Marketing Design  Digital Design Blattner Brunner  Ernie Mosteller  BB Digital 

del.icio.us this