Sell Yo-self

Content. The marketing strategy catchall. No matter the problem – declining sales, poor branding, lack of distribution and reach – content can solve it. Is this just wishful thinking?

There seems to be some kind of self-deception going on amongst marketing bloggers and content-creators, as if the notion of people choosing to engage with advertising of their own volition suddenly makes it not advertising.

Separating content strategy from traditional, hard sell ad strategy is the new trend in adland. Of course, there’s nothing wrong with trying to rebrand the industry – consumers are more sceptical than ever – but when it starts affecting the type of research that organisations are conducting in the field, it becomes a problem.

Just look at the Content Marketing Institute’s latest release. The bulk of the research is based on primed surveys, interviews with self-styled content marketers, and questions about the number of digital platforms in use at any one time. More is… better?

"This is revolutionary stuff, Michael. Get our engagement officer down here right now."

Obviously, any conclusions the Content Marketing Institute draw about the effectiveness of content will be about as surprising as a study on the health effects of soft drinks as commissioned by Coca-Cola, but it’s still an interesting talking point, because there’s one very simple rule of research that these institutes are not adhering to.

The research should influence the directions of the discipline, and not the other way around. Research that is biased and non-objective is little use to anyone other than those who are doing the biasing.

This is expected with companies like Coca-Cola. They have an agenda. They’re inherently biased. They want more sales. So no one is surprised when one of their studies conveniently concludes that exercise is far more important to overall health than diet, despite that being total bullshit.

"If those damn fatties just ran a little more, they could have as much Coke as they want!" 

But it’s a little more obscure with content marketing research. The ad industry’s agenda is to bypass the scepticism of consumers, sure, but how many people are still honestly fooled by native advertising, branded storytelling, and manufactured viral videos?

There’s a reason why TV still dominates; why the old-fashioned, disruptive, hard sell still delivers strong revenue. All the picturesque panoramas and orchestral crescendos in the world will never outdo a good deal. Value remains the strongest motivator, and if it comes bundled with convenience, then hey presto, the Fogg checklist of persuasion is filled out. All that’s left is proper branding.

A 60-second, carbon copy, millennial-infused tearjerker with a logo slapped on the tail end is not branded content. Harvey Norman ads that literally shout at you through the screen are more effectively branded, and hell, probably more memorable. They’re irritating, sure, but that’s the emotional response. They work their zone and they’re totally unashamed of it.

"God, these Harvey Norman ads drive me up the fucking wall, don't they Cheryl?"
"True, but I'll be damned if that isn't a great deal on sofas."

The hard sell is dirty but effective because it literally shoves the brand directly into your face hole. The hard sell is the greasy, balding, Saab salesman who says the brand name five times in the first minute of the pitch and throws in tinted windows at no extra cost. You’ll feel a bit used, but you won’t stop thinking about Saabs the whole drive home.

Content marketing is more akin to the polished, panhandling, indie princess pitching for Charity X outside the local artisanal coffee shop. She’s nice to look at, but she doesn’t stand out from the crowd and opens her pitch with a story about a blind and starving child in some never-thought-of part of the world. No one’s really sure what she’s selling, and, wait a minute… which charity is this again?

"Look, I'm on commission. Can you just buy a damn pin?"

And that’s really the point. It’s every advertiser’s dream to have people volunteer to watch your advertising, but it’s going to need distribution, and it’s going to need branding. It’s not enough to just create emotional content and expect people to do the legwork and link it with your brand. Who is going to care?

Research should be about what works, and not what placates industry creatives. Because while they’re busy patting themselves on the back over their Hollywood-esque online production, consumers are out making real-time decisions based on whatever they’re feeling in that moment.

Eventually, the ad industry is going to have to recognise people’s propensity to not give a shit. We know this is an ad, we know you’re selling something, so why don’t you, y’know, actually sell it to us?

a.ce