Wake Up: A Strategic Intel Report on Content

QUARTERLY

SUMMER 2014

A STRATEGIC INTELLIGENCE REPORT THE ISSUE // CONTENT

CONTENTS 3 LETTERS FROM THE EDITORS 5 THE HEAD & HEART 7 BRANDED CONTENT WATERS 13 NEW NAME, SIMILAR GAME 19 FUNNY HA-HA(?)

23 PURPOSE MARKETING 29 THE IDIOT'S GUIDE TO "EMBEDDED MARKETING" 33 SATIRE THAT STICKS 35 THE BRAND NEWSROOM 39 THE MYTHOLOGY OF VIRALITY 41 ORIGINAL CONTENT 47 GOING NATIVE 51 FOOTNOTES 55 PHOTO CREDITS 57 THE WAKE UP CREW

1

ENTERTAINMENT

MARKETING

19

29 39

3 5

41 23 35

13

33

7 47

EDITORIAL

2

LETTERS FROM

&

ADVERTISING GOOD ALONE Before joining Omelet, I was a lifer in the traditional agency system.

In between holding company acquisitions, endless reviews, periodic consolidations, and gobs and gobs of advertising, I caught a few glimpses of what would eventually become known as content marketing.

Back in what feels like the Paleolithic era of the mid-aughts, my old agency posted an online, too-hot-for-TV cut of a commercial that featured a post-sex-tape Paris Hilton, in what could only be classified as a swimsuit on a technicality, soaping up a Bentley while seductively eating a burger.

After the Parent Television Council decried it as “pornography,” and watchdog groups called for a boycott, we literally broke the Internet.

Now let’s be clear – this was not a watershed moment for our industry, nor was it a paragon of good taste.

But it was strategic. With a shoestring budget and an unapologetically ballsy client, we gave our target audience –

young, hungry guys – exactly what stoked them, and in turn, hijacked the pop culture conversation. It opened my eyes to the prospect that creating content that audiences actually sought out, engaged with (get your mind out of the gutter), and talked about could short-circuit the spots-and-dots legacy media model that I’d grown up with.

I spent the next few years trying to scale this strategy, at first unsuccessfully in a traditional agency structure that wasn’t ready to embrace change, and later, at Omelet, where I found a band of creative reformers who shared my belief that a story well told, be it a global advertising campaign, feature film, web series, social app, or physical experience, has to win audiences’ hearts and minds.

What we’ve learned along the way is that effective storytelling has to start with the audience – identifying, understanding, motivating, appealing to, and connecting with the right audience – whether it’s a consumer,

SEAN MCNAMARA SEAN.MCNAMARA@OMELETLA.COM

3

Chief Strategy Officer

business, internal stakeholder, investor, or division of a company.

In our current attention economy, being heard isn’t a matter of trying to outspend or outshout everyone else, but rather being more empathetic to the needs and desires of audiences, and telling stories that they actually want to spend time with, all without ever losing sight of the brand’s role in the narrative.

It seems simple, even pedantic, but many smart marketers concentrate their efforts on appealing to either the heart or the head, one at the expense of the other.

Where we’ve managed to find a sweet spot is in bringing together the most strategic elements of push marketing, advertising if you will, with the creativity of pull marketing, to create brand stories in which the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

When applied in the right combination, it’s the best of both worlds.

THE EDITORS

&

CONTENT BETTER TOGETHER

Since my earliest days as a creative, I’ve consistently found myself asking the same existential questions over and over again. Why are you doing this, and who cares anyway? How is this contributing to the world? Is it meaningful, authentic, entertaining, informative, or valuable? Most of all, does it have a genuine and infallible purpose? Because purpose, above all else, is what sparks real innovation.

Purpose is what leads to an idea that people will truly buy into.

As a company, we’re measured by results. Therefore, seeking the answers to these questions each and every time is paramount to increasing the efficacy of our work, servicing our partners in innovative ways, and ultimately growing our business.

However, we are at a crossroads right now in marketing. Defining what branded content is, and demystifying its purpose, is our burden. The case of content vs. advertising is one that we're constantly hearing from our clients, within industry social circles, and in editorial headlines.

And despite branded content still

M I K E WA L L E N

representing only a fraction of overall marketing spend, few debate its growing importance in today’s “always-on” world. But the real issue with this discussion is why it must be an either/or proposition. Advertising is not branded content, and branded content is not advertising, and that is perfectly okay. One is not out to destroy the other. Frankly, they need each other. Like the headline above says: good alone, better together.

In its simplest form, the difference between advertising and content is the difference between “buying” and “buying-in.” Advertising is about building awareness through frequency, value, and information. Content is about building trust through story, engagement, and entertainment.

Advertising is about creating customers, whereas content is about creating evangelists. Again, buying and buying-in. Each has a distinct purpose and each has a reason to exist.

But at the end of the day, they’re both about selling.

strategy, but now more than ever, brands need to build and own a broader narrative by augmenting it with content.

A well-told story sits deep in the viewer’s heart. People rarely pick up the phone to tell a friend about product features or specs. But they share stories every day. When a story resonates and moves people emotionally, or provides meaningful value, they retell it many times over, amplifying the message.

Stories leave lasting impressions, and stories are more likely to be passed along.

This presents an opportunity for agencies of all shapes and sizes to validate the trust they have earned with their clients. To showcase that marketing acumen, battletested processes, world-class strategic and creative capabilities, and a commitment to building a foundational expertise in content marketing that will redefine our industry for years to come. Hopefully this Wake Up report can help us all answer the question: Why are we doing this, and who cares anyway?

We know the role that effective advertising can play in a marketing

Chief Content Officer

M I K E .WA L L E N @ O M E L E T L A . C O M

4

BUYING & T H E A N ATO M Y O F

THE HEAD PUSH Marketing Brand Consideration Awareness & Intent I want!

Customers What you do & how you do it Interruptive Conversion Driven Impression

5

BUILD STRON SMAR BRA

BUYING IN BRAND STORYTELLING

DING A NGER, RTER AND

THE HEART PULL Marketing Brand Love Trust & Loyalty I care!

Evangelists Why you do what you do Invited Affinity Driven Expression

6

BRANDED CONTENT

WATERS A MILE WIDE & AN INCH DEEP

JASMEET GILL

7

Branded content. Marketers are clamoring for it. Agencies – advertising, talent, media, and PR – are shilling it as a panacea to whatever ails their clients. VC firms are throwing funding at it, while media companies – both old and new – are scrambling to find new ways to package and push it out.

Every day more and more branded content gets developed, produced, and distributed.

By creative professionals, entertainers, editorial publishers, amateurs, and everyone in between. And some of it actually gets found and consumed by real audiences.

But what is it exactly? And why, rather than tightening the corners on practical applications of branded content, do we have to make it more confusing by introducing new splinter cells? There’s liquid content, micro content, sponsored content, omnichannel content, native content, snackable content, and the most abhorrent of the lot, contentvertising.

As the lines between creator, curator, and consumer blur, and the distinctions between commerce and editorial, brand and publisher, not to mention paid, earned, and owned media, all become more distorted, it’s tempting to fall into the ad tech-trap of stringing together a series of buzzwords to form one long, amorphous definition to describe seemingly simple solutions. In researching this piece, we attended a number of conferences and countless webinars on content marketing, and were astounded by how many of the so-called experts dodge – sometimes artfully, but more often with the grace of a wounded water buffalo – the subject of what they actually do for a living.

It’s enough to make a politician blush.

From “content is the atomic particle of all marketing” to “content is a tripartite solution to paid, earned, and owned media,” we’ve heard it all. One content agency we challenged during a recent event went so far

8

SO WHAT? Branded content isn’t another flash-in-thepan marketing trend; the discipline has matured to a point where we’ve proven that it can serve a specific strategic purpose and generate real organizational value.

But our industry is doing itself a real disservice by chasing client demand for sheer quantities of content, at the expense of understanding audience demand for meaningful stories. We all want to grab a piece of the growing pie, but few agencies have taken a disciplined approach to defining what they’re selling and why.

NOW WHAT? As branded content becomes more widely adopted, supported with bigger budgets and greater client resources, we need to stand together and change the conversation. We need to move away from sales-ey jargon and fast talk, and start an honest dialogue around the value proposition.

How does the successful integration of branding into editorial and entertainment content benefit not only the agency middlemen, but also the clients funding it, and the audiences seeing it? Let’s talk about it. Like real people.

9

as to say, “We don’t really feel comfortable defining content; we just market it.” Really?

That’s like Nike saying, “We don’t know what a shoe is, we just market it.”

Admittedly, many of us are guilty of throwing the c-word around in RFPs, at industry boondoggles, in the heat of a pitch, even on our own LinkedIn profiles, but few in our industry seem to want to commit to a working definition of what branded content is, and, more importantly, what benefit it provides, how it integrates into the marketing mix, and why it’s worth the investment. The only thing we can agree on is that it involves some combination of three other c-words: connectivity, community, and conversations.

But here’s the real irony – the further we move away from clearly defining branded content, the more heated the arms race to stockpile it becomes. It begs the question, what unmet or under-delivered need or desire is this sudden glut of content filling?

Why is there such a gap between supply and demand? After all, just because you can drink from the fire hose doesn’t necessarily mean you want to.

As a brand strategist, I felt compelled to take the plunge into the world of branded content and emerge with a jargon-free, meaningful understanding of what its true value is. And to talk about it like a human. What’s clear is that as audiences grow more skeptical of traditional advertising (76% of people think ads in general are exaggerated, 87% think that we’re Photoshop fiends, and 32% believe they know what our ads are “trying to do”1), there’s a real opportunity to augment – rather than replace – those push marketing efforts with informative or entertaining stories that pull audiences towards a brand. To succeed in today’s marketplace, we’d better recognize that or get out of the way for marketers who do.

So what exactly is content? Broadly speaking, content is everything – there’s no right or wrong definition. As humans, it’s what we create, perform, write, film, sing, invent, play, report on, review, and share. It’s artistic, entertaining, educational, funny, sad, informative, and sometimes, oftentimes, just

BLAH, BLAH, BLAH

THE MURKY SEA OF CONTENT JARGON bifurcation enterprise tripartite integrated king evolution liquid transformation premium snackable collaborative scalable holistic viral UGC disruptive placement SEO long infographic retention acquisition engagement shareabililty resonance ongoing distributive profitable tactical enlightening consumption media compilation factual sensual planned sporadic credible agnostic non-intrusive original executable advertorial authentic

10

pointless. Branded content on the other hand must serve a purpose, both for the brand that’s funding it, and for the audience it’s created for.

The distinction between branded content and say, editorial content or entertainment, can be simplified into two enmeshed factors: the (perceived) source of funding and associated level of audience trust. Editorial content, which in theory expresses the opinion of an editor, publisher, or individual, is generally more trusted because audiences don’t believe that it’s paid for directly by marketers. The same goes for entertainment, which audiences believe is funded by a studio, producer, or investor – not brands with an agenda to influence

11

or manipulate their behavior. Based on the reality of the dollar flow behind editorial content and entertainment, this might look like a distinction without a real difference, but audiences, the true arbiters, believe otherwise.

Using this logic, one might argue that branded content, by virtue of the fact that it’s funded by a marketer, is a type of advertising, but we disagree.2 Yes, branded content and advertising both manifest an idea or message intended to get a specific target audience to take an action that ultimately solves a brand’s business problem. What differentiates the two is how their intended purposes serve different outcomes. Advertising, when done

effectively, is intended to sell more, in one form or another, while branded content is intended to build affinity, trust, and loyalty.

Advertising persuades, while branded content informs and entertains.

Branded content should feel like there’s something in it for both parties – an implied quid pro quo between the seller and the buyer. It’s a fundamentally different value exchange than traditional advertising, which is often perceived as a forced intrusion rather than an invited guest. One stands between a person and the stuff they want to consume, while the other, when done well, feels like the stuff they want to consume. Will one replace the other? Not likely, at least in our lifetime, but when combined in the right ratios they can work together to foster a more equitable – and trusting – relationship between brand and consumer.

So did I succeed in crafting a working definition for branded content that’s devoid of jargon? One that I could explain to my uncle across the Thanksgiving table or to a stranger in the next seat on a flight? Just when I thought I had it, I read a quote from Doug Scott, Chair of this year’s Cannes Lions Branded Content & Entertainment Jury, who defined content as “marketing so good that consumers don’t know it’s marketing.”3 I couldn’t have said it better myself. Simple, honest, and stated in relatable, human terms, this definition shares all the same qualities as great branded content.

12

NEW NAME, SIMILAR GAME SABENA SURI

A HISTORY OF CONTENT MARKETING

Content marketing. Branded content. Whatever the latest nom de guerre, we could spend hours debating the finer points of difference between definitions, and the concept itself is hardly new. In the same way that “liking” a story, company or product, or “following” the opinions of interesting people aren’t new either.

Long before the Internet was a twinkle in Al Gore’s eye, brands were using editorial content to garner popularity and grow their businesses. The formula goes

13

something like this: interesting stories (let’s call them pieces of content) get people to care about stuff (compelling messages), and sometimes they care enough to share it with their friends. Insert a brand into the equation, and it can help increase awareness and improve perceptions, which in turn drives loyalty and the holy grail of marketing, advocacy.

In principle, this may sound more like calculus than creativity, but in practice, aligning stories that make an audience’s life better with credible

marketing messages requires a rare blend of left-and-right-brain thinking.

That is to say that behind every company like Red Bull or Dove, that effectively straddles the line between marketer and publisher, there’s a trail of bodies of those who failed to balance audience interests and brand messages.

Because we don’t have anywhere near the column space needed to autopsy the failures, we’ll highlight some of the successes instead, to illustrate how the discipline has evolved from its analog roots to the white-hot industry it's become today.

ORIGINS OF CONTENT Perhaps the first recognized example of content marketing came in 1895, courtesy of John Deer. The brand published a magazine called The Furrow, meant to serve as an educational tool for farmers.1 The goal was to make them better at their jobs, and essentially more profitable business owners. Ultimately, this would translate to a group of hardcore John Deer evangelists that passed this old-school work hack down to new generations of farmers.

Today the magazine reaches over half a million consumers in the U.S. and Canada, and roughly 2 million others across the globe.2 Publications Manager David Jones sums up John Deer’s content strategy nicely: “Telling stories that folks enjoy reading — and that they can use in their own operations — has been the recipe since the beginning.”3 Half a decade later, French tire manufacturer Michelin first developed its Michelin Guides.

The free guides were intended to help motorists in France improve navigation on the primitive roads, with tips on how to use and repair their tires, where to find hotels and

petrol stations, maps, and a list of mechanics.4 Today, the iconic Michelin Guides and star ratings are an essential reference for finding the best places to eat and stay around the globe. Though the intended audience and subject matter have certainly shifted, the guides have stayed true to their original mission: to make travel easier and more convenient. And that’s helped give the Michelin brand more depth, reach, and meaning.

Around the same time, in 1904 Jell-O hopped on the editorial content bandwagon. Confronted with declining sales, the company came to the realization that many consumers simply didn’t understand its revolutionary, albeit intimidating product. What resulted was free content with a distinct purpose: a recipe book that showcased the wonders of Jell-O in a variety of form factors and flavor profiles, for all ages and dining occasions.

And it worked—just two years later, Jell-O sales increased by $1 million.5 Goes to show how controlling one’s own editorial brand story can go a long way.

14

DEVELOPING CONTENT Fast-forward 50 years. In the early 1950’s, Sir Hugh Beaver, the Managing Director of Guinness Brewery, had an epiphany: there was no reference book that had definitive answers to obscure records (i.e. the fastest game bird in Europe).

Capitalizing on this opportunity, Beaver decided to publish one. He knew that his book would settle the frequent bar squabbles between friends at pubs, giving Guinness credit, and ultimately, publicity for being the honest broker. The book was first published in 1955 and handed out to bars free of charge; soon after, 50,000 copies were reprinted and sold.6 Brand exposure and a new revenue stream? We’ll drink to that.

While many of these examples demonstrate how brands created and owned new editorial formats, such as “official” record-breaking, Hasbro’s collaboration with Marvel shows how the one-plus-one-equalsthree math of a great partnership can build an enduring IP empire. In 1982 these two companies teamed up to re-release the once-popular G.I. Joe action figure, creating different characters with different backstories, as well as a new enemy – Cobra.7 With the new toy’s release, they launched a comic book entitled G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero, which was the first comic book to be advertised on TV. It can be argued that while the new G.I. was certainly better, faster, and stronger, it was the comic book series, and later the television series, that propelled the franchise into the mainstream.

15

A couple of decades and a whole lot of technological innovations later, BMW cannonballed into the content waters with BMW Films. In 2001, the brand created a series of shorts, around 10 minutes apiece, known collectively as The Hire. They starred Clive Owen, were directed by Hollywood hotshots like Ang Lee, John Woo, and Guy Ritchie, and featured supporting players like Gary Oldman, Don Cheadle, and Madonna.8 The films certainly showcased the BMW product, and much of the action was rooted in the driving experience, but they were entertainment in and of themselves.

Above all else, this groundbreaking series paved the way for the modern view of branded content: subtle, informative, eminently entertaining, and available online for free.

A few years later, in 2008, American Express launched an online community known as OPEN Forum, a site that gives business owners access to information, educational resources, and tools for collaboration in the form of articles, infographics, blog posts, and videos.9 By offering valuable content and connecting SBOs at a time when social media was only just getting started, American Express became the financial authority for small businesses (while still holding the reigns as the card of the elite).

Moreover, AmEx didn't just build a website, backfill it with content, and call it a day: they doubled down their commitment to this constituency by establishing Small Business Saturday in 2010, encouraging consumers everywhere to “shop small.”10

MODERN CONTENT This all brings us to today – 2014.

Just a few weeks before press time, the Branded Content jury at Cannes declined to award a Grand Prix for this category, which is still in its toddler stage at three years old. Plenty of gold Lions were handed out to the expected players (Chipotle’s "Scarecrow" and Samsung’s “Oscar Selfie” among others), but the absence of a top prize is a clear statement that while many brands are doing it well, there was no single example of what content can and should be this year. That’s not surprising, given the gold rush mentality of marketers and entertainers alike, but there have been some standout cases that shined brighter than the rest.

In any conversation about content marketing, it would be remiss not to mention Dove. The brand has established itself as the leader in “real beauty” for women everywhere, challenging women to not only accept, but also celebrate themselves, flaws and all. One of the brand’s most successful content initiatives (and there have been many) came in the form of a video, Dove Real Beauty Sketches, where women were told to describe themselves to a sketch artist who couldn't see them, who then drew pictures that revealed their true beauty. The short film had all the right ingredients: it was emotional, inspirational, and thought provoking.

What’s more, it initiated some very real

conversations about beauty and even spawned some spoofs, which only reinforces its pop culture zeitgeist.

It became the most shared video ad of all time, with 64 million views to date.11 When you take a step back and think about it, Dove is a fairly utilitarian CPG player that sells soap and shampoo, but has successfully harnessed the power of storytelling to make the brand so much more than that. Its approach is part art, part science, and all genius.

Chipotle is another great example of a brand that’s using content marketing to effectively take the high road in a hyper-competitive category. Not many fast-casual chains, or retailers in general for that matter, would have the fortitude to stake a long-term and unwavering claim to high-minded values like ethical treatment of animals, local sourcing, and family farming. But that’s exactly what Chipotle has done, most recently in the Hulu miniseries Farmed and Dangerous, as well as the aforementioned "Scarecrow" video, which tackle weighty subjects such as responsible production and mindful consumption. More than anything, it's a powerful story that shows not who Chipotle is, but more importantly, why it is that way. And it’s paid dividends – the video has been viewed over 12.7 million times on YouTube and has over 126 million total impressions.12

Red Bull has long been a black belt in the ways of content marketing, establishing the Red Bull Media House in 2007, publishing Red Bulletin Magazine, among other things. Yet the brand’s single biggest piece of content came in the form of a stunt. In October 2012, Red Bull sponsored daredevil Felix Baumgartner, as he became the first person to break the sound barrier, free falling from 128,000 feet above Earth.13 The results were astonishing: the event generated 8 million live views, the most concurrent live views in YouTube history, as well as 2.6 million social media mentions on the day of the event.14 Above all else, it inextricably linked Red Bull to adventure, excitement, and exploration—perceptions that can take years to establish in more traditional channels.

The Creators Project, a collaboration between Vice and Intel “celebrates visionary artists across multiple disciplines who are using technology in innovative ways to push the boundaries of creative expression.”15 It launched in 2010, and has featured over 500 creators from around the world, including Florence and The Machine, Spike Jonze, David Bowie, and Rodarte. The series won the Webby Award’s People’s Voice award in the Branded Entertainment, Long Form category, in addition to heaps of industry buzz.16

16

MARKETING IMPLICATIONS In the same way that a single ad won’t likely change the fortunes – or even perceptions – of a brand, no one piece of content will ever be a miracle-worker. Sure, there are those lightening-in-a-bottle cases, where a great piece of content puts a brand squarely in the spotlight – Mark Ecko tagging Air Force One comes to mind – but in sustainably building and evolving a brand, content is most valuable when providing a narrative through-line that elevates all other marketing efforts. Whether its purpose is communicating corporate values, reputational messages, or just providing pure entertainment, when applied strategically, and in harmony with other media, it can help elevate a brand’s value to a place in culture that’s truly ownable.

17

Reflecting back on the John Deer example, this brand’s strategy has always been to give its audience information that makes their lives (and livelihoods) better; its content marketing efforts over the last century have built and fostered a community that engages with one another, even in the cacophonous Information Age. Dove, Chipotle, and Red Bull have created similar kinds of tribes, each focused on a unique benefit – empowerment, responsibility, and sheer adrenaline.

For marketers, it begs the question: what higher need do your consumers have that goes beyond your product or service? And how will you meet that need through the stories you tell? Really, that’s what content marketing is all about.

18

FUNNY HA-HA(?)

T H E A N T I - H U M O R W E B I F I C AT I O N O F

T H E

B R O A D C A S T T E L E V I S I O N C O M M E R C I A L

ALEX DELYLE

19

,,

A funny thing happened a few weeks ago. I was watching an NBA playoff game. Every few minutes I consulted Twitter, as one is wont to do during a live sporting event in 2014, and I saw a tweet from comedian Tim Heidecker1 that struck me as both ironic and significant:

These Griffin Force commercials are a great example of everyone involved not giving a shit. @ t i m h e i d e c ke r The commercial in question was from a series for the Kia Optima.

“Griffin Force” features Los Angeles Clippers star Blake Griffin and 30 Rock star Jack MacBrayer as pseudo superheroes who don’t exactly fight crime – they hang out in a midcentury batcave-esque lair, cruise around town, and occasionally extoll the benefits of the Optima.

The tone of “Griffin Force” is hard to pin down. The jokes aren’t really jokes but rather slow, deadpan visual gags. The set pieces are made to look cheap and flimsy. The acting is archly bad. Many of the spots end in several seconds of awkward silence, and per Heidecker’s insinuation, they are unfunny – almost purposefully so.

But the irony of his comment on the “not giving a shit” tone of these ads is that Heidecker himself helped usher in this style of Web-native humor.

Over the past 15 or so years, Heidecker and his partner Eric Wareheim – known as “Tim and Eric” – have built a small comedic empire out of their brand of surreal,

deadpan anti-humor. The duo met in college and began collaborating on short videos and animations for their website, TimandEric.com.2 Videos like “LA Guyz” and “Cat Film Festival” epitomize their work, which David Itzkoff of The New York Times once described as “like outtakes from a public-access channel that’s broadcast only in hell (…) full of shoddily produced, sloppily edited [elements, which are] usually a result of accidents, budgetary restrictions and bad choices.”3 These elements are also hallmarks of anti-humor in general, which skewers the whole concept of comedy by failing to deliver a traditional punch line, instead reveling in the anti-climactic lack thereof. The joke is often buried in the setup itself – a setup that is usually tinged with amateurism, darkness, surrealism, and heavy doses of irony. Other famous comedians associated with anti-humor include Andy Kaufman, Norm Macdonald, and Neil Hamburger.4 Armed with this fresh, offbeat voice, Tim and Eric quickly impressed one of their idols, Mr. Show’s Bob Odenkirk, who offered to collaborate with the duo on their first TV show, Cartoon Network’s Tom Goes to the Mayor. The rest is Hollywood history: their first show begat several others, including the popular Tim and Eric Awesome Show, Great Job! which ran for five seasons and even became a feature film.

Throughout their successes on the big and small screen, Tim and Eric continued to make content for the Web. They even dabbled in “advertising,” first in 2007 with a bizarre and hilarious series of seemingly commissioned promo

20

videos for Shrek the Third, wherein Tim and Eric positioned themselves as paid spokesmen for the DreamWorks film when they decidedly were not.

(They even threw in a slapdash array of “corporate sponsors” for their videos, including Ford and Papa John’s.)

Ironically, Tim and Eric were awarded an actual branded gig a year later, from Absolut Vodka. The ads debuted online in 2008 and made a lasting impression. I remember watching these videos in my office at the Webby Awards and thinking “OMG – did Absolut actually pay for these?”

The first installment, “Part One”, features Tim, Eric and comedian Zach Galifianakis clad in beehive wigs and terrycloth robes, drinking Absolut on ice from oversized martini glasses.

Aside from over-the-top product shots in the beginning, and a hilariously designed “group slurp” bit, A Vodka Movie is in no way about vodka. It’s about miscommunication, unmet expectations, hot tubs and parental death, among other light topics. It looks like it was shot on Hi-8 for about $25. It’s sad, it’s weird – it’s unmistakably anti-humor.

And it was a freakin’ commercial. The truth is, Absolut did pay for these videos. What’s more, they clearly gave Tim and Eric full creative control (or very close to it). The result was a brilliant video that was so much more than a commercial: it was entertainment. And people sought this content out – millions of them. As of today, "Part One" has over 3.6 million views on YouTube (I’m at least 100 of

21

those). If you count rogue uploads, the whole series seems to have over 10 million views.5 That’s a whole lot of eyeballs on a piece of content that looks amateurish and never even delivers a punch line. A Vodka Movie wasn’t the first online video brought to you by a major brand (BMW Films, anyone?), but it was the most aggressively unwilling to pander to advertising conventions.

A Vodka Movie was not the last commercial project for Eric Wareheim, who’s gone on to have a successful career as a director of both music videos and TV spots.

One brand that’s found a lot work for Wareheim is Old Spice – his spots for their deodorant feature Terry Crews and his pectoral muscles in a variety of psychedelic experiences. That Wareheim works for Old Spice is huge, and it is not a coincidence. If you look at the evolution of the TV commercial in the age of branded online content, the through-line from vodka to deodorant is one that speaks to the increasingly blurred lines between the two media.

Old Spice’s “The Man Your Man Could Smell Like” campaign needs no introduction. It won the Cannes Grand Prix, an Emmy, and was even parodied

by Sesame Street.6 It is, by many accounts, one of the most popular advertising campaigns of the 21st century. It’s also high-art anti-humor on mainstream steroids, featuring lavishly tacky set pieces, deadpan delivery, and a deliciously non sequitur closing line: “I’m on a horse.”

TMYMCSL by Old Spice showed brilliantly how an Internet tone of voice could live – and thrive – on broadcast television. The campaign stayed true to its Web sensibility by launching a Twitter call-and-response effort wherein star Isaiah Mustafa hopped onto the platform to respond directly to fans – celebrity and otherwise – with real-time online videos.

This campaign was a blissful exercise in media agnosticism.

Other brands have been less successful than Old Spice in achieving anti-humor ecstasy.

Brands ranging from Obierto Beef Jerky and Bounce Dryer Sheets have taken a stab at lo-fi anti-humor TV spots, but haven’t quite cracked into the zeitgeist.

Skittles and Ragu, on the other hand, seem to have hit a weird, creepy stride with their surrealist work (Tom Kuntz, who directed the first TMYMCSL spot, also directed a handful of bizarre Skittles spots).

And the jury’s still out on "Griffin Force." While Heidecker may not be sold, at least Kia Optima’s sales are up.7 Funny, no?

22

P U R P O S E MARKETING I N S P I R I N G

O R

B L A Q U E R E I LY

23

I C K ?

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it still make a sound?

According to quantum mechanics, reality does not exist unless there is an observer to validate it. That is, the wave, or the sound, produced by a falling tree simply could not be measured without an ear to process it.

Concurrently, in the new media landscape reputation management is moving away from the traditional model of lofty messaging targeted at opinion leaders and the media, and towards a new model of humanizing complex stories into relatable, shareable marketing formats. Like branded content.

Let’s apply this logic to marketing corporate social responsibility efforts – if a tree doesn’t fall in the woods, let’s say it’s because a laundry detergent brand significantly reduces its packaging, and there’s no content to tell the story of this company’s conservation efforts, does it really make a difference to its stakeholders?

This is a natural fit. Today’s consumers, particularly Millennials – those bellwethers for the general population – genuinely want to know a brand’s principles and practices; they want to align themselves with organizations that share their values. And branded content, when applied to purpose marketing, can appeal to the heartstrings in a way that overt push marketing often cannot.

In this new age of transparency, brands are investing heavily in marketing their pro-social efforts to a range of constituents.

From consumers to employees, Wall Street to policy makers, it’s an effective strategy, as countless studies validate the direct relationship between corporate reputation and brand value. We know that consumers are more likely to purchase, pay more for, and recommend products and services from a company whose reputation they respect; we’ve seen a direct correlation between companies on Fortune’s “Most Admired” rankings and average stock price increase; surveys show that top MBA graduates rate company reputation of high importance when evaluating a potential employer.1

Well-executed cause-related content inspires, educates, and engages its audience. What’s more, people feel comfortable, even proud, in sharing a cause within their network – a social jury of sorts. Never was there a better Trojan horse for building brand trust and advocacy. Up until a certain point. Then, all of a sudden, an ephemeral line is crossed and the association feels a little …‘ick.’

Whether we’re talking about a successful individual or a profitable corporation, there has always been tension between doing well and doing good; a balancing act between stewardship and financial gain, between collective responsibility and personal

24

reward. So it should come as no surprise that when commercial interests partner with social causes, and marketing creeps into our content, things get interesting. And messy.

Mattel’s Entrepreneur Barbie™ is a timely example of one such proposition – she’s young, hungry, going places, and encourages young girls to do the same. In a brilliant, and some might argue abrasive, content placement, Entrepreneur Barbie even has a LinkedIn profile, which lists her company tagline as “If You Can Dream It, You Can Be it!”2 In this deeply integrated content strategy, Mattel targets professional mothers who want their daughters to be successful in the workplace, while aligning the Barbie brand, which hasn’t historically been perceived as progressive, with female empowerment. The campaign begs a few questions – will introducing fictional (branded) characters to LinkedIn dilute the legitimacy of professional platforms?

Does associating female entrepreneurship with Barbie™ on a professional networking site trivialize the hard-earned ascension

of females in the workplace? Or does it normalize the career track for young women to come? Time will tell.

Chipotle’s Farmed and Dangerous embodies the hat trick of advertising, cause marketing, and entertainment, integrated into one story to support Chipotle’s broader campaign against industrial agriculture.3 The satirical comedy series premiered this spring on Hulu and fits into a category the broadcasting company is calling “brandauthored content.” As Hulu executive Bryan Thoensen explains, “[The series] sits in between content for entertainment and advertising.”4 We think it is safe to go one step further and call it “brand-authored cause-content.” And by the way, if you feel like fighting Big Food instead of Angry Birds™, you can head on down to the App Store and download Chipotle’s cause-spirited game, Scarecrow.

For something a little more enriching than a mobile game, Spent: Looking For Change is a recent example of what The New York

TO LEAVE THE WORLD A BETTER PLACE...TO KNOW EVEN ONE LIFE HAS BREATHED EASIER BECAUSE YOU HAVE LIVED. THIS IS TO HAVE SUCCEEDED. R A L P H WA L D O E M E R S O N

25

Times minced no words in calling a ‘docuad’.5 American Express underwrote this documentary on the broken banking system, cautiously positioning itself as an outlier to traditional financial institutions. But are we to understand that a credit company is the new ambassador of the nation’s poor, or a stakeholder with a subtle agenda? The notso-simple truth is, probably a little bit of both.

Certainly companies have a right – some would even argue an obligation – to take a stance on social issues integral to their brand. And positively, in telling the story behind their position, corporations can make a lasting societal impact while building affinity and loyalty with constituents. But as a consumer, there’s no shortage of elaborate, purpose-based content plays in the market, and it’s difficult to discern between altruistic enterprise and manipulative marketing.

Quite frankly, it’s easy to get fatigued by the sheer volume of messaging. Audiences are savvier than ever before, and growing skeptical of companies haphazardly appropriating causes that have no connection to their brand DNA in an effort to earn likeability.

As the lines between private and social interests continue to blur, brands and audiences will carry on the push-andpull between what feels good and what feels disingenuous. But as marketers and participants, the nuances of this dance matter. Of immediate concern to marketers is whether audiences will continue to

absorb the deluge of purpose-based content they have created. But on a societal level, when consumers start tuning out purpose marketing all together, the cost is much greater than brand loyalty or sales. Once the third party benefactor, the cause now stands to become a casualty of marketing – collateral damage in a larger campaign.

Personally, I don’t think we’re headed down the fiery path of moral decay any faster than usual. As a society, we’re on the uptrend for caring as much as we are for sharing. Rather than capricious fad chasing, it can be seen as passing the baton from one movement to the next: Green to Organic, Organic to Sustainability, Sustainability to Transparency and Authenticity. The relevant question then becomes, what is the new Conscientious Black? And if you’re a marketer, how will it change your content strategy?

To better understand what comes next, it helps to take a look back at where a trend is born: ‘Authenticity’ is king right now, and for good reason – times are weird.

Technology is ironically accelerating us to a place of connected isolation, food is biohacked in factories not farms, and world powers are on the verge of war over box office releases. Linking purpose, meaning, and story to enterprise is comforting, and social cause is an easy way to establish this connection. From here, cause marketing has evolved into a more sophisticated and integrated form of socially-minded marketing: brand transparency.

I THINK ONE OF THE MOST MISUNDERSTOOD THINGS ABOUT BUSINESS IN AMERICA IS THAT PEOPLE ARE EITHER DOING THINGS FOR ALTRUISTIC REASONS OR THEY ARE GREEDY AND SELFISH - JUST AFTER PROFIT. THAT TYPE OF DICHOTOMY PORTRAYS A FALSE IMAGE OF BUSINESS...THE WHOLE IDEA IS TO DO BOTH. J O H N M A C K E Y, Founder of Whole Foods Market

26

The next iteration in socially conscientious branding will turn down the volume and initiate more thoughtful interactions – less talking and more doing. For marketers, this means giving audiences the purpose they are looking for, but packaging it in a way that makes them feel they are part of shaping the story. Content will continue to fall into the categories of entertainment, editorial, and marketing, but we’ll find that campaigns involving cause will need to focus on audience participation in order to avoid the ‘ick’ backlash.

And let’s not forget the elephant in the room: What is a marketer’s responsibility when piggybacking a cause? There is no easy answer, but the quality of the content produced and released into the world certainly plays a significant role in both outcomes and consumer fatigue. In short, just because you can score a content hat trick, doesn’t mean you should.

Wondering what that might look like in the real world?

One way that brands can facilitate a sense of action and participation is by nurturing the flow of information between online and offline brand experiences. Take the case of socially conscientious clothing brand Everlane, whose mantra of “radical

27

transparency” has helped this upstart build a cult following in the crowded, hypercompetitive retail arena. It has woven its belief that customers should “Know your factories; Know your costs; Always ask why” throughout the brand’s content and direct-to-consumer online experience. In fact, it goes so far as to tell shoppers what its markups are, giving unprecedented information about everything from sourcing through production, and in turn, redefining relative value.

Some brands have soldiered so far down the transparency road as to crowdsource decisions with potential social impact to customers. Coffee Joulies, maker of the magical metal coffee beans that keep your latté the perfect temperature for hours, faced the choice between keeping production in the U.S. at higher costs (which it would have had to pass along to its customers), or move production overseas to China and sell at a lower price point. To reflect the real-world implications of this decision, Coffee Joulies gave customers the choice between a $10 off coupon, reflecting a move to China, or $5 off coupon to keep production stateside.

Cause efforts of this nature demand audience participation and can fuel content strategies that are tightly linked with business transparency.

Trendspotting.com suggests we’re headed towards a new era of extreme consumer engagement in a trend it has dubbed “Demanding Brands,” where the privilege of patronage hinges on participation.6 A radical example can be found in the policy of Japanese restaurant, Hachikyo, where diners are penalized if they don’t finish their meal.

As the menu explains, the policy is part of an effort to raise awareness of the risks taken by fishermen to bring certain items to the table – the proceeds (fines) are then donated to a local fishermen’s fund. In an exercise with slightly looser association, Walking Dead fans who donated blood at the Season 4 Lisbon launch this April had access to an exclusive collection of promotional paraphernalia.7 It just goes to show that the ability of a brand to connect to a cause is limited only by creativity, and the more clever and engaging, the better the content possibilities.

And that brings us back to the interesting and the messy. Consumers have already demonstrated their eagerness to pay for selective branded content (Red Bulletin, Patagonia’s documentary films, to name a few),

but will there be a point in time when consumers are willing to start paying for brand-authored cause content? Will audiences be lining up at the cinema, or more likely at the iTunes store, for a feature-length Chipotle-Disney collaboration on family farming? Or, as the Demanding Brand prediction suggests, will we be using our own good deeds to barter for access to content?

One thing is clear: in the future, words will start to feel cheap and brands will begin emphasizing participation and action. We’ll see several parallels of this theme in advertising – particularly in the style, delivery and effect of content: less will be more in visual and audio storytelling, offline experiential programs will provide a steady stream of online content, audiences will become increasingly discerning of the quality of content they consume, and brands will motivate their tribe beyond concept adoption to ownership.

Emotional equity will be key. On that last point, audiences will start working for brands in a very real way, because consuming “authenticism” just isn’t feeling that authentic anymore.

28

THE IDIOT'S GUIDE TO "EMBEDDED MARKETING" (SIGH) MORGAN ACEINO

29

Product placement. Integration.

Sponsorship. How can we put it in there so that it “resonates” with Boomers? What about Millennials?

Maybe Gen Z? But they’re just kids. That can’t be ethical. Back to Millennials - they love this stuff. Right?

No. The truth is, Millennials don’t care about your savvy marketing skills.

And neither does any other “consumer segment.”

You see, I set out to create an indepth, mind-altering, earth-shaking infographic filled with insightful nuggets that shed new light on how brands can better utilize pop culture opportunities to integrate their products into the “conversation.” I talked to a bunch of people. Read countless reports and studies. I even made a lovely survey. What I found was painfully simple. No matter the gender, generation, socioeconomic bracket, and geography - there are two (yes, only two) rules when it comes to successfully utilizing the tactic of “embedded marketing” for your brand:

30

1. MAKE SENSE

2. DON'T LIMBO

The worst thing marketers can do for their business is to shove it into content that makes zero sense for their brand or the audience. A mismatched “partnership” = muddled messaging, tarnished brand equity, and massive irritation for all parties involved. If it isn’t an intelligent integration, back away slowly. Actually, run like hell.

Be completely natural. Or conspicuously noisy (and self-aware).

Nothing in between. Across every generation the consensus is that brands who don’t practice subtlety or strategy (see rule #1) better be completely overt with their “embedded marketing.”

T H E G O O D : “In scenes where a

T H E G O O D : “Wayne’s World,

T H E B A D : “I remember one

T H E B A D : “The entire film

character is drinking or eating the product during normal interaction, not forced - it works.” -Millennial Female character saying to another... 'did you hear "insert name's" new CD?' then mentioning where she bought it. Seemed forced and pathetic.” -Gen X Male

Talladega Nights and 30 Rock were self-aware and sort of obnoxious with it, i.e. ‘perfect.’” -Millennial Male Pearl Harbor was terrible with its ‘placements’ - especially the scene where a Coke bottle is used in a makeshift blood transfusion contraption.

Shameless. Almost walked out of the theater.” -Gen X Female

The summary: exercise common sense.

Embedded marketing can be a powerful tool or a potent pit stain for your brand.

So the next time you find yourself wondering whether or not product placement is right for your brand, just remember, no one cares, but everyone’s judging. So do it right.

Best, A Millennial

31

32

SATIRE THAT STICKS NICOLE CASSESE

33

When John Oliver took on the fight to save net neutrality in May, awareness on the topic exploded and the response was so powerful that the FCC’s comment system crashed.1 The segment, which now has close to 5 million views,2 draws viewers into an issue they might have otherwise overlooked.

Yes, net neutrality is important, but it’s also dense, especially (as Oliver himself notes) when covered by traditional news programs.

By injecting his signature sarcasm and levity into an otherwise heavy topic, Oliver not only made it float, but also made it resonate.

His message was amplified via social media until it reached the pop culture zeitgeist, and suddenly the net neutrality debate was a hot conversation that you wanted to join.

And research shows we are actually learning more through satirical, tonguein-cheek news programs.3 According to a recent study published by the Annenberg Public Policy Center, Stephen Colbert of The Colbert Report was “more effective than journalists” at CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC at informing viewers about campaign financing.4 Of the study, Deadline.com calls out that Colbert’s show “not only increased people’s perceptions that they knew more about political financing, but significantly increased their actual knowledge.”5

A Huffington Post article noted that these same viewers were found to be more informed on news, culture, and current events than traditional news program viewers.6 They’re deliberately choosing to watch Colbert and Oliver over traditional news programs like Fox News,7 and we’re guessing it’s for the entertainment value.

Another example is The Onion’s unique coverage of the gun control debate. It’s an extremely sensitive subject to cover, and especially in the wake of mass shootings, a tough matter to address with anything by solemnity. Last year, one headline read “A Desperate Nation Tries to Get Onboard with Mass Shootings;” the headline immediately following this year’s University of California, Santa Barbara tragedy read, “'No Way to Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens.”8 The Onion consistently uses satire to take a stance on many polarizing issues and to spark debate.

So what’s the takeaway here? Sometimes you just need to lighten up. When someone like John Oliver comes in and rips apart net neutrality, or The Onion takes on gun control, people listen.

They have an ability to cut through on dense topics where others can’t, launching issues into the center of national conversation. Humor’s not always the right move, but sometimes getting your audience to laugh along with you is the best way to get them to listen.

34

THE BRAND NEWSROOM QUIXOTIC QUEST OR PRAGMATIC INVESTMENT? WHITNEY ANDERSON

35

“You can still dunk in the dark.” Oreo’s tweet heard around the world, which marketing wonks christened the real winner of last year’s Super Bowl, set in motion an industry-wide scramble to build “brand newsrooms” that shows relatively few signs of abating.

In theory, this newsroom model makes perfect sense; we operate in an always-on world, in which timelines often trump quality, and traditional marketing processes cannot support rapid-response brand publishing, whereas a journalistic approach, structured for speed and agility, can. But building it in a way that’s scalable and sustainable, in a world where there are few shortcuts on the road to the brand nirvana of cultural relevance, isn’t always simple and takes commitment.

Let’s go back to that Oreo example. Are we to believe that this happy accident – a blackout on a global stage puts chocolate cookies with cream-filling in the pop culture spotlight – or was it the result of disciplined journalism? Or is it a case of news-jacking faster than the next brand?

Truth is, it was probably both.

Same thing goes for Arby’s tweet asking Pharrell for its hat back during the 2014 Grammy’s, a move as hilarious as it was lucky. If Pharrell had the questionable judgment to wear, say, a Quaker hat, would the Twitterverse be talking about oatmeal the next day instead of processed roast beef?

Sure, Arby’s was in the right place at the right time, and like Oreo, had the marketing acumen to take full advantage of the opportunity. But can we logically conclude that these lightning-in-a-bottle moments justify

the investment required to build a brand newsroom? Or do they directionally point towards a growing opportunity for smarter real-time marketing?

It’s worth noting, for every example of a brand that has successfully drafted off pop culture events with built-in audiences, like DiGiorno Pizza’s act of live tweeting The Sound of Music, there are thousands of duds that have tried to force their way into social conversations that they had no earthly business being a part of, and failed. While it’s difficult to quantify the brand damage of being publicly tried and convicted of inauthenticity or ignorance in the unpredictable court of social media justice, Delta’s recent World Cup gaffe should serve as a cautionary tale for brands looking for a quick hit. In a tweet celebrating the U.S. victory over Ghana, the airline chose to represent the latter with a photo of a giraffe on an African plane. Only problem is there are no giraffes in Ghana, as many of Delta’s followers, including The New York Times’ Binyamin Appelbaum, graciously pointed out.1 Investing in real-time marketing presupposes that there’s significant consumer appetite for cultural commentary from brands. Assuming the demand exists, brands that haven’t fully committed to building the newsroom model, but still want to play in these waters, tend to subscribe to the belief that there’s a greater probability of getting lucky at events like the Academy Awards, World Cup, or birth of a future monarch.

And so, a couple times a year, clients and agencies play journalists, setting up makeshift war rooms, which are really just conference rooms with superfluous screens set up on every surface, operated by junior and mid-level staffers who are slightly buzzed on free beer and the prospect of penning the legacy tweet that unseats Oreo.

36

While these tent-pole events do draw big numbers, and it’s tempting to think that carpet-bombing audiences’ second screens with clever memes can increase a brand’s chances of landing something, the reality is that if they do hit the marketing jackpot, and score some eyeballs and shares, it’s sometimes devoid of messaging that ties back to the brand’s core story or reinforces a brand’s point of view. It’s a classic case of getting distracted by the lure of quick impressions over meaningful expression.

Or put more bluntly, a tactic in absence of a strategy.

For those brands that are committed to a long-term editorial strategy and have determined that it’s best served by a serious newsroom model, there’s still the build-it-or-buy-it debate. The first option, insourcing publishing operations, is a costly proposition that can drain resources and put pressure on delivering an immediate return on the investment, and is often incompatible with clients’ engrained risk threshold. The second, outsourcing the function to an agency, whether that’s a social specialist, PR firm, or creative shop, defers some of the burden of responsibility, but requires a fluidity to the workflow and communications between client and agency that often clashes with legacy processes.

We’re unquestionably biased on the subject, but there are also strategic advantages to partnering with an external agency on editorial content.

Drawing on some broad generalizations, clients tend to tell stories about why a product or service is sold, from the perspective of a manufacturer, while agencies, at least the smart ones, focus on why something is bought, from the perspective of the customer. There’s a greater empathy for the audience, and therefore a greater propensity for sharing stories they find valuable and want to hear more of, and less proclivity for talking about oneself, or worse, to oneself. As paid skeptics, most agencies will honestly acknowledge that people don’t generally want to hear

37

from, let alone publicly engage with; a commodity like bottled water, light bulbs, or tires, while they will go out of their way to talk about music, amazing photos, stories about interesting people, and social issues they care about.

That’s not to say that the agency route isn’t fraught with its own set of hazards.

New players in the content marketing arena are materializing like Gremlins in a hot tub, armed with the promise of innovative publishing platforms and access to armies of freelance talent.

What they offer in terms of scale, volume, and data often comes at the expense of strategic insights – rather than understanding each brand’s unique DNA and how to credibly weave that genetic material into relatable stories that specific audience segments care about, they apply off-the-rack news streams to broad segments like busy moms or Millennials.

Meanwhile, traditional agencies, never shy about claiming deep expertise in services that fall well outside their strike zones, are learning on the clock with their anchor clients, and struggling to uproot their campaign-centric thinking and creative preciousness.

The Harvard Business Review outlines the advantages of a hybrid model in its article, “Advertisers Should Act More Like Newsrooms.” “To get there, brands will have to leave behind organizations and thinking built solely around the campaign model, and instead adopt the defining characteristics of the real-time, data-driven newsroom – a model that’s prolific, agile and audience-centric.”2 Amen. Just so long as they never lose sight of the brand’s role in stories that are sparking conversations in the broader cultural ether.

Just as there’s no one-size-fits-all solution to content marketing, each brand needs to evaluate its own unique needs, based on clearly defined and measurable objectives, when developing an organizational design and associated processes for real-time marketing.

This outcome-oriented approach can

help marketers delineate between short-term tactics and a sustainable storytelling strategy, and find the right balance between reactive and predictive editorial. Most importantly, it can allow them to test as they invest.

Whatever model works best for an organization, and using the Goldilocks principle it’ll probably fall somewhere between in-sourcing and out-sourcing, we believe that the golden rule to brand journalism is to capture, curate, and seed honest stories that fall within the sweet spot where a brand truth, audience insight, and larger cultural trend intersect. Remove one of these three legs of the stool, and the content falls short of the marketing standards that we, as an industry, should be holding ourselves to.

If the number of briefs that we’ve received in the last year citing “build brand love” as the objective is any indicator, forward-looking clients understand that strategic content has the power to connect with audiences on a more visceral level; to pull them towards the brand, rather than push a product or service onto them. What we have to keep reminding them is that people need to love them for who they actually are, not just for their ability to quickly appropriate whatever’s trending that day.

As battle-tested journalists join the ranks of social media managers, trend spotters, analysts, and creatives in the physical or virtual brand newsroom, it’s incumbent on marketing professionals to remind them that no matter how witty a tweet is, how entertaining a Vine is, if it doesn’t tie back to a brand truth that’s both ownable and credible, it’s not building love for the brand itself.

Let’s take a look at some brands whose social media strategy is on-target. State Farm’s mission states that it’s committed to supporting neighborhoods and helping to build safer and stronger communities. A tweet about a pit bull saving a deaf boy makes sense for their brand. It falls in that increasingly important sweet spot between the audience, brand and cultural truths.

,,

Another heroic pit bull!

Dog hailed as hero for alerting deaf boy to fire share.es/N8Lc6 @StateFarm

Purina’s mission states that “pets and people” are better together. So a tweet a day before the 4th of July with tips on how to ease your dog’s fear of fireworks not only makes sense, but is valuable to anyone with a dog, regardless of whether they buy Purina or not.

,,

Hope you have a fun and safe 4th of July with your furry friends! Keep these tips in mind this weekend: Puri.na/Fireworks #FireworkFear @Purina

,,

Lastly, Ben & Jerry’s is a brand that switched to nonGMO ingredients in 2013, so tweeting about legislation surrounding that bill is relevant.3

Congress is trying to deny you the right to know what's in your food. Act here benjerrys.co/1qrdJPB #GMORightToKnow @benandjerrys

38

T H E M Y T H O LO G Y O F

VIRALITY JASMEET GILL

39

Oh, virality. For advertisers – at least the good ones – it’s a word that inspires an acute sense of anxiety we usually reserve for timesheets and team-building exercises. And one we hear entirely too often. My personal distaste for this word hit an all-time high a few months ago when we received the following brief from a (now former) client. The names and identifying features have been redacted to protect the accused.

"Leverage a viral style video format to create content that is inherently social with the potential to become viral."

As both a pragmatist and a trained strategist, my first instinct was to immediately set fire to said brief in the dumpster behind our building, so as to ward off the bad juju. On my way there, I stopped by our backyard bar for a pint of melancholy, to commemorate the passing of the worst brief of 2014, and ended up laughing-off the sheer absurdity of this Onion-worthy request with a few other Omeleteers, and at the end of the day decided instead to pin it up on the wall as a constant reminder of what we’re up against.

To be fair, who doesn’t want to create viral content? Who wouldn’t want to be responsible for that brilliant video, meme, or infographic that gets compulsively shared by scores of influential folks and captures the cultural zeitgeist? Perhaps it’s hubris, or just wishful thinking, but agencies are agreeing left and right to create content that will “go viral,” all the while secretly wondering how much paid media and PR muscle they need to put behind it to create the illusion that it’s succeeding. Either way, we’re doing ourselves – and our industry – a disservice by perpetuating the myth that there’s an art and science to manufacturing virality.

Despite the myriad articles and thought pieces that attempt to deconstruct the creation of viral content, it’s virtually impossible to predetermine what will take off and what will land flat. That’s right – adding a picture or list-ifying your post will not catapult it over the tipping point. There’s no formula.

No secret to success. Only educated guesses. Why? It’s simple: we can use strategic insights to gauge potential resonance of a story with a specific audience, but we can’t confidently predict what will make them share it, and that, after all, is the thrust of virality. An individual’s sharing behavior is dependent on a number of unrelated and wildly variable factors: their mood, personal experience, relationships, and a slew of other things.

Great content goes viral because it’s true to the brand, true to the audience, and above all else, entertaining.

Don’t try too hard to force an idea into something that becomes “viral” – just be yourself, and acknowledge that if you have to explain it, it’s not very good. Sometimes that means taking a leap of faith and falling hard; sometimes it results in an organic tribe of followers. You can’t accurately predict the outcome, and honestly, the odds aren’t in your favor.

So what? Instead of creating justanother-internet-video, take a step back and reevaluate what you’re really trying to accomplish with your content strategy. And stand together with us in calling this tactic what it really is – a myth. Like Sasquatch, sewer alligators, and your summer camp boyfriend from Canada, there’s simply no proof that virality exists. So let’s focus our strategic and creative energies on telling honest and credible stories, and distributing them to the right audiences at the right times.

40

ORIGINAL CONTENT A TA L E O F M I S G U I D E D P U R S U I T CRISTINA PEDROZA Content is king.

It was the first thing I heard in my Communications 101 class as a grad student, and it seemed as though every other comm major in the class swore by this holy edict. But as the newbie in the room, I remained skeptical. How can a notion so absolute hold true in our always-changing media environment?

I’ve been steeped in the advertising industry for four years now, and I’m still surprised by how many communicators – marketers and editorial publishers – swear by a principle easily disproved by the basic laws of supply and demand.

I THINK THE AUDIENCE HAS MORE POWER THAN EVER BEFORE. THEY CAN DECIDE THE "WHAT, WHEN AND WHERE" OF CONTENT CONSUMPTION. EQUALLY IMPORTANT IS THEIR POWER TO RATE. PEOPLE ARE INVITED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE NARRATIVE AND HAVE BECOME EVANGELISTS OF WHAT THEY LOVE. C AT H Y P E R R O N ,

Director of Media Ventures Masters Program and Associate Professor, Film & Television at Boston University

41

Let’s think about this scenario. The average American consumes the equivalent of 12 hours of non-work related information on any given day.1 At this rate, it would take a person about six days to consume the video content uploaded to YouTube at any given minute. Add to this mix the thousands of pieces of content flowing through digital feeds at basically zero cost, and it’s clear that the excess supply is creating serious inefficiencies for both consumers and communicators.

On the audience side, the information overload has in part contributed to a 30%3 decrease in the average attention span amongst Americans in the past decade.

We’re drowning in a sea of choices, one that includes relatively few high-quality pieces of content, some viral gems, and more blog posts, memes, vines, and cats than we could ever count.

And the communicators are taking a hit. Patch, AOL’s defunct hyper-local news network, not only overestimated the significance of the pipeline, but also misjudged their audience’s desire for realtime information from their localities.4 How many flower shop and gallery openings can one person stand to see on his newsfeed before calling it quits?

Despite the surplus, content marketing budgets keep rising, along with publishers’ readiness to develop. It’s a modernday gold rush of sorts, where many communicators see a promise but only few walk away with a bounty.

In order to yield more value, should communicators’ approach to content creation be supply or demand focused? In other words, should we care more about what we are delivering or whom we are delivering to?

42

CONTENT DEVELOPMENT 101 : HOW TO CHASE ORIGINAL CONTENT AROUND THE CLOCK

Nowadays it seems brands and marketers have become digital publishers of sorts. They churn out new or original content across as many outlets as possible in order to stay top-of-mind with their audience.

The pursuit of original content only grows more complex when you take into account the changing nature of the audience, the dynamics in their communications, and the growing numbers of new distribution channels. And since not everyone has the infrastructure, time, or resources to step up to the plate and swing at the challenge of constantly producing content, publishers now rely on distinctive “creation” alternatives to remain present in the public’s conversation: curation, co-creation, and sponsored content.

The first and simplest method is curation. It allows communicators to intercept newsfeeds by identifying and capturing the most relevant information to the audience and then transmitting it back to them in a timely manner.

For example, Al Jazeera and the Los Angeles Times use Storify7 to capture and re-distribute trending news across social feeds. While the monetary investment is low, the impact of their news is high in reach, especially since timing is of the essence when reporting.

On the other hand, communicators who wish to have more of a say in what is shared with the audience can choose to collaborate in content

43

co-creation. This approach works for brands, editorial publishers, and marketers that are flexible enough to share the spotlight and offer the best experience to their audience.

Kit Kat and Oreo are great examples of two brands who have co-created social content in an organic and seamless way. A year ago,9 the brands’ feud in social media over a fan’s game of tic-tac-toe spurred millions of conversations in the course of 24 hours. The idea was simple yet pure: the conversation (content) is more valuable when it stops being about a brand and focuses on the audience.

It’s no surprise that user-generated content (UGC) has become a successful alternative in content creation. It works best for brands willing to hand over development and ownership of their stories to the audience, which in return adds authenticity to the message.

On the other end of the content creation spectrum, some communicators prefer the contain-and-control model of sponsored content.

While not considered pure advertising (some may call it native), this avenue allows brands to meet their audiences in those channels where they already are.

There is no single path that guarantees success in content publishing, but for the most part, successful efforts put the audience first, theme second, and pipeline third.

IF YOU BUILD IT, THEY WON'T NECESSARILY COME Marketers and publishers have no shortage of digital channels to choose from when it comes to distributing content in an affordable manner. In the past, they have encountered costly barriers to delivering information to their audience through traditional touch-points, but today’s digital era offers a promising “affordable” reach thanks to the average 12 hours we spend perusing the Web every day.

“Virality” has become an inspiration and aspiration for any communicator seeking to validate the quality of their content, however, the term doesn’t necessarily equate to creative merit. At times, content goes viral because of peoples' very particular tastes in jumping cats or "Drake hands;" on other occasions, and very few of those, virality is the result of a well-crafted plan – which often includes paid support – to facilitate the discovery of the content.

An eager supply-focused approach to content – thinking of the hose before the water – is neither sustainable nor practical in the absence of knowing what people are interested in consuming and when they want to consume it.

With thousands of bytes streaming down the pipeline to our screens, and our attention spans shrinking, communicators need a well thoughtout strategy to place content in front of the right

eyeballs. The mere effort of creating content is not enough anymore.

We’re far too busy and distracted to go to great lengths to seek out new content. How we discover it is a combination of convenience, habit, and real estate, and that requires both paid and organic avenues. And yes, the operative word here is paid. Utilizing organic tactics such as keywords, SEO and word-of-mouth referral can only go so far. To get a quality audience that’s more likely to connect with the content, communicators need to invest resources in targeting these individuals. True, we’re all on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram, but what percentage of us actually sees all the updates from friends, let alone brands?

Targeting has become a sophisticated art, where demographics are not enough to guarantee the discovery of content. Psychographics and media habits have become more critical in understanding content placement, timing, and frequency. Each component works in harmony like strings on a guitar that need constant tuning as the audience and channels keep evolving.

Next time you want to go viral, remember that it should be targeted and that it’s not free.

PEOPLE LOOK TO SOCIAL MEDIA AND UGC TO CONNECT WITH A COLLECTIVE BUT ALSO TO HAVE A VOICE OF THEIR OWN. THE #JAREDHUGGINLETO MEME, FOR EXAMPLE, GENERATED MORE THAN 39K MENTIONS AND 1.1 MILLION SOCIAL ENGAGEMENTS WITHIN A PERIOD OF 24 HOURS BECAUSE ITS SIMPLE SENSE OF HUMOR WAS AUTHENTIC ENOUGH TO INSPIRE AUDIENCES TO JOIN IN THE LAUGHTER BY CREATING THEIR OWN ADAPTATIONS OF THE IMAGE. A M E L I A N OY E S ,

Social Media Manager at The Hive

44

IMPLICATIONS FOR MARKETERS The development of content has a bit of a Goldilocks air to it: sometimes you’re too hot or too cold, and sometimes you’re just right.

Although it could be said that distribution channels can be modified to suit the content (or the other way around,) at the end of the day, the audience dictates the dynamics of marketing communications.

It would be inefficient for communicators to produce large amounts of content that won’t see anything but the bottom of a playlist or an obscure Tumblr feed. A supply focus to content creation can lead to a surplus of information that will overwhelm and turn off your audience. Sure, you might strike gold with a one-in-a-million piece of content, but that is a long-term gamble some brands can’t afford to take.

Creating content driven by a fear of falling behind or being out-produced is a misguided pursuit. Our efforts are best invested in figuring out first what makes our audience tick and how and when to bring a message to them.

At the end of the day, content rules no one.

So here’s a new line for all you Communications 101 students: Audience is king.

45

INFORMATION GENERATED ANY GIVEN MINUTE2 204,000,000

4,000,000

Email messages sent

Search queries on Google

563

277,000

Photos shared on Instagram & WhatsApp

Tweets sent

2,460,000

New pieces of Facebook content

4,320

Minutes of video uploaded to YouTube

STATISTICS > > >

Content marketing is a $44 billion dollar industry5 that grew close to 10% in the past year alone.

>

Storify has over 15 million unique readers accessing curated content on its platform.8

>

More than 72%6 of marketers affirm they will be creating more original content compared to 2013; and a majority of them also considers producing enough content to be the biggest priority & challenge in the year to come.

>

The organic reach of a Facebook brand page has decreased 87% in two years. Any brand post barely reaches 2% of its fans.12

On YouTube, UGC fan videos get 10x more views than brand-generated content.11

On average, Americans trust UGC 3.4x more than content about a brand found on a company website or even the news.10

46

GOING

NATIVE A N E D I T O R I A L A P P R OAC H T O A DV E R T I S I N G

ALAN HUYNH

47

Marketers used to think of the Internet as the home of banner ads; a place for small buttons to be plastered on the tops and sides of heavily trafficked websites. Rather than adopting a digital-first perspective, the dinosaurs in the C-suites relied on an old world taste for print, tending to repurpose print ads into banner ads of different shapes and sizes. Perhaps this is why so many early websites were the digital equivalent of an FHM magazine.

But then Google happened. With the release of their cheaper and more effective ad units, banner ads were no longer driving clicks at the same rate.

Despite their effectiveness, Google ads couldn’t tell a compelling story, and the Internet remained in its infancy as a brand storytelling medium.

Social networks started popping up, driving traffic to a diverse range of websites and shifting the currents of communication. Prompted by chatter on their Facebook networks or by their favorite celebrity tweets, consumers began actively Googling new products and services to learn more. No longer constrained by the pages of editorial, brands realized that they had the ability to quickly, cheaply, and directly communicate with the customer rather than rely solely on established ad platforms like Google.

48

And thus birthed native advertising1 – the phenomenon of brands aligning with specific distribution platforms to amplify synergistic content. In other words, native advertising is a method where a third party pays for content to appear in a format that does not disturb the audience's user experience.

Consumers – in particular, Millennials – ate it up.2 New platforms like Buzzfeed and The Huffington Post executed it perfectly while others like The Atlantic and Gawker tried, but failed.

Yet many marketers and advertisers still view Internet ads as a parallel to traditional advertising rather than as a unique storytelling opportunity. Timed to the Season 2 premiere of Orange is the New Black, Netflix recently partnered with The New York Times for a widely praised native ad that explored the subject of imprisoned women.

The native ad resonated because it was NYT-quality content, and that’s the point. As NYT VP of Advertising, Sebastian Tomich, recently explained to AdAge, “We collaborate with the brands, find storylines or plotlines that aren’t inherent selling points but that readers will connect with.”3 Eric Schmidt predicts that everyone will be on the Internet by 2020, meaning that native ads will become more about cutting through all the noise to reach a micro-targeted audience. If executed well, native ads represent a huge opportunity for brands, providing an additional lift that transcends CPM as no one has found a way to make brands unilaterally pay for shares and referrals.

49

If a brand wants to attract a Fortune 500 “suit,� they may want to create a longform piece that appears in The Economist, or a pared-down, funny take on sad desk lunches that runs on Buzzfeed. As the Internet continues to evolve, native advertising will have to become more audience-centric. Targeted distribution will no longer be the constraint holding back great content; instead it’ll all come down to its ability to resonate with its audience. For brands and marketers, the lesson here is to stop thinking about content linearly and instead approach it as an experience.

50

FOOTNOTES BRANDED CONTENT WATERS 1.

2.

3.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ marketshare/2013/02/26/this-justin-a-lot-of-people-dont-trust-advertising/ http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080318/004136567/advertising-is-content-content-is-advertising.shtml http://www.fastcocreate. com/3032248/cannes/plenty-ofgold-lions-but-no-grand-prix-winner-in-branded-content-at-cannes

NEW NAME, SIMILAR GAME 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

51

Kuenn, Arnie. "Is John Deer the Original Content Marketer?"

Marketing Land. N.p., 25 June 2013. Web. 17 June 2014. <http:// marketingland.com/ is-johndeere-the-original-content-marketer-2-49138>.

Gardiner, Kate. "The Story behind the Furrow." Contently. N.p., 3 Oct. 2013. Web. 17 June 2014. <http://contently.com/strategist/2013/10/03/the-story-behindthe-furrow-2/>.

Gardiner, Kate. "The Story behind the Furrow." Contently. N.p., 3 Oct. 2013. Web. 17 June 2014. <http://contently.com/strategist/2013/10/03/the-story-behindthe-furrow-2/>.

"The MICHELIN Guide: 100 Editions and over a Century of History." Via Michelin. N.p., 3 Feb. 2009. Web. 17 June 2014. <http:// www.viamichelin.co.uk/tpl/mag6/ art200903/htm/tour-saga-michelin.htm>.

Kuperman, Daniel. "A Brief History of Content Marketing [Slide Show]." Marketing Profs. N.p., 22 July 2009. Web. 17 June 2014. <http://www.marketingprofs.com/ pics/2011/5513/a-brief-history-ofcontent-marketing-slide-show>.

Altman, Alex. "A Brief History of Guinness World Records."

Time. N.p., 14 Nov. 2008. Web. 17 June 2014. <http://content. time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1859037,00.html>.

Fletcher, Dan. "A Brief History of G.I. Joe." Time. N.p., 7 Aug. 2008. Web. 17 June 2014. <http:// content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1915120,00.html>.

McCarthy, Michael. "BMW to Bring Back BMW Films." Adage.

N.p., 14 Feb. 2014. Web. 17 June 2014. <http://adage.com/article/ news/bmw-bring-back-bmwfilms/291710/>.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

Rayson, Steve. "7 Content Marketing Lessons from American Express OPEN Forum." Anders Pink. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 June 2014. <http://anderspink.com/ portfolio-items/7-content-marketing-lessons-from-american-express-open-forum/#prettyPhoto>.

"Small Business Saturday." American Express. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 June 2014. <https://www.americanexpress.com/us/small-business/ shop-small/>.

Stampler, Laura. "How Dove's 'Real Beauty Sketches' Became the Most Viral Video Ad of All Time."

Business Insider. N.p., 22 May 2013. Web. 17 June 2014. <http:// www.businessinsider.com/howdoves-real-beauty-sketches-became-the-most-viral-ad-video-ofall-time-2013-5>.

Weiss, Michael. "How Powerful Brand Storytelling Can Supplant Commercials." Content Marketing Institute. N.p., 6 Apr. 2014. Web. 17 June 2014. <http://contentmarketinginstitute.com/2014/04/ powerful-brand-storytelling-supplants-commercials/>.

Shaw, Jenny. "Red Bull Stratos."

WPP. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 June 2014. <http://www.wpp.com/wpp/marketing/digital/red-bull-stratos/>.

"Case Study: Red Bull Stratos."

Bulldog DM. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 June 2014. <http://bulldogdm. com/case-study-red-bull-stratos/>.

About The Creators Project. YouTube. N.p., 8 Apr. 2010. Web. 17 June 2014. <https://www.youtube. com/user/TheCreatorsProject/ about>.

"Branded Entertainment Long Form." Webby Awards. N.p., n.d.

Web. 17 June 2014. <http://www. webbyawards.com/winners/2014/ online-film-video/general-film-categories/branded-entertainment-long-form>.

FUNNY HA-HA(?)

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Heidecker, Tim. “These Griffin Force commercials are a great example of exactly everyone involved not giving a shit.” 12 May 2014, 7:04PM. Tweet.

“Tim & Eric.” Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 18 May 2014. Web. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Tim_%26_Eric> Itzkoff, David. “The Bizarre Brains of Nightmare TV.” The New York Times. 27 July 2008.

“Anti-Humor.” Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 8 June 2014. Web. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Anti-humor> “A Vodka Movie.” YouTube. 7 Mar 2008. Web. <https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=5p0QtJMKt1s&feature=kp> “The Man Your Man Could Smell Like.” Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 25 April 2014. Web. <http:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_ Your_Man_Could_Smell_Like> Young, Angelo. “Here Are The December 2013 'Big Eight' US Auto Sales Numbers: GM, Ford, Chrysler, Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Volkswagen, Kia/Hyundai.”

International Business Times. 3 Jan 2014. Web. <http://www.ibtimes. com/here-are-december-2013-bigeight-us-auto-sales-numbers-gmford-chrysler-toyota-honda-nissan-1525492>

PURPOSE MARKETING 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Schwartz, Ariel. "Want To Attract Millennials To Your Company?

Engage Them In Causes” Co.Exist.

Fast Company, 18 June 2014. Web. Barbie. Mattel, n.d. Web. 2 July 2014. <https://www.linkedin.com/ company/barbie%C2%AE?trk=company_name>.

Farmed And Dangerous. Chipotle, Feb. 2014. Web. 27 June 2014. <http://farmedanddangerous. com/>.

Naom, Cohen. "Chipotle Blurs Lines With a Satirical Series About Industrial Farming The New York Times 27 Jan. 2014, Media: n. pag.

The New York Times. Web. 28 July 2014. <http://www.nytimes. com/2014/01/27/business/media/ chipotle-blurs-lines-with-a-satirical-series-about-industrial-farming.html>.

Spent: Looking For Change. American Express, 2014. Web. 27 June 2014. <http://www.spentmovie. com/>.

Trendwatching.com. Trendwatching.com, Sept. 2013. Web. 27 June 2014. <http://trendwatching.com/ trends/demandingbrands/>.

Trendwatching.com. Trendwatching.com, July 2014. Web. 27 June 2014. <http://trendwatching.com/ trends/innovation-celebration/>.

52

FOOTNOTES SATIRE THAT STICKS 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

53

"John Oliver Crashes FCC Comments System After Net Neutrality Segment." Variety.

Ed. Ted Johnson. Variety, n.d.

Web. 4 June 2014. <http://variety. com/2014/biz/news/john-oliver-crashes-fcc-net-neutrality-1201210405/>.

"John Oliver Crashes FCC Comments System After Net Neutrality Segment." Variety.

Ed. Ted Johnson. Variety, n.d.

Web. 4 June 2014. <http://variety. com/2014/biz/news/john-oliver-crashes-fcc-net-neutrality-1201210405/>.

Fung, Katherine. "We're Learning More From Stephen Colbert Than The Actual News, Study Says." Huffington Post Media.

Huffington Post, n.d. Web. 3 June 2014. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/02/ colbert-news-study-campaign-financing_n_5431713.html?utm_ hp_ref=mostpopular>.

Deadline Hollywood. Deadline Hollywood, 2 June 2014. Web. 30 July 2014. <http://www.deadline. com/2014/06/stephen-colbert-super-pac-study/>.

Fung, Katherine. "We're Learning More From Stephen Colbert Than The Actual News, Study Says." Huffington Post Media.

Huffington Post, n.d. Web. 3 June 2014. <http://www.huffingtonpost. com/2014/06/02/

6.

7.

8.

BRAND NEWSROOM Fung, Katherine. "We're Learning More From Stephen Colbert Than The Actual News, Study Says." Huffington Post Media.

Huffington Post, n.d. Web. 3 June 2014. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/02/ colbert-news-study-campaign-financing_n_5431713.html?utm_ hp_ref=mostpopular>.

Fung, Katherine. "We're Learning More From Stephen Colbert Than The Actual News, Study Says." Huffington Post Media.

Huffington Post, n.d. Web. 3 June 2014. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/02/ colbert-news-study-campaign-financing_n_5431713.html?utm_ hp_ref=mostpopular>. "‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens." The Onion. The Onion, 27 May 2014. Web. 30 July 2014. <http://www.theonion.com/articles/no-way-to-prevent-this-saysonly-nation-where-this,36131/>.

1.

2.

3.

4.

http://www.businessinsider.com/ deltas-world-cup-twitter-ghanagiraffe-2014-6 Harvard Business Review, 15 Feb. 2013. Web. 23 July 2014. <http:// blogs.hbr.org/2013/02/advertisers-need-to-act-more-like-newsrooms/>.

Shetty, Baba, and Jerry Wind.

"Advertisers Should Act More Like Newsrooms." HBR Blog Network.

Harvard Business Review, 15 Feb. 2013. Web. 23 July 2014. <http:// blogs.hbr.org/2013/02/advertisers-need-to-act-more-like-newsrooms/>.

Organic Connections. Interest Factory, n.d. Web. 23 July 2014. <http://organicconnectmag.com/ ben-jerrys-is-switching-to-nongmo-ingredients/>.

GOING NATIVE

ORIGINAL CONTENT 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Bohn , Roger and James Short.

"International Journal of Communication." Measuring Consumer Information. 2012. Web. 2014. <http://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/ article/viewFile/1566/743> "Infographic - Data Never Sleeps 2.0." Domo. Web. Jun 2014. <http://www.domo.com/learn/ data-never-sleeps-2>.

"Attention Span Statistics." Statistic Brain . Web. Jun 2014. <http:// www.statisticbrain.com/attention-span-statistics/>.

Ingram, Mathew. "AOL's Hyper-local Hubris: Patch Is Dying Because Local Journalism Is Artisanal, Not Industrial." Gigaom. N.p., 16 Dec. 2013. Web. 30 July 2014. <http:// gigaom.com/2013/12/16/aols-hyperlocal-hubris-patch-is-dying-because-local-journalism-is-artisanal-not-industrial/>.

Qu, Anna. "At Nearly $44 Billion, New Survey Shows Rise in Content Marketing Budget | Custom Content Council." Custom Content Council. 4 Apr 2013. Web. Jun 2014. <http://www.customcontentcouncil.com/news/nearly-44-billion-new-survey-shows-rise-content-marketing-budget>.

"B2C Content Marketing Benchmarks, Budgets and Trends North America." Content Marketing Research Institute . Web. Jun 2014. <http://contentmarketinginstitute. com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/ B2C_Research_2014-withlinks.pdf>.

Jain , Nikhil. "Spotlight on Content Curation: Best Practices, Tools and How to Do It Right ." Moz: Inbound Marketing and SEO . 23 Apr 2014. Web. Jun 2014. <http:// moz.com/ugc/the-spotlight-onthe-content-curation-best-practices-tools-and-how-to-do-it-right>.

Ramachandran, Vignesh. "Storify Launches VIP Service for Publishers." Mashable. Mashable, 28 Mar. 2013. Web. 28 July 2014. <http:// mashable.com/2013/03/28/storifyvip-service-launch/>.

9. Indvik, Lauren. "Kit Kat Challenges Oreo to Tic-Tac-Toe for Twitter Fan's Affection." Mashable. 22 Mar 2013. Web. Jun 2014. <http:// mashable.com/2013/03/22/kit-katchallenges-oreo/>.

10. "Talking to Strangers: Millennials Trust People over Brands."

Bazaarvoice. Jan 2012. Web. 2014. <http://resources.bazaarvoice.com/ rs/bazaarvoice/images/201202_ Millennials_whitepaper.pdf>.

11. Marshall , Carla . " Earned Media Rankings on YouTube Have Arrived with Octoly." ReelSEO Âť The Online Video Marketing Guide.

19 Nov 2013. Web. 2014. <http:// www.reelseo.com/earned-media-rankings-youtube-octoly/>.

12. Spence, Ewan. "Facebook Puts Everyone On Notice About The Death Of Organic Reach." Forbes.

06 Jun 2014. Web. Jun 2014. <http://www.forbes.com/sites/ ewanspence/2014/06/06/facebookputs-everyone-on-notice-aboutthe-death-of-organic-reach/>.

8.

1.

2.

3.

Andrew Sullivan on Native Ads: Journalism Has Surrendered Digiday."Digiday. N.p., n.d. Web. 05 June 2014. <http://digiday.com/ publishers/andrew-sullivan-native-ads/> Nashed, Ash. "4 Reasons Marketers Should Embrace Native Ads With Millennials." eM+C. North American Publishing Company, 29 July 2014. Web. 30 July 2014. <http://www.emarketingandcommerce.com/article/4-reasons-marketers-should-embrace-native-ads-millennials/1>.

Sebastian, Michael. "Native Ad Production Values Keep Growing With 'Orange is the New Black' Promo." Advertising Age. Crain Communications, 13 June 2014. Web. 30 July 2014. <http:// adage.com/article/media/yorktimes-runs-native-ad-orangeblack/293713/>.

54

PHOTO CREDITS

55

BRANDED CONTENT WATERS Thai, Sherrie. "Blue Water Texture." Flickr. Yahoo, 30 Mar. 201.

Web. 31 July 2014. <https://www.flickr.com/photos/shaireproductions/5901561832>.

Aguiar, Leonardo. "Ink in Water." Flickr. Yahoo, 19 Oct. 2007. Web. 31 July 2014. <https://www.flickr.com/photos/sensechange/2047331884>.

Fried, Gilad. "Fish-Skeleton." The Noun Project. N.p., 2012. Web. 31 July 2014. <http://thenounproject.com/term/fish-skeleton/3167/>.

Lindman, Tobias. "Green Water." Flickr. Yahoo, 8 Jan. 2012. Web. 31 July 2014. <https://www.flickr.com/photos/cowb0y2000/8869465093>.

NEW NAME, SIMILAR GAME Lobb, Ano. "Cinnamon the Chick." Flickr. Yahoo, 13 May 2011.

Web. 31 July 2014. <https://www.flickr.com/photos/27384147@ N02/7184177666>.

Williamson, Nolan. "Egg High Key." Flickr. Yahoo, 16 Feb. 2011. Web. 31 July 2014. <https://www.flickr.com/photos/giantsqurl/5452144772>.

FUNNY HA-HA(?)

Ida. "Light & Snow." Flickr. Yahoo, 23 Nov. 2008. Web. 31 July 2014. <https://www.flickr.com/photos/mustetahra/3066028181>.

Mesiarikova, Vanda. "Stranger." Flickr. N.p., n.d. Web. 1 Aug. 2014. <https://www.flickr.com/photos/vandamesiarikova/14372952305>.

Arndt, Mike. "Televisioin." The Noun Project. N.p., 2013. Web. 31 July 2014. <http://thenounproject.com/term/television/14214/>.

PURPOSE MARKETING Alexanderson, Kristina. "Behind Blinds." Flickr. N.p., n.d. Web. 1 Aug. 2014. <https://www.flickr.com/photos/kalexanderson/8292759551>.

Hidalgo, Leo. "Help!" Flickr. N.p., n.d. Web. 1 Aug. 2014 <https://www.flickr.com/photos/ileohidalgo/9175762233>.

THE IDIOT'S GUIDE TO "EMBEDDED" MARKETING Queasy, Carmen. "Roses." Flickr. N.p., n.d. Web. 1 Aug. 2014. <https://www.flickr.com/photos/carmenqueasy/8080750969>.

BRAND NEWSROOM Wiefel, Alexander. "Needle." The Noun Project. N.p., 2014. Web. 31 July 2014. <http://thenounproject.com/term/needle/50660/>.

Rosmary. "Tension." Flickr. Yahoo, 15 Oct. 2010. Web. 31 July 2014. <https://www.flickr.com/photos/rvoegtli/5084732242>.

MYTHOLOGY OF VIRALITY NIAID. "HIV-Infected H9 T Cell." Flickr. Yahoo, 8 July 2009 Web. 31 July 2014. <https://www.flickr.com/photos/niaid/6813396647/in/ photostream/>.

ORIGINAL CONTENT Brent, Dwayne. "The Glow." Flickr. N.p., n.d. Web. 1 Aug. 2014. <https://www.flickr.com/photos/zengei/7199972812>.

Mqnr. "On The Phone." Flickr. N.p., n.d. Web. 1 Aug. 2014. <https:// www.flickr.com/photos/91045367@N08/8749105515>.

GOING NATIVE Tann, John. "Anax Gibbosulus Female Wings." Flickr. Yahoo, 16 Feb. 2014. Web. 31 July 2014. <https://www.flickr.com/photos/31031835@N08/12561125105>.

USGS. "Andrena accepta, female, face_2012-08-02-17." Flickr.

Yahoo, 31 Aug. 2012. Web. 31 July 2014. <https://www.flickr.com/ photos/usgsbiml/7900072162>.

USGS. "Dieunomia_xerophila,_female,_side_clean." Flickr. Yahoo, 6 June 2012. Web. 31 July 2014. <https://www.flickr.com/photos/ usgsbiml/7160717791>.

Poets, Lovelorn. "Measure." Flickr. N.p., n.d. Web. 1 Aug. 2014. <https://www.flickr.com/photos/lovelornpoets/6143774554>.

PHOTO CREDITS Mountain/\Ash. "Rollei XF 35." Flickr. Yahoo, 26 Dec. 2009.

Web. 31 July 2014. <https://www.flickr.com/photos/mountainash/4217424206>.

56

THE WAKE UP CREW

ALAN HUYNH

ALBERT PRANNO

ALEX DELYLE

BLAQUE REILY

CRISTINA PEDROZA

JASMEET GILL

MIKE WALLEN

MORGAN ACEINO

NICOLE CASSESE

junior analyst

strategy intern

chief content officer

57

junior designer

senior business & brand strategist

senior brand strategist

senior copywriter

junior brand strategist

proofreader

RAJAT GUPTA art director

SABENA SURI junior strategist

SEAN MCNAMARA WHITNEY ANDERSON chief strategy officer

director of strategy

SARAH CEGLARSKI senior director, marketing

WILL MASON

project management intern

58

8673 HAYDEN PLACE CULVER CITY, CA 90232 OMELETLA.COM NEWBIZ@OMELETLA.COM (213) 427-6400