The Secret To Brand Engagement Is For Brands To Support The Creative Process, But Not Meddle With The Creative Process

from the that-would-be-ideal dept

We've talked an awful lot about the intersection between advertising and content over the years, and have been especially interested in how brands can and do interact with various content offerings. But, we always hear fears about how this can equate to "selling out" or somehow weakening the content for creators. And, it should be admitted that this is a legitimate fear if the brand demands too much control. For our media partner, Say Media, I recently wrote up a column pointing out how the problems for brands and content come in when the brands get involved in the actual creative process. However, when they let the content creators create what they want, and simply act as supporters of that process, rather than drivers of it, the creators can retain the artistic integrity, and there's no issue of "selling out." Then it becomes a case of brands supporting an artist -- which fans love -- rather than co-opting an artist, which fans hate.

Over the years, we've noticed that this is definitely a struggle for some brands. As soon as they dump money into a campaign, it's their natural inclination to want to control every aspect of the content that comes out of that campaign -- and that's a huge mistake. We've seen that the more involved a brand is in the campaign, the less effective the campaign is for absolutely everyone. Brands sponsor content creators because they know those content creators have built up a following and can create great content. They need to extend that trust to the point that if they sponsor content creation, the give the creators the free will to do something amazing. Brands may be good at "branding," but if they meddle directly in content creation, the end result doesn't really help anyone.
Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: brand engagement, brands, content creation, marketing, sponsorshiop

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Thread

  1. icon
    Suzanne Lainson (profile), 14 Apr 2012 @ 2:21pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Does it lead to measurable results?

    For some, part of being creative is to work within a set of challenges. So a film maker who shoots a commercial or a songwriter who writes a piece of music for commercial purposes can be considered creative within those parameters.

    Can a creation developed for commercial purposes have integrity? It depends. There's a long history of craft and design being tied to utilitarian purposes. And as a result, among some circles, craft and design aren't really "art." Similarly, a jingle writer might not be considered a real songwriter. But I wouldn't go so far. If I like the creation, it doesn't matter to me why it was created.

    My articles on the gift economy were the last I wrote because I needed to focus on some other things first (I'll be blogging again eventually). But I was trying to add some clarity to the economics of arts, and then move on to the economy as a whole. I've gotten to the point where I don't think we can "fix" the economics of art without looking at a much bigger picture.

    My background is marketing and economics so I've always been open to talking about business topics. But on the other hand, I'm a bit frustrated that most economists talk about tweaking a bit here and there and then we'll be back to where we were as if that is a good thing. I'd rather see us view the whole economy today in a major transition comparable to how much changed when we hit the Industrial Age.

    My sense is that if we can find a way to generate a decent income for everyone, the arts and artists will be adequately taken care of in the process. On the other hand, if the world's wealth is concentrated in the hands of just a few, and even if they become major arts patrons, it may not be enough.

    I will do some browsing around about Red Bull and music.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter

Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Recent Stories

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.