You are on page 1of 2

DIGITASLBi PERSPECTIVE

!"# %&'(


Take your Sponsorship and Shove It

Here is a recent assessment of the media landscape on the heels of the Digital Content NewFronts. Its
typical industry coverage outside of trade publications, telling us that digital is storming the gate of the TV
castle. Its indicative of the lack of innovation at what was otherwise an extremely successful Digital
Content NewFronts, because it frames everything in the shadow of television. And that is precisely the
feeling I had when departing New York and the NewFronts. (Full disclosure: DigitasLBi is a founding
partner of the Digital Content NewFronts.)

I came away thinking that digital media publishers believe wholly in video, but that in an ever-increasing
way they are both creating it and presenting it like television content. And of course they are trying to sell
it like television content. Hulu literally jettisoned the name NewFront. Yahoo is creating daily, live music
performances -- and what could be more like television than tune-in, daily content? Vevo had a post-
production enabled product placement tool to sell. With rare exceptions, everything at the NewFronts
walked, talked, and quacked like TV.

Dont get me wrong: I love all of this new content, the inherent competitive and symbiotic relationship with
digital publishers and TV, and the data that informs content and provides insights to consumer behaviors.
And of course I enjoy observing digital publishers Sisyphean attempts at crossing the cultural relevance
divide between TV and native digital. But the more the conversation is framed as a shift in ad dollars, the
more we perpetuate the notion of similarity between TV and digital video. And when we do that, we are
ignoring the innumerable advantages of digital.

The original vision of digital content included uses as a two-way communication device, a strategic
collector of totally new and unique data sets, and a targeting machine that would be the envy of any
military outfit. In short, its completely different from all other previous forms of media. But in our race to
compete with TV, we have increasingly replaced digital uniqueness with arcane TV tactics.

The result is less innovation and more static behavior, with publishers, brands, and agencies replicating
their advertising across channels. Its unclear to me why the bulk of content and advertising in digital is
still framed by a random set of length deliverables (:10, :15, and :30) ,when its delivered by a totally
different experience.

The Sponsorship Question

TV was built on sponsorship with meaning: entire programs truly brought to you by a single brand, and
the brand became an integral part of the series. The message, the content, and the brand were
inextricably linked. Mutual of Omahas Wild Kingdom built credibility and status for itself and its title
sponsor in a meaningful, consistent, and committed way. But today, in both TV and digital, sponsorship
is often a meaningless attachment that accrues little long-term value for a brand, and therefore provides a
limited halo effect and context for brand values.

Digital content has its own version of sponsorship. It has strayed far from unique, interactive experiences
and migrated to a lowest common denominator of pure sponsorship -- perhaps fine for TV scale, but
unlikely to gain traction in the attention economy. Digital publishers need to find a way to make a more
meaningful connection than 100% share of voice on a destination that they practically beg users to visit,
upon which any brand can be inserted, and which lacks an integrated brand experience.

Digital video offers an opportunity for brands to step up and deliver meaningful content that more deeply
connects to their values and consumer emotions. Media publishers need to separate the
impression and reach sale (TV) from an interactive, engaging sale (native digital), and give
agencies and brands a reason to participate.


DIGITASLBi PERSPECTIVE
!"# %&'(


One way to deal with this issue is with native content one of the best digital
opportunities, but perhaps one of the most difficult to achieve. Because so much content consumption
today takes place in the newsfeed environment of mobile, original, amazing content is critical. The
difficulty is that native means that your ad looks and feels like editorial content -- which is useful in one
sense, but also decreases the connection of the brand to the content.

The opportunity for brands is to step in and create their own content that solves the problem of being a
disposable appendage to the headline content. And ultimately, the opportunity for publishers is to have
another go at creating content with brand partners that is emotionally appealing, that strongly connects
the consumer to the brand and its values, and that drives consumer engagement.

Contact For More Information

Eric Korsh, SVP/Social.Content, DigitasLBi
Eric.Korsh@digitas.com

This piece originally appeared in MediaPost.

You might also like