"Content is a horrible, horrible word..."

"Content is a horrible, horrible word..."

Paul Berry, former chief technology officer of Huffington Post, founded a hot publishing/web/content company called Rebel Mouse (https://www.rebelmouse.com). He calls it "The Audience Activation Platform - Where Content Meets Consumer."  RebelMouse serves as the foundation for such gorgeous properties as Fatherly.com and Dodo.com  

Content is a horrible, horrible word...

Paul held a RebelMouse Roar Summit and invited me alongside the President of Buzzfeed, Greg Coleman, and GE's global head of brand, Linda Boff. I kicked off by proclaiming "content is a horrible word." We have plastered the label "content" on absolutely everything and then make it sound worldly by shipping it off into a world of "content marketing." Now I'm not a luddite on this. It's just that I believe some things do not deserve to be called "content." So I offered up this definition:

Content are works of such relevance and value that people  choose to spend time with them, save them, or even share them...

See this video of the joint discussion with myself (@cgraves @OgilvyPR), @LindaBoff (GE) and Greg Coleman (BuzzFeed).

See why Greg says when people ask him about "premium content" his blood pressure starts to rise. 

And see why @LindaBoff is taking GE into "Brain DeCoder." 

https://meet.rebelmouse.com/futureofmarketing-roarsummit

 

"Content" is especially horrible when paired with "optimize."

回复
Christopher Graves

Founder, The Resonance Code LLC. Formerly Ogilvy Center for Behavioral Science, frmr Global CEO at Ogilvy Public Relations. Rockefeller Bellagio Resident. Life member Council on Foreign Relations. 23-yr news exec.

9 年

Jason Aspes I see your point about once a particular work elevates itself from the poor quality or ineffective detritus, it deserves a proper name. Of course you could get more and more specific as noise becomes content, content becomes poetry, a poem becomes a sestina. But we need, at a broad, aggregate level to differentiate works of relevance, value and effectiveness to individuals at scale, from those merely pumped out and spewed threw owned media and placed in front of you through media buys. Scott Omelianuk Agencies should be trying to differentiate between marketing push and content pull. That's why in our definition we say "works of such value and relevance people CHOOSE to spend time with them, save them or even share them." I concede we need an overarching term and grant you that "content" is what the world has settled on as a generic term. Some works deemed high quality have no relevance or value to an individual or group. Pushing those irrelevant or out-of-context works, will be ineffective. Content need not be an oeuvre or a tome. Something short, timely and helpful can be of great value. The science of listening and matching content to right audiences is crucial. So I am not suggesting a snob approach.

Jason Aspes

Innovator / Creative / Entrepreneur

9 年

Christopher Graves, I guess I am trying to make the opposite point. That content is the noise. Tweets, Comments, bad videos that no one watches, pre-roll commercials, half baked ideas that get rushed out the door, these are all content. When something proves to be better than that, when it rises above the fray - it no longer is referred to as simply 'content' and becomes something more... a film, an image, etc... we don't share 'content,' we share a film or an image or an app or a song. No one has ever said "Check out this content." And Scott Omelianuk, I have no issues with someone referring to what they do as a "film" or a "piece" if it's any good. But if it's not good enough, well, then it's just content.

回复

要查看或添加评论,请登录

Christopher Graves的更多文章

社区洞察

其他会员也浏览了