We often speak in terms of {blank} media when discussing marketing plans and budgets. But considering channel blur and fragmentation we're often left wondering just what a given media type is good for. Here's some thoughts.
First, what is 'media' from a business or marketing sense? Without the qualifying adjective like broadcast or social the term simply seems to describe 'a vehicle for conveying a message'. This can range from buying a 1/4 page in a magazine to seeding a viral video.
Second, the different kinds of qualifiers need definition. Some common classifications that center on the distinction between the control and reach of content include:
- Paid Media: the exchange of value for the placement of a sponsored message. Usually this is buying ad space in one or more outlets. Typically the tradeoff is in terms of content control and reach.
- Owned Media: the use of a firm's assets to cover both the content and the distribution; it covers everything from publishing to email and direct mail. Typically we are sacrificing reach to control or tailor the content.
- Shared Media: the leveraging of others for both content and distribution. Often, both the content and the distribution happen without any control creating a level of risk.
- Earned Media: the value of a placed story, event or action or simply 'news coverage.' It grew out of the need to place a value on public relations activities so that it could be compared/aggregated with Paid Media.
(source)
The above discussion doesn't reflect a 'channel' per se and allows for some interesting debates. If I pay you to blog for me and then distribute it via a number of vehicles is that 'paid', 'owned', 'earned' or 'shared' media?
The consumer probably doesn't care much about any of this discussion; we're gazing at our own navel. Since she consumes whatever she finds interesting regardless of how we is classified we should think more about gestalt media: the net effect of surrounding a consumer with interesting content.
No comments:
Post a Comment