Much is said about value content and content marketing in new marketing communication strategies.
That marketing that should focus on creating and disseminating content that is relevant to the target audience and attracting them in a less invasive or more natural or organic way.
It is assumed that thanks to a strategy in this sense we can achieve a greater number of people interested in our products or services, because:
- Index hide
It can cost us less because it is more efficient
Increase brand recognition through the use of branded content
It is the great entrance to get the consumer/user interested in our brands on a voluntary basis.
They feel listened to and identify us as the product or service of their common or daily life.
All this, because we are giving them useful and relevant information that will ensure that we have high fidelity on their part.
But, how do you know if the content that is being given to them through different tools or media is the right one? Or more importantly, is the content offered to them quality content?
The content trend that we are receiving in the different media seems to be a bit strange, even surreal, and it should be considered whether this content trend is motivated (or even the responsibility) of whoever creates the content or whoever receives it.
Generating, for example, original or attractive videos does not mean that they are necessarily of high quality in the content itself. It is one thing to attract attention in an easy or scandalous way and another to attract them with information that gives them something significant related to your brand.
A few weeks ago one of my students asked me if it was valid to do “advertising” that would generate a scandal, since thanks to this they could talk about you and thus take advantage of free publicity or publicity. Rather than giving you my opinion right away, what happened is that I got worried, because it seems that we are, or the public is getting used to, broadcasting or receiving “garbage” content, especially in digital media, which does not matter if it has a very limited life cycle, because its reason for being is that: use and throw away, but while it is used, and in an immediate and ephemeral way, it drew attention for the scandal and even for being offensive.
It is disposable content that does not remain, nor does it contribute to the brand or the consumer.
It seems then that the rat race to gain rating or audience in the media is the same type of race that brands must follow so that they turn to see them using resources that are “fashionable”.
Serious errors of recognized brands have occurred for wanting to jump on the train of the use of formulas that are supposed to be effective for All-All-The-Time.
The “requete used” Influencers, for example. Serious case: the one that Hershey’s experienced a few years ago, where they did a campaign in which they used influencers trying to give a (wrong) advertising message in a charity halo. Beauty People doing “good deeds” with homeless people or people of low socioeconomic status and inviting the public to do the same with almost unnatural poses and very forced product placement with the disadvantaged.
And then, an “excuse me” after the scandal and ridicule generated in networks. But, it was spent on the campaign and empty content was broadcast that, as far as I understand, did absolutely nothing for the brand.
Who then depends on the QUALITY of the contents?
Responsibility of the media that are used, of the brands, of their agencies or, flatly, of their consumers or users who conform or want to see messages in that sense?
Is it valid then that everything is for the success of people talking about you no matter how they do it or give many “likes”?
A few days ago, the 23-year-old influencer, Kenghua Ren (known as ReSet) was sentenced to 15 months in prison (in addition to paying his victim 20 thousand euros for moral damages), after publishing a video of himself in which he humiliated a homeless man he fed Oreo cookies filled with toothpaste. That’s right, this YouTuber with more than 1 million subscribers spread this content in search of increasing his highest level of visits (estimated at 120 million).
I ask because it seems to me that it is a case of concern that this type of content be successful because of how morbid it can be and not so much because of what it contributes to people. (For the record, it is not moralizing).
In the midst of different current crises (economic, social, political, war, food, environmental, among others) what to expect when one of the news that has caused the most commotion in recent days is the media spectacle of the trial of Johnny Depp vs Amber heard?
When people’s comments on hashtags reach such high levels (#IStandWithAmberHeard has 8.6 million on TikTok and #JusticeForJohnnyDepp 15.7 billion) and scandal-ridden brands like Dior and Gucci, what can we expect?
I do not want to say that valuable content is only the one that handles negative topics, but it is the one that gets involved in the reality of its target audience.
Fortunately, there are still companies out there in the marketing universe that are being sensitive to the environment and communicate in the same way that everyone wins: brand and target audience.