Monetizing content is more of an art rather than a science. That’s because content appeals to the cognitive senses of a person rather than logical and analytical. I’m sure there is an equally competent counter-view to this. One might say that entertainment content appeals to softer senses and factual content to the harder senses. But my submission is that content – whether fiction of non-fiction – is consumed from the prism of being exposed to new ideas, thoughts, being entertained and being able to absorb a fresh perspective that will enable the person to transact his/her life with peers.
So getting back to the monetization bit – Engagement and making a difference to people’s lives get you quality viewers and the same also encourages sticky content. So even though a channel may log huge GRPs week-in week-out and have a hoard of advertisers knocking on its doors, would it be better to have sharper segmentation and programming that’s amenable to engagement (ATL/BTL/Online/Offline) in order to have a more efficient spend-GRP ratio. Advertisers go back happy having reached audiences in a more meaningful way, audiences go back more enriched having been reached by content & ads in less superficial ways.
The questions to ask while creating such a marketing/positioning strategy are – What can bring about a change in consumption pattern – not only from the point of viewing/interacting with the channel, but also in the viewer’s own life choices. What can expand the advertiser pie beyond the traditional ones? Is it a wise idea to have to the same content across a spectrum of audiences on-air, online and offline?
Each content re-purposing can act as a marketing statement and each content re-purposing can help an advertiser reach a new set of audience. The sum of the parts of really engaged audiences will be larger and the probability of them buying your advertisers’ products will also be higher.
For instance, are your viewers switching channels during ad-breaks? Are they recording the programming and skipping the ads? Are they ignoring the banner ads? Yes? Can you take away the choice from them? Yes! How about digital product placements as per the nature of content re-purposing? So if your soap has a protagonist sipping a glass of water in its original version, a digital edit for on-air purpose can have him sipping a glass of Coke, a re-purposed clip on your Facebook feed can have him drinking Sprite or Red Bull… The choice is limitless and the technology is available.
This is very different from traditional product placements in that editors can drop whatever they like, wherever they like, into programmes or films during post-production.
Digital placement firm MirriAd is cashing in on this trend. To quote Mark Popkiewicz in a recent BBC article (full details here): “These are not just logos, they can be video, signage and products, even cars… When brands are integrated they are placed in such a way so it is clear to the audience that they were always there and are part of the scene. For example beverages are placed as open cans or bottles with glasses containing the beverage alongside – that way they look like they are being consumed… The technology is capable of placing or replacing moving objects and even replacing products being handled by actors like mobile phones… Early trials show almost double the engagements of traditional campaigns… This is because when a consumer watches a show they are not defensive against advertising as they might be with advertising online or commercials on TV – they are in receive mode and are not blocking.”
This is just one of the strategies that one can use. Similarly, there are umpteen things that can be done to increase engagement offline, serve up content at places where your target audience socialize, constantly contextualize content as per changing trends, etc. What are your views? Eager to hear them!