Can you comment on the most disruptive advertising you have created or known about?
Posted: Wed Dec 04, 2024 6:05 am
Javier Regueira is also the author of the blog No Content, No Brand , one of the top 10 marketing blogs in Spanish according to Blogosfera de Marketing and PuroMarketing.com , and he imparts his knowledge as a speaker and professor of Branding, Marketing and Entrepreneurship. From Spain, Javier spoke to us about music, advertising and branded content . We share his statements with you:
— Compared to a few years ago, what is the average online and offline music consumer like today?
In a word: more plentiful . Music is more omnipresent in every facet of our lives. The india whatsapp mobile phone number list music business used to be fueled by the 10% of heavy users who bought records every week. In the future, it will be fueled by a vast Long Tail of mainstream users eager to stream any kind of song. Why own the song if it's available in the cloud for me to access whenever I want?
—
The one that interrupts me every day when I try to watch a series or a basketball game on TV. Unfortunately, there is no need to look for a practical example, we are surrounded by them every day. The average consumer in a large city is exposed to more than 2,000 unsolicited advertising impacts. A clear example of what the branded content format does not meet.
—Is transmedia advertising viable for any message or is it better to use it in low doses?
If a communication is interesting, the consumer will want it in his life “in large doses” and will continue looking for more and more. The media are only places where we find the content, the key for the consumer to want that content is not the medium but the message . Ed, despite what Marshall McLuhan says, the saying “the medium is the message” has become obsolete.
—What does a brand have to have for you to say: “this is different”?
Very simple: he should provide me with value instead of interrupting me to talk about his belly button. Most of the communication pieces we produce for brands would not survive this simple test: if you do not provide something new and valuable to the consumer with the message you are going to transmit, do not transmit it . What man would make a woman (or vice versa) fall in love with him by always sending her predictable messages, or worse still, a repetition of the same message? Why do brands, however, believe they have the right to do so?
— Can branded content generate antipathy because it is associated with a brand? Is it common for users to feel “used”?
I apologize for the example I'm going to give, because it's the one that everyone uses: Red Bull Stratos . Go to YouTube and type in Red Bull Stratos , watch the video with the full jump. You'll probably agree with me that it's entertainment content , that the first time we had access to it, we watched it without blinking. Did anyone feel cheated because the Red Bull logo appeared everywhere? Does anyone get upset that Coca Cola or Heineken logos are everywhere in bars? No. It's a question of treating brands naturally, as an integral part of our lives. If the content is good, I'll watch it, regardless of who produced it .
— Compared to a few years ago, what is the average online and offline music consumer like today?
In a word: more plentiful . Music is more omnipresent in every facet of our lives. The india whatsapp mobile phone number list music business used to be fueled by the 10% of heavy users who bought records every week. In the future, it will be fueled by a vast Long Tail of mainstream users eager to stream any kind of song. Why own the song if it's available in the cloud for me to access whenever I want?
—
The one that interrupts me every day when I try to watch a series or a basketball game on TV. Unfortunately, there is no need to look for a practical example, we are surrounded by them every day. The average consumer in a large city is exposed to more than 2,000 unsolicited advertising impacts. A clear example of what the branded content format does not meet.
—Is transmedia advertising viable for any message or is it better to use it in low doses?
If a communication is interesting, the consumer will want it in his life “in large doses” and will continue looking for more and more. The media are only places where we find the content, the key for the consumer to want that content is not the medium but the message . Ed, despite what Marshall McLuhan says, the saying “the medium is the message” has become obsolete.
—What does a brand have to have for you to say: “this is different”?
Very simple: he should provide me with value instead of interrupting me to talk about his belly button. Most of the communication pieces we produce for brands would not survive this simple test: if you do not provide something new and valuable to the consumer with the message you are going to transmit, do not transmit it . What man would make a woman (or vice versa) fall in love with him by always sending her predictable messages, or worse still, a repetition of the same message? Why do brands, however, believe they have the right to do so?
— Can branded content generate antipathy because it is associated with a brand? Is it common for users to feel “used”?
I apologize for the example I'm going to give, because it's the one that everyone uses: Red Bull Stratos . Go to YouTube and type in Red Bull Stratos , watch the video with the full jump. You'll probably agree with me that it's entertainment content , that the first time we had access to it, we watched it without blinking. Did anyone feel cheated because the Red Bull logo appeared everywhere? Does anyone get upset that Coca Cola or Heineken logos are everywhere in bars? No. It's a question of treating brands naturally, as an integral part of our lives. If the content is good, I'll watch it, regardless of who produced it .