To UGC or not to UGC – that is the confusion
Published by on July 14th, 2008 3 Comments »
Back in April when PodShow re-branded to MEVIO, there was a a fair bit of spitting over the CEO’s comments that the company had “…never believed in user-generated content as a business, or even as a sustainable entertainment offering“. This created all manner of waves amongst podcast producers. Here is my personal take on why they had no reason to be so sensitive
YouTube is UCG
The most clearly defined form of user generated content is YouTube (and similar sites). Anyone can, and does, upload anything.
The advertising industry and UGC
Advertisers are simply terrified of UGC (User Generated Content). With no means of predicting exactly what kind of content their brands will become associated with on the page, it becomes tougher for agencies to have confidence in reaching the audience they must reach on behalf of their clients (remember, in the vast majority of international brand advertising, it is not the brands themselves who buy the advertisement space).
What advertising buyers are hunting for is trusted, “brand-safe” content with which to associate their products. They need the confidence that there will be no unpleasant surprises and that their clients’ brands will have their image both enhanced by the associated content, and that it will reach their defined target audience.
True UGC cannot guarantee either of those important criteria.
Aren’t podcasts UGC?
In that they are generated by “users”, they are, of course. But in the eyes of the advertising industry, podcasts have unfortunately become tarnished with the very same brush as true UGC. Whereas, in fact, the vast majority of niche podcast-distributed programming is very much brand-safe.
Serialised, audio and video programming maintains an audience primarily through loyalty. That audience comes to expect a certain style and structure of content. If the show consistently fails to provide what they expect, they will move on. Producers understand this and strive to provide what their audience wants. Thus the loyalty grows and the show becomes increasingly brand-safe.
Within each individual show’s audience, the programming is entirely brand safe in that it is predictable, consistent, and reaches the same eyes and ears over and over again – and important factor in converting an advertising message into audience action.
So why aren’t advertisers clamoring to write cheques to independent podcast producers?
Apart fro the image problem (as mentioned above), the vast majority of the productions out there have far too small an audience to be attractive to international brands who need to reach millions. Networks such as Mevio get around that issue by aggregating similar audiences together across multiple smaller show properties. And it is working.
But whether any company can become strong enough to truly wipe the memories and associations podcasts have within the advertising industry remains to be seen. I do not believe that will happen – advertisers like to be in control, and no-one has broken them in the past four years (since podcasting first appeared).
This lingering, troublesome association is, as I see it, the reason for PodShow re-branding to Mevio.
The story has not changed
Since the dawn of podcast content, the key players have been preaching that the programming’s strength is its unique and intimate relationship with its audience, and that relation must, therefore, be attractive to advertisers. I have not seen this view change.
Along came the tsunami of UGC (YouTube, etc.) and what should have been a tall, razor-wire topped wall between the independent content productions and true UGC, became a fuzzy blurr of confused notions about the differences between professional, independent, and amateur produced content.
I believe this is one of the primary reasons why so many quality podcast producers did not see the returns they believed were possible from their content..
Disclaimer: I work for Mevio. The opinions in this article are wholly personal and in no way prompted, endorsed, or motivated by Mevio.
Photo credit: Bulent Fahri Ince
3 Responses to “To UGC or not to UGC – that is the confusion”
The thing that troubles me most is the seeming inability for big advertisers to see past the content itself and embrace what it means for the content to be there in the first place.
No one but them is making the association between a dog-on-a-skateboard and their brand. The association when advertising alongside UGC is one of support for the concept of authentic content created by (what are ultimately) their customers.
It really comes down to brand values. It may be that a given brand may not particularly be trying to say “we believe in promoting original content and free expression”, but by not doing so they are conversely saying “we don’t want our shiny clean brand associated with you common people” – and that’s never an attractive quality.
Also, as an aside, I had no idea Podshow had rebranded. The site still says BTPodShow, and appears to be promoting mainly Motorola and eMusic and BT rather than any independent content.
To clarify on the name change, BTPodShow is the UK-only brand in association with BT. I have no information either way on whether that name might change to something more Mevio-related.