Branded Content Drives Revenue. (Suddenly, You’re Valuable Again.)
By Tom Chandler on Nov 7, 2006 in Copywriting, Writing
Good news for writers. Especially the value-added sort (that’s us).
The Online Publishers Association conducted a survey which confirms that original, branded content generates more customers - and more revenue per customer - than generic stuff.
Simply put, the relevant, targeted, quality copy we write means higher sales for branded sites (wedding.com, etc) as opposed to user-generated content.
Online businesses wanted user-generated content to solve all their content problems, and cheaply too. Why pay a writer to when users will fill the space for you, and for free?
Here’s why:
On OPA content sites, visitors were found to research more, buy more, engage in more transactions and spend more money. The study found that across a range of verticals consumers purchased products both related and unrelated to the vertical they were visiting.
I have some questions about accuracy of some of the conclusions drawn in the story - and it’s clearly aimed at driving advertising to OPA Member sites - but it’s worth tagging for later use.
Remember, the value-added copywriter brings things to the table that others don’t, one of which is information.
Write smart. Add value.
[tags]copy, copywriting, branded content, OPA[/tags]
Great heads-up on the survey — very interesting article. Just reaffirms what copywriters knew already!
Alicia | Nov 8, 2006 | Reply
We knew it, but the people in charge of populating these sites didn’t.
I wish now that I had test data demonstrating how “good” copy outperforms the $5/article generic stuff in terms of revenue.
That would be handy…
Tom Chandler | Nov 8, 2006 | Reply
Thanks for passing that along. Good news. I am with you re: wishing there was a way to objectively demonstrate a superior ROI from “quality” content vs. the cheaper stuff.
Carson
Carson | Nov 9, 2006 | Reply
I just read more on the OPA survey, and now I’m not so convinced that their findings really affirm the value of quality content, per se.
The sites considered were all OPA member sites. OPA membership costs $60K per annum and the member list is almost exclusively populated by “the big boys.” Even the OPA people discuss the halo effect of association with such recognizable brands.
OPA argues that a relatively slim % of users trust social media alternatives for quality information and that they are more likely to place faith in OPA-type branded content. I’ve seen a few people who agree with that assessment referencing the JupiterResearch report on viral marketing, which proffers similar data.
However, what isn’t said is just as important. The social media marketing experiences may (a) serve as a means of creating some of that branding and (b) are designed not to close deals, but to bring people to the table for additional information and exploration.
The stuff from the OPA does suggest that a content site will outperform a portal or search engine model (no shock there), but whether we can honestly extrapolate their findings to non-Big Name entities is fuzzy to me. There also seems to be some “apples and organges” comparisons being made with alternate marketing forms as a means of advocating quality editorial content.
Don’t get me wrong, the idea that quality content sells makes perfect sense to me and it’s a VERY defensible position to take. I’m sure we all maintain it every day. Whether the OPA report supports that… Maybe another story?
I’ll have to do more reading.
Anyway, thanks for noticing the study and bringing it to my attention. Interesting stuff!
CDB
Carson | Nov 9, 2006 | Reply
Carston;
Thanks for the thoughtful comments!
I think the OPA “halo effect” that was mentioned in the article referred to the effect of advertising on a site with quality content - not any halo between OPA member sites.
Their contention is that quality editorial content draws a higher-value buyer than less targeted, lower-quality content.
I’d say that contention is supported by the Jupiter study, and that extrapolating to sites beyond the OPA network is wholly defensible.
Characterizing the OPA sites as “biggies” doesn’t diminish the value of the data, especially when consumers don’t know or care whether they’re on an OPA site or not.
I think the Apples and Oranges comparisons are difficult, but fair when both fruits are competing for the same ad dollars.
Jupiter suggests that users trust a quality content site far more than social sites when it’s time to buy.
Since the function of the two sites is so different, I think it’s a difficult comparison, though - from the POV of an advertiser - the choice might not be so hard.
I still believe this study is good news for copywriters. It links high-value customers to high-value content, and everything I’ve seen so far suggests that’s statistically valid.
Tom Chandler | Nov 9, 2006 | Reply
You’re right re: their “halo” argument, but I have to believe that the big-name glow attracts the ad dollars in and of itself, to a large extent.
That’s chicken/egg, though. The brand recognition stems from the expected and established quality of the content, after all. So, it is on-balance good news for those who produce the “good stuff.”
Extrapolating the argument and applying it to smaller sites is still a little problematic, though. I think the good faith argument to make is that the OPA data suggests that good content = sales when the brand name recognition is pre-existing.
It may or may not have the same kind of overall impact if you are still a “no name.” However, the best way to become a recognized brand is by offering quality content…
So I don’t think we really disagree too much here. The difference is more in the presentation of the argument than in its meat.
I think the real problem is setting up UGC and social content as an alternative to solid professional content. That’s a mistake regardless of which approach you advocate.
Although the JupiterResearch stuff does indicate that good content sells, that really doesn’t get to the heart of the viral marketing value of UGC, etc.
A smart operator is going to use the UGC and social routes to create buzz, attention and traffic to a content destination where he or she can close the deal. Whether the UGC directly closes sales is a tertiary concern.
Both forms of content are valuable tools and they aren’t mutually exclusive.
I guess that’s probably why I sort of wrinkled my brow after reading some of the OPA press releases, etc.
If you are on top and argue that only good content gets the job done, you can turn people off to other means of advancing their brand, knowing that good content alone isn’t going to be enough to catch ABC, MTV, Slate, etc. any time soon.
The argument seems to downplay a potentially powerful means of increasing recognition for smaller brands, which certainly works in favor of the big guns at the OPA, etc.
I’m not arguing conspiracy, but I do think that approach is a little self-serving on their end.
Okay, I have undoubtedly taken up enough of your time and mine on this. Time to get writing. Clients aren’t as interested in my blog comments as they are in getting their stuff on time!
Carson
Carson | Nov 9, 2006 | Reply
You have clients? I’ve given all mine up to blog…
8-)
It’s an interesting topic, and I think it makes a lot of sense if you limit the conversation to the idea that the OPA wants you to believe that those visiting their sites are high value, so that’s where your ad dollars should go.
We might disagree about how that scales to lesser-known brands, but we’ve managed to do it without calling each other names, which means we’ve doomed this thread to blog obscurity… 8-)
I agree completely that it gets a lot murkier once you get into the social networking end of things, where the small guys can kick a lot of brand-name butt simply by being creative.
Frankly, that’s where most of the fun is.
Tom Chandler | Nov 9, 2006 | Reply
You’re right. I should have called you a name. Maybe compared you to a certain German fascist we all know… Something like that. Then, the comments would be rolling in and we could both bask in the glory of that attention.
Which, in turn, would prove that social media buzz creation techniques are a good way to drive traffic to sites with a more traditional marketing function.
:-)
BTW, I’ll see your Friday face plant and raise you one drool-soaked pillow.
Carson
Carson | Nov 10, 2006 | Reply
That German facist thing is *so* overused. Comparing me to a goat would be fresher.
Enjoy your pillow!
Tom Chandler | Nov 10, 2006 | Reply
A goat who sympathizes with the causes advanced by said German fascist, perhaps?
Why not capture the benefits of a proven performer while also snagging that elusive freshness factor?
CDB
Carson | Nov 10, 2006 | Reply
I bow to your
facist, goat-lovinggenius.Tom Chandler | Nov 10, 2006 | Reply