Where is Quality Content Online and Does Its Brand Matter

In this article, Mr. Learmonth makes the following reference to Twitter: "99.9% of the bursts of text are of little to no value to anyone but the writer. But that one tweet with a key fact, properly timed and targeted can, at a given moment, be the most-valuable piece of content to a given person at a given time." I contend that his reference to 99.9% is purely speculative and cannot be substantiated by any viable method. However, he is right on target with the second part of his statement when he analyzes the potential value of a twitter tweet. In fact, I can offer my own personal testimony to it. Luke Beatty, the President of Associated Content tweeted a direct link to Mr. Learmonth's article with the text "debate it." Though I can't speak for others, I can say without hesitation that this particular tweet seemed perfectly executed to me at that time.
This article itself serves as evidence to that fact.

Now I don't rise to the challenge of any debate. However, as a proud Contributor for Associated Content, I am prepared to step up to the plate and let my words be counted. I contend that Mr. Learmonth puts forth an article that does not accurately present the relationships that exist between online content, the sites that hold the content, and the monetization of such content.

Mr. Michael Learmonth discusses the inability of what he terms long form media to be effectively transferred to an online identity. He represents in his thesis that this long form media is quality, because its producers say it is so and that large sums of advertising dollars are associated with it. He offers two premises in his article to support why long form media has failed to take root on the web. First, he puts forward the notion that only individuals not interested in quality seek out information beyond the scope of more traditional types of media on the web. Second, he makes a statement that because ad agencies and advertisers are able to directly target individuals while they are engaged in media, the brand delivering the media becomes less vital and perhaps even inconsequential.

As to his first point, I argue that it is because people are in fact interested in quality that they are willing to seek out information that extends beyond the bounds of long form media on the web. This is not to say that long form media lacks integrity. People that are able to utilize both media modalities are the richest, for they are often able to substantiate information as well uncover additional details that may go overlooked if they rely upon one mode or another.

With respect to his second contention, I find no fault in his claim that ad agencies and advertisers are able to individually target potential consumers in a way that in years past would have been incomprehensible. In fact, in the future we may look back at these current circumstances and render the opinion that individual behavioral marketing was only in its infancy. However, I am not willing to follow his leap in logic when he jumps to the conclusion that this phenomenon makes the brand delivering the media content become virtually invisible in the process. In fact, I feel just the opposite is the case. Whether the content is defined as being either authoritative or popular, I contend that the brand delivering the content is absolutely vital to the process. Mr. Michael Learmonth quotes, Group M CEO Bob Norman: "Today there seems to be a bigger premium on popularity -- substantiated or not -- than there is on authority." While this may be true, both types of content have a place on the internet and it is irrelevant as to which is more prevalent.

The bottom line is that when people are searching for content, they want to find it. If a particular brand of media meets this need, then one of the basic tenets of behaviorism is set in action. People will be more likely to trust that brand of media to help them find their content in the future. Now that is not to say that a deep level of trust will develop upon one successful discovery of content on a particular media platform. However, each successful experience builds brand loyalty. I will also go one step further and state that brand loyalty can and will be developed not only on the shell of a site, but it will reach to its core. This means that if there are particular producers at a particular site that meet an individual's need for specific content, this will allow for a relationship to be forged between the parties. This is an even more intimate level of brand loyalty than one that stems from the sites surface. Does Loyalty Towards Brands of Online Content Impact Advertising Campaigns?

This is a response to Michael Learmonth's article; "Lowered Expectations: Web Redefines 'Quality' " that was originally published in Advertising Age, and republished by The Business Insider:

http://www.businessinsider.com/lowered-expectations-web-redefines-quality-2010

http://adage.com/digital/article?article_id=14223

Image Attribution: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported

Copyrighted and originally published on (Y!CN) Yahoo! Contributor Network on March 12, 2010