blurry future

Yesterday's Campaign thing. About Blag and the blurry future. Click on it and it should get big enough to read.

UPDATE: Here's the original text. I've just realised they took out my DANGER, ADVERTORIAL, DO NOT READ gag, which I thought was quite good. Oh well, they're the boss.

I have a seen the future and it’s a bit blurry. Have you ever read Blag magazine? You should, it’s rather splendid. A stylish combination of music, fashion, photography and interviews. You could imagine it shelved between i-D and Wallpaper. It’s a quarterly, produced by twin sisters, Sally and Sarah Edwards, who do almost everything in the magazine themselves. But the thought-provoking thing about it is that they don’t carry any ads. No regular advertising at all.

It throws you when you first open the magazine, the lack of ads dislocates the expected grammar of magazine reading, freeing you from flicking past the first ten spreads. It’s like watching an American TV programme on the BBC, you fade out for an ad break and then immediately fade back in. It’s odd but rather pleasant, making you realise how much the presence of advertising has coloured our expectations of media. An ad-free magazine feels as startling as a novel with the occasional colour spread.

But Blag isn’t brand-free and the way they integrate brands gives us some hints about the future where advertorials, branded content, branded utility and everything else gets messily blurred together. It’s a future that would horrify the massed bastions of old media editorial, especially those American news organisations that are always bleating about sacred barrier between advertising and editorial. The Blag team don’t worry about that, they’ll create editorial for you, weaving the brand into the magazine in a way that goes far beyond the typically lame advertorial. (And which never carries that big banner saying ADVERTISING which I always think may as well be preceded by DANGER and followed by DO NOT READ).

Of course us old school stalwarts will throw up our liver-spotted hands at this point and wail about the separation of church and state, lamenting the confusion that could befall the innocent reader on finding advertising not clearly labelled as such. But talking to the Blag folk the other week I realised this approach just isn’t going to survive contact with a newer generation and a new communications world. They see this editorial/advertising distinction as completely ridiculous; they preserve the integrity of their magazine by managing the branded-content with the same verve and vision as the rest of the thing. They select brands that make sense for the magazine and create brand content that’ll work for their readership; making for a much more interesting overall product and never risking the kind of car-crash of editorial and advertising you get in so many magazines. As brands become content providers, as interruption gets less effective and as media-owners get more desperate this is a blurry line we’re all going to have to confront. 

Comments

[Ben]

Well written.

What happens if we email you @haymarket? I'm very tempted to give that a try.

[russell]

I hadn't noticed that. I didn't know I had a haymarket address. I wonder what that's all about.

[nick]

any chance you could post these as text or do campaign have some strange hold over the content?

[simon]

What I find really interesting in what you've written is that this is exacty the same model that Daily Candy and the like have adopted to such great/profitable effect.

[Tom Hopkins]

This was really interesting. I think it's really odd that anyone would see the removal of advertising in favour of advertorial as progress. Perhaps I've missed the point. Of course the "brands as content providers" is a difficult one for a lot of brands to deal with.

I was lucky enough to go to North Korea in 2003. There used to be a limited number of tourist tours each year. I don't think there are any more.

In North Korea, there is only one advertisers. It's the North Korean government - two brands, the "Dear" leader (still alive, Kim Jong Il) and the "great" leader (Kim Il Sung).

And, of course, it's really spooky to have no advertising, and you miss it. God know how Mrs and Ms North Korea work out which sort of breakfast cereal to buy. Somerone probably tells them.

I'd certainly rather know when I'm being advertised to than to have it quietly dropped into the editorial (although they do that to in every book in North Korea).

[Adam]

"God know how Mrs and Ms North Korea work out which sort of breakfast cereal to buy."

they probably get the one that tastes the best?

[Piers Fawkes]

Fascinating. I think it's something we'll see online a lot too because CPM advertising fail to support niche publications (and blogs) and therefore, sites will create special 'programs' for advertisers. We're suggesting it all the time.... just need one of the blighters to take the bait. :)

[Lofty]

I think in many ways this is related to the debate that's going on over at Scobelizer about the issue of disclosure. In an increasingly marketing-conscious and cynical world marketers are inevitably going to look for more subtle ways of getting their message across, blurring the lines between marketing and editorial. The Diesel Heidies stunt is an interesting example. Whilst it purported to be real, plenty of people recognised it for what it was - but that didn't matter to them, because it was exciting, fun, brilliantly executed and didn't try too hard. Undoubtedly one part of the future of marketing lies in this kind of collaboration. Whilst it isn't really any different from old school 'media relations' when brands cuddled up with journalists , the brave new world of UGC presents marketers with a much wider range of opportunities - both on-line and off-line. I guess the key to success is going to be a combination of relevance (connecting with consumers) and credibility (not alienating them because they feel they are being sold to). It's a delicate balance - look at Panasonic's poor viral attempt for Viera.