Heidi Sinclair argues that big brand names like Nike or Home Depot could be in an excellent position to enter the media business as content generators. Nike could be the next ESPN, Home Depot could tackle the home improvement news realm, etc. This is in keeping with Paul Gillin’s contention that a company like Staples could be a content source for information and resources related to small business, and so forth.
I completely, respectfully disagree with both Gillin and Sinclair.
In the above-linked post, Sinclair also describes how successful new brands have emerged in media – such as Huffington Post, Gawker, and individuals like Fareed Zakaria, who have developed themselves as cross-medium brand names. But, that’s just the thing! They’re new and not concerned with playing diverse roles. I believe you start as a particular product and do one particular thing and do it well. It doesn’t matter where you distribute that product, you don’t need to supplement. That’s how you build brand loyalty. McDonald’s makes hamburgers, Nike makes shoes and apparel, and Wal-Mart sells cheap crap made overseas. I wouldn’t go to McDonalds.com for recipes or nutritional news. I wouldn’t hit up Wal-Mart.com for business analysis. And, no matter how genuine, for instance, NikeSportsNews.com content might be, or how separated it presents itself from Nike products, people will still see such ventures as merely marketing gimmicks.
For example, TBS launched a comedy video site in 2007 called “Super Deluxe“, which touted up-and-coming-comedians and “television quality” entertainment. It was careful to attempt to disconnect itself from TBS as a brand, only mentioning Turner in the footer of the site. Trouble was, there was already a glut of online comedy video content from original start-ups. And, in my opinion, Super Deluxe was merely a vehicle for advertising on-air TBS programming anyway, like “The Frank Caliendo Show”. In any case, the site failed and was folded into another Turner brand, “Adult Swim”. Even if TBS was focusing on what they do well, which is distributing entertainment, with their Super Deluxe foray, they weren’t focusing on what they’ve been doing best, which is over-the-air content.
Is new media destroying old media? Sure. But, as Sinclair says in her post, it’s the product, not the medium, that matters. Nike has no place in media content generation. They should stick to selling shoes and only use new media like everyone else, as just another platform to reach customers. Not everyone can be Oprah, Martha Stewart, or Rachel Ray. (All of whom I’m fairly certain signed deals with the devil to market their brands as content AND products). Everyone else is destined to fail.
What do you think? Should Disney.com be your number one site for parenting tips? Should ExxonMobil.com be your favorite site for news on sustainability and the environment? Can Timex.com be a good place for scheduling and calender needs? Or is this all just a bunch of silliness?
Possibly related posts
Tags: brand names, marketing, new media, old media