The Online Generation Gap
There is a tendency for those who came of age in web 2.0 to think of digital marketing as axiomatic. Or that “machine learning, artificial intelligence and cloud computing will combine to create a steady cascade of greater capabilities beyond human comprehension.” [1]
In other words, marketing is driven by an ever-better sameness until it achieves a perfection we no longer understand. While this fits in perfectly with Silicon Valley schemes, we are reminded of what George Gilder said about machines.
Today a new generation of what might be called web 3.0 (or read/write) thinkers are moving in the opposite direction towards blockchains of information that do not required a FAANG registered imprint to thrive.
Theories aside, it is an inescapable fact that the gap continues to widen between the efficiency of content delivery and the quality of content. Nowhere is this gap more pronounced than with content designed to create awareness or what we can still conservatively call advertising campaigns.
If you’ve ever paid Facebook to “boost” a post about your pets (i.e. increase reach and frequency) you’ll understand what we mean. Forcing more people into a cringeworthy conversation doesn’t always work and yet “petvertising” won’t go away.
Part of this is due to 2.0 thought—which has never managed to separate the immense brilliance that goes into creating advertising campaigns—from the act of “advertising” –which is still conventionally understood as paying someone else (i.e. the FAANGs) to get the message out.
To 2.0 thinkers, advertising is simply content to be made more useful, relevant and engaging to a pre-determined audience that you pay to reach. Some believe ad campaigns have been obsoleted by whitepapers and infographics you send into cyberspace like carrier pigeons that return with buckets of leads. [2]
This worked while the internet was a garden of evergreen content. Today everyone is doing it. And that is what has Silicon Valley looking for surprises.
Creating Advertising vs. Running It
In the 20th century “advertising” and advertising campaigns were synonymous. While the occasional poster plastered somewhere might generate awareness for free you generally had to pay another business to make your creative output work as “advertising.”
The internet changed all this.
Since the internet’s inception it has always been possible to create stuff and disseminate it online without paying anyone but an ISP (in the days before coffee shops). As the internet evolved this opportunity declined while remaining less expensive that paying legacy networks and publishers.
Legacy media providers remained expensive till they were obsoleted or acquired from 2005-2012. [3] Yet, ironically, our new media overlords have been acting exactly like the traditional media companies they replaced. They would have you believe that campaign content will never become “advertising” till you pay them to run it for you. Without their distribution channel, it’s all dreck
[1] (Tandoc & Maitra, 2018)
[2] (Loredana, 2017)
[3] (Kaul, 2012)
While they disdain the term “advertising” certain giant marketing automation companies are just as arrogant —they say you can’t get your message in front of an audience without their software. [1] At least their model requires real stuff, unlike content farms and fraudsters.
But this is all still basically bullshit.
Content becomes “advertising” when someone else notices it and acts upon it. Today you don’t need to pay an intermediary to make that happen.
This means no PPC, no retargeting.no one charging you for the privilege of a faster ride on the information highway. [2] That’s because marketing, digital or traditional, is no longer about advertising.
It’s about advocacy.
And advocates will work for free.
[1] (Loredana, 2017)
[2] (Choi, Jeon, & Kim, 2015)