Defender Of The King

"WE ARE CONTENT!"

"WE ARE CONTENT!"

Recently I located this article from Barnaby Page of screens.tv. He poses the argument that content is not king and wraps it around the purpose of a TV (both in the physical and contextual sense) in OOH scenarios. Of course, being on the front lines of the “content is king” camp, I could not resist the urge to beat my digital chest and argue his declaration. But after reading through his comments five or six times, I believe he made my argument for me. Good thing too, my chest was getting sore.

Mr. Page explains that the perception of TV has changed because of what is broadcast these days. He writes, “thanks to the proliferation of niche-interest channels and then the arrival of online viewing, the TV experience today isn’t limited to the half-hour or hour-long big-budget narrative-oriented show. There’s short-form TV, there’s textual TV, there’s rolling-news TV, and a whole lot of other modes of televisual [sic] presentation some of which are well-suited to digital OOH.” He argues that when people say, “It’s not TV,” regarding OOH, that it is, in fact, just TV.

Okay.

He believes that “…it’s much, much better to schedule average-quality content that’s perfectly targeted to your audience than to give them top-notch material that they don’t want and won’t appreciate.” Thus, content is not king when it’s in the wrong place at the wrong time. He “…sees too many people in this sector – particularly those who don’t come from a content-related background – supposing that there’s some kind of absolute yardstick of content quality, and provided you score at the high end, your screens are showing the right stuff.”

So he’s not arguing that content isn’t king. He’s telling us that most people don’t know what good looks like and that average content targeted perfectly is the way to go.

The fire within my belly grows! Wait…nope. That was just a hungry noise.

If you have the right story on the right screen at the right time, you will generate engagement. Research on your viewer and a thorough knowledge of context will dictate the quality of the content, and technology – the physical aspects of visual signage – is a crucial partner in that execution. These factors executed effectively yield engagement.

He ends with, “Quality content is in the eye of the beholder.”

Isn’t that what makes content king?

Now I shall retreat back to my tent, eat my digital gruel, and ready myself for the next battle. Grrr.

  • http://www.SCREENS.tv Barnaby Page

    Hi Paul

    And let me echo Bill Gerba’s welcome to the OOH blogosphere.

    I guess it all comes down to how we define “quality”, doesn’t it? The point I was trying to hint at is that quality isn’t some abstract…well…quality that can be assessed regardless of the context and the audience.

    For example, while the BBC produces quality journalism, and The Simpsons is (I think) a quality animated series, there are OOH situations where they would be completely the wrong content…and something which when judged purely by yardsticks such as journalistic quality or clever scripting is “less good” could nevertheless be the right content.

    I think we agree, so you can spare your chest another beating!

    Best

    Barnaby

  • Paul

    Thank you, Barnaby, for the reply. And thank goodness there’s no scarring!

    I believe you have a point about good content targeted well instead of missing with the perfect clip. Our challenge in this industry is that we have a captive audience (another blog post entirely) of not just one beholder watching, but millions of beholders watching…at the same time!

    I do believe there is a way to combine technology and content to get as close to perfect as possible without letting it get in the way of good.

    Paul

Previous post:

Next post: