I had a conversation with a clever person recently who had a view on how content differentiates itself in a massively multichannel universe. His view is that content needs to decide which of two clear categories it falls into – niche or mass-market – and then deliver really, really well. For example: opera or The X Factor, The Economist or Heat, Prada or Primark, caviar or chips. Each is really, really good at doing what it does, even if it’s ‘cheap and cheerful’.
Thinking about this from the consumer’s / audience’s point of view, it’s clear when ‘content’ is working well. Watching The X Factor might be a guilty pleasure but it’s pure, delicious entertainment. If you’re an opera fan (which I’m not), it’s food for the soul. Both Prada and Primark can make you look like the coolest person in town. Though one will cost you a whole lot more than the other, there’s no shame in choosing chips.
But what about the tons of stuff in the middle ... even though we’re surrounded by ‘nothing special’, compromise and hybrids – and consume them all the time (ham and cheese baguette, anyone?) – how happy do they really make us? When was the last time (was there ever a time) a copy of Metro brightened your day?
It’s when I think about Metro that this issue really comes in to focus for me. Although I’m an avid consumer of Grazia and Heat, Metro makes me feel ever so slightly tainted. Bad news, badly ‘written’, in a tatty format. Yes it’s successful but it doesn’t make me happy. It’s a clever idea – I read it because it’s there and it’s free, not because I want to – but it’s not good.
So I’ve decided. No more middle ground. We can have Primark and Prada, we don’t need to choose between them, but compromising – settling for Benetton, reading Metro – just isn’t necessary.
19 November 2009
Prada, Primark or non-specific?
I had a conversation with a clever person recently who had a view on how content differentiates itself in a massively multichannel universe. His view is that content needs to decide which of two clear categories it falls into – niche or mass-market – and then deliver really, really well. For example: opera or The X Factor, The Economist or Heat, Prada or Primark, caviar or chips. Each is really, really good at doing what it does, even if it’s ‘cheap and cheerful’.
Thinking about this from the consumer’s / audience’s point of view, it’s clear when ‘content’ is working well. Watching The X Factor might be a guilty pleasure but it’s pure, delicious entertainment. If you’re an opera fan (which I’m not), it’s food for the soul. Both Prada and Primark can make you look like the coolest person in town. Though one will cost you a whole lot more than the other, there’s no shame in choosing chips.
But what about the tons of stuff in the middle ... even though we’re surrounded by ‘nothing special’, compromise and hybrids – and consume them all the time (ham and cheese baguette, anyone?) – how happy do they really make us? When was the last time (was there ever a time) a copy of Metro brightened your day?
It’s when I think about Metro that this issue really comes in to focus for me. Although I’m an avid consumer of Grazia and Heat, Metro makes me feel ever so slightly tainted. Bad news, badly ‘written’, in a tatty format. Yes it’s successful but it doesn’t make me happy. It’s a clever idea – I read it because it’s there and it’s free, not because I want to – but it’s not good.
So I’ve decided. No more middle ground. We can have Primark and Prada, we don’t need to choose between them, but compromising – settling for Benetton, reading Metro – just isn’t necessary.
Tagged under: