One of the highlights of SXSW for me was getting to catch up with my friend Tom Martin. Tom was also kind enough to interview me for his Talking With Tom series. If you haven’t heard about this, Tom started going around the country interviewing marketers. thought leaders and influencers in the social media space with just his iPhone, and he posts the interviews on his Talking With Tom site. A new interview each week.
A few weeks ago Tom was at an event recording interviews, when he talked to Emma and they decided to start sponsoring the site. For Emma, it’s a great move, as they get to have their name associated with some of the biggest names in social media, for the entire year. And for Tom it works as well, as Emma’s sponsorship money not only covers his travel to collect the remainder of the interviews, but he also gets compensated for his time as well. A true win-win for the content creator, and the sponsor.
But here’s what really got my attention: Tom got sponsorship dollars for something that he was going to do anyway. And instead of being obtrusive, the sponsorship from Emma helps facilitate the content creation. This is very similar to one of the main reasons why I was in SXSW to begin with, because of the 1st ever Live #Blogchat. 1680PR and Dell stepped up to sponsor the event, but the event was something that SXSW attendees have been wanting to see. Every time I have attended SXSW, one of the biggest complaints from attendees has been a lack of venues/events where we could all gather and have an actual conversation. It’s ironic that SXSW brings together so many brilliant people each March, but there are so few events created for the express purpose of letting these smart people connect with each other and have wonderful conversations. That’s exactly why I wanted to bring a Live #Blogchat to SXSW. As with Emma’s sponsorship of Talking With Tom, 1680PR and Dell sponsored an event that was going to happen anyway, and facilitated the event, and made it better (In fact if you are considering sponsorship of your event or content creation efforts, absolutely contact 1680PR and Dell to see if there’s a match. Both were fabulous to work with).
I think this also is a new and interesting spin on the idea of targeting influencers. Many companies are using services such as Klout to identify influencers and offer them products and services in the hope that these influencers will then promote the brand to the people that they have influence over. At best, this isn’t the most effective model.
But what if the influencer is also a content creator? Then one way that influencer could monetize the content they create is by accepting sponsorship dollars. The important distinction here is that the influencer becomes the gatekeeper and dictates which sponsors have access to his/her network, and on what terms. I talked about this a bit in the interview Tom had with me, but in this model, the influencer can be selective in which companies they accept as sponsors and make sure that the sponsorship creates value for the network. For example by accepting the Emma sponsorship, Tom now has the funds to attend more and better events, which means he can create better content for his network, and more of it.
In the end, the content creator, the sponsor, and Tom’s network that accesses the content all benefit. I think this is a far better model than giving away toys to influencers in the hopes that they will pimp the toys to the network that they supposedly have influence over. What do you think? Is this sponsorship model something that you as a content creator could benefit from? I think the key lies in making sure that the people you are creating the content for, benefit. Normally there’s a clear benefit to the content creator, then the sponsor, but the ‘audience’ often gets the short end of the stick. I applaud Tom for finding a win-win-win, and I would like to think that the Live #Blogchats work for everyone as well.
What do you think, would you rather companies target influencers directly, or have the influencers work with companies to the benefit of the people they have influence over?
The model you mention seems extremely positive to me, Mack.
There’s no “shady” outcome like promoting a product you receive for a purpose from the sponsor, it’s just honest communication and participation, and everyone get something out of it.
Perhaps it’s not always an easy outcome, but if one has the chance, I’d say definitely go for it.
Thanks Garbriele! I think two things are important to consider for this model to work:
1 – The sponsor’s involvement needs to help facilitate content creation, not hamper it.
2 – The sponsor’s involvement (either directly or via funding to the content creator) has to benefit the audience.
I think both of these are met in the above example of Emma sponsoring Talking With Tom.
First point is essential indeed, too many times I’ve seen “sponsors” effectively blocking any creative spin, kinda sad.
I think it’s great for Tom. Whether it’s great for his audience is still to be determined.
You didn’t say exactly what Emma is getting. Her logo on his site?
The problem here is the same one we’ve seen in journalism and that we see in politics. Although the influence may not be overt, when you know someone is paying part of your bills (or for your campaign) you are probably going to be kinder and gentler to them, and may be influenced to write differently based on the conversations you have with them.
Ideally, I think there would be a wall between content creators and companies, such that the creator can benefit from the publicity that they provide to companies through their content, without being influenced directly by those companies. Not sure how exactly that would work, though…
Hey Neicole, I’m not sure of the exact details of the Emma sponsorship, but if you check out http://www.talkingwithtom.com you see that Emma has their logo on the site and a section about who they are. All very tastefully done, IMO.
The key benefit for Emma, IMO, is that they get to be associated with 52 weeks of content from key thought leaders and influencers in the social media space. Also, I’ve noticed in the past couple of days that Emma has tweeted to me about my interview with Tom, so they are taking full advantage of the sponsorship.
As for Tom being influenced by the sponsorship to promote Emma, I would say that’s probably true, to a degree. But I would guess that it’s more because he believes in the project and honestly thinks Emma being involved is a smart move. He and I talked about this sponsorship at SXSW, and have since, and his excitement wasn’t so much over this particular sponsorship, but the idea of how sponsorships can benefit content creators, sponsors, and the network and audience that enjoys the content.
For example, let’s say Tom goes this alone, without sponsorship. I don’t know if you are a regular conference attendee, but it’s damn expensive. My trip to SXSW cost me right at $2,500 in all. I could see Tom doing this and after attending a few events and getting as many interviews as he could, realizing that he just can’t afford to help shelling out thousands of dollars in travel. So the project might end after 2-3 months’ worth of interviews. That’s not good for the content creator, or the people that are enjoying that content.
But with Emma’s sponsorship, Tom can finish the project, so the content creator benefits, the sponsor benefits from being associated with the project, and the people enjoying the content Tom is creating, benefit as well.
I think it’s a fabulous idea, and I hope we see more of this in the future. It won’t work perfectly in every situation, but I think it’s worth pursuing.
Sounds like the sponsorship is being done in a taseful and reasonable way. I am not necessarily objecting to this particular sponsorship. i’m just suggesting that there are pitfalls–and that this practice exists in other areas and we have seen the effects.
As someone with a professional writing background, I love the idea of content creators having a way to make a living and/or at least offset their costs. I don’t attend many conferences because they are expensive and the ROI doesn’t make sense for me at this point. I applaud Tom for landing this deal. And it sounds like he has personal integrity, as does Emma, which goes a long way.
You asked, though, what we thought of this idea as a general practice. I think it has risks and I think they are pretty obvious from the history of journalism and politics. Of course, there are some checks built into the system. If Tom’s content becomes subpar because of the sponsorship, his following will drop, as will his value to the sponsor. But sometimes the changes are more subtle and harder for followers to distinguish. Newspapers and news stations provide good examples of the subtleties.
I’m not really sure whether I think it’s a good practice in the end, or not. I think it is a practice that will undoubtedly develop, though. So I guess it’s good that we are discussing it and aware from the beginning of the benefits and the drawbucks. Enjoying the discussion very much!! Thanks!
Neicole I agree, we have to consider how the content creator handles the sponsorship. We are smart, we can tell if the content creator is being sincere in talking about the sponsor, or if they are ‘pushing’ them on us as part of the deal.
And I especially agree with your final point, it’s best to discuss these models now, so we can iron out the kinks and get a model that’s more efficient and valuable for ALL parties.
Mack,
Thanks so much for agreeing to be interviewed and for being kind of enough to talk about the project here on your blog. I’ve been reading over the discussion you and Neicole have been having and thought I’d answer the key question — editorial integrity.
Without going into too much detail on contract specifics, the one thing Emma has no control over is content. I have complete and total editorial control. If they have folks they’d like to see interviewed, they can request those folks be added to the list and I’d do my best to go get those interviews… but then, anyone who is following the project can do the same. If you or anyone else had folks you’d like to see answer the “What’s Next” question, you simply need to drop that in a comment on one of the video posts, and provided the person isn’t a total douchbag, I’ll gladly comply.
Emma was attracted to the idea of cultivating 52 smart folks and asking them the one question — What’s Next? It’s going to create an interesting repository and in the end, I think it will be most interesting to see if any trends develop. In fact, another noted content marketing group is talking about producing a two volume eBook of the entire project — which I think will be really cool.
But what I’m really excited about in this post, and as I told you after your interview, is this whole notion you speak of — where the influencer serves as gatekeeper to his/her flock. And where brands pay for an opportunity to present a message/idea/concept/product, whatever to the influencer’s flock. I have been thinking about this approach for a few years now and it excites me that another person (whom I have so much respect for) is thinking along the same lines.
Given the cost of creating and distributing digital content is fast approaching zero — heck I’m doing my entire project from a $200 iPhone, the opportunity for brands to create microcontent communities or influencers to create these communities and invite brands into the conversation is truly mind boggling and I’m guessing represents the future of marketing.
I hope we get to keep that convo going… love where you’re taking it and can’t wait to see what v2 of #BlogChat sponsorships will look like.
@TomMartin
Thanks for adding a bit of clarity to this discussion Tom, and thanks again for interviewing me.
I *think* one of Neicole’s main points is (and interject here Neicole if I am wrong) is that what if someone that did NOT have your ethics took the money, and maybe if the sponsor asked them to change the content based on having received the sponsorship. As you said, this was addressed in your situation when Emma signed on, but I could see a case where maybe the sponsorship might be structured differently, and the sponsor might try to pressure the content creator to change the content, or the content creator might be willing to, in order to maybe secure additional sponsorships?
But in the end, I think if the content creator is willing to do this, they will provide less valuable content to their audience, and they will vote by leaving. What do y’all think?
Yes, one of my main points is that some people may be less scrupulous than Tom and willing change their content, though I agree that they will probably pay the price in followers.
The other point is that consciously or unconsciously, when someone is paying our bills, it has some effect. For example, with regard to journalism, my understanding is that it isn’t always a case of the newspaper owners saying, “Don’t write anything bad about this company because they are a major advertiser.” It’s the fact that everyone at the paper knows who the major advertisers are and is influenced by that. Even well-intentioned people may unconsciously adjust their work. That may come out in subtle ways–choosing one word over another. Yet the choice of words can clearly frame an article or issue one way or another.
Really, I find the whole thing kind of fascinating…
Thanks for stopping by Tom. As I said, I am not questioning your or Emma’s integrity. It sounds like you are being very careful and putting control of your content first.
The conversation here is timely as I have a post scheduled to come out on Mark Schaefer’s {grow} blog that will address this issue from a slightly different angle. I’ve been thinking about it for some time, too. As you’ll see in that post, I agree that this is the future of at least content marketing–and there is research and evidence to support that idea.
Monetizing will be a challenge, though. Marketers will have multiple avenues to reach consumers, including multiple influencers. Your flock is also flocking to other places, as well. Some influencers will be more valuable for some marketers than others. Once money gets involved, we’re talking competition. Market factors come into play. Community gatekeepers become competitive as they become valuable, and that everything changes. Not always in good ways. (This is all part of what I talk about in my upcoming post.)
It’s fascinating to me to think about where things will go. I hope we can shape the future market in a positive way.