In the past, quality content -- entertainment that brands paid to be associated with -- was easily identified: primetime TV, magazines, and top-shelf newspaper reporting. But the internet has completely changed what fits the bill as "quality content," and brands and publishers are changing their game plans as a result, according to Ad Age.
At the root of the quality content debate is the issue of popularity. In a world where constant social media sharing is now the norm, and Twitter updates can beat respected news outlets to a story, popularity is starting to equal profitability.
Newspapers are probably the best example of a failure in the quality debate. The New York Times long hedged its bet that audiences would seek its high-caliber reporting, and that in turn would have advertisers lining up. But now even the venerable Times has plans for a subscription model.
AOL, meanwhile, is taking two different approaches. The company already has a stable of name-brand blogs including Engadget and Moviefone, publications with niche audiences and clear quality standards. But AOL is also investing heavily in its SEED platform, which mines data to decide what content will be popular and then uses a small army of low-paid freelancers to turn that content out.
The solution in the quality argument may just require a change of focus. Bant Breen, president of digital for Initiative Worldwide, points out that today, brands should be more concerned with buying quality audiences, as opposed to the quality of the content their ads are associated with.
