Media Mumbo Jumbo... Paid? Owned? Earned?

There's something about the new media landscape that reminds me of a word jumble - can you find the Paid, Owned, and Earned media within this massive mess of media?  

Or, maybe, I am really thinking about the Magic 8 Ball, and wondering if Paid, Owned, and Earned could be made answers so that media planners would have a source to look to for guidance.  

At the very least, my students in Principles of Marketing and I could use the Magic 8 Ball.  We’ve been doing Social Media audits in class this week, and the distinction between Paid, Owned, and Earned media has been pretty tricky. 

I’ll start with my take on the three “types” of media and then present some visuals from other sources that might clear up the distinction (or at least give us something to think about).

Paid

Paid media is the clearest and easiest of the three, I think, because it refers to traditional forms of advertising media.  Back in the day before the internet and specific social media existed, brands could only use paid media.  They would produce an ad and then buy time or space in a media through which to deliver it to audiences. 

Owned

With the onset of the interent age, the potential for brands to own their own media platforms emerged.  Brands could create websites as part of their marketing communications efforts.  The website became a vehicle through which to reach audiences – and it was 100% controlled by the brand.  This is the key benefit of owned media.

Earned

The key to distinguishing earned media from the above is to consider who is able to produce the messages through the medium.  That is, on TV (a PAID medium), only the networks get to produce messages.  In terms of advertising, Networks agree to air the ad on behalf of brands (for a very lucrative fee of course!!).  Similarly, on the brand's website (an OWNED medium), only the brand gets to produce content.  In earned media people – like you and me – get to produce content and, in essence, say anything we want through the medium.  So, while a brand may “own” its Facebook page because it sets it up and maintains it, it cannot own what we say.  What we say on Facebook is earned, and thus, Facebook and other social media platforms are EARNED media.

Seeing is Believing…

Geoff Livingston provides two great visuals that illustrate the differences between (visual 1) and the convergences among (visual 2) the three forms of media.

Visual 1

Visual 2

This second visual is most awesome because it includes the concept of convergence.  All three forms of media are starting to blend together in ways unimaginable just a few years ago.  Marketers – specifically those charged with communication duties – need to not only be in the moment in terms of media trends, but actually one step ahead of the trends so that they can engage consumers in the places and in the ways they feel most comfortable with.

Lauren Drell illustrates the “new next” of paid, owned and earned media in her post for Social Media Today.  Notice how it is not as clear cut as I implied in my initial definitions of each form.  For instance, I wouldn’t put social media in the owned category at all. 

So, Who’s Right?

It’s not really a question of “right,” but rather one of perspective.  It seems as if Ms. Drell is using “control” as an important definitional factor for the media.  Paid and Owned provide the most control of message for the marketer.  Owned and Earned provide far less control, with earned perhaps allowing for no control at all. 

The key point is that Owned becomes a sort of middle ground which exhibits characteristics of both paid (controlled) and earned (uncontrolled) media. Different “forms” of media deliver on different objectives.  

• Paid media will operate traditionally – primarily working towards brand awareness and brand preference.  
• Owned media provides information and may stimulate preference and purchase, along with providing after sale servicing.
• Earned media is about relationship building and hardcore branding.  

The key takeaway is that brands must use each media form to be successful.  With social media specifically though,  the brands with the best strategy will be those who let the paid and owned media “sell” their products, and leave the social space for relationships, which naturally feed the customer back into the purchase cycle again, and again, and again...

America the Beautiful...

Despite the rancor and ugliness of primary season, there are many things of Beauty here in the good ol' USA.  Whether it be spacious skies, amber waves of grain, or purple mountains majesty - we got it.

No other industry has as much influence on our collective definition of beauty than the advertising industry.  While ads are designed to sell us stuff - cars, smartphones, breakfast cereal, etc... - they also sell us an idealized, normalized, aspirationalized picture of the world, and our place in it.

While Covergirl (illustrated above) does a fairly good job of projecting a racially, ethnically, and even body-type diverse image of "beauty," advertisers more generally create a monolithic image - white, thin/muscular, and affluent.

(MIS)REPRESENTATION
Even though great strides have been made in the overall frequency of racial & ethnic minorities in mainstream media advertising - especially in terms of the inclusion of Blacks - white, heterosexual frames still dominate, and important differences between how whites and blacks are represented can be noted.

Hollerbach (2009), for instance, studied the advertising on television shows that were most highly viewed by Black, and general audiences.  The study found that 43% of ads on both shows - those highly popular with Black audiences, and those highly popular with general audiences - contained "African American depiction" (ie: inclusion of black models & "characters).  This inclusion rate is substantially higher than those found in the past - 10% in 1969; 13% in 1974; 26% in 1989; 35% in 1993; and 33% in 2000.

THE SILENT TREATMENT
Despite inclusion, Blacks still tended to play a subservient role in the they appeared in, remaining silent in most cases, while their white counterparts ran dialogue.  In ads designed to reach black audiences (ie: aired on shows highly popular among blacks), whites spoke 2.5 times longer than blacks; in ads designed to reach general audiences, the silence grew deafening, with white speaking time ballooning to 5 times the length of black speaking time.

While things may seem bad for Blacks in mainstream advertising, they are much worse for other "minority" groups like Asians, Hispanics, or LGBT folk.  Included, but silent, would be considered a victory for many of these groups, as they are far more likely than blacks to be left out of ads completely.

Informal research on the inclusion of LGBT depictions in advertising aired on ABC's "Modern Family" (a show popular with LGBT audiences for its' inclusion of a "same-sex" family as one focal point of the story-line) yielded few, if any, images that would be considered LGBT centric to LGBT or general audiences.  In many cases, it is even hard to find LGBT imagery in ads on LOGO - the cable network specifically designed to deliver "gay" content to "gay" audiences.

SOMETIMES, SILENCE IS GOLDEN
The inspiration for this post did not come from an interest in the representation of Blacks in mainstream advertising, or the representation of LGBT folk - a line of research the BrandDR is currently working on - but rather from a segment on The Today Show, on January 10, 2012.

Today's "Professionals" - including Advertising Guru, Donny Deutsch - discussed Target's inclusion of a boy with Down's Syndrome in a recent ad.

Target Ad

To be fair, the same model also played a role in a Nordstrom's campaign.

The segment, and the ads, got me thinking about how many "minority" groups are left out of mainstream advertising, and how this exclusion maintains gaps in power, social status, and recognition in our society.  Lack of representation leads to lack of familiarity, which leads to that feeling of awkward surprise when we do see these images in the media, or even these people in real life.  Matt Lauer begins a strong social critique when he commented 

"the fact that it is even a subject is a bit of a sad commentary... in 2012 it should be the accepted norm."

Both retailers chose to include the model, without fanfare, or self congratulations.  They placed the individual in a context familiar to kids - hanging out and having fun with other kids.  They drew no contrast between the Down Syndrome child and the other children.  While children with Down Syndrome have different needs, or distinct challenges, they are still kids and share a whole lot more in common with non-DS kids than they do differences.  

These ads say little, but in their silence still manage to say a whole lot.

Donny Deutsch heard the discourse of inclusion in the silence, proclaiming:  "all you're saying is 'we're inclusive of everyone.'"

Rick Smith, who writes the blog "noah's Dad" in honor of his son with Down Syndrome, outlined "5 Things Target Said By Not Saying Anything."

What these retailers are doing is showing us a real, and diverse America.  The America in which we live, and the America which, if portrayed more accurately and fairly by advertisers and the media, is indeed America, the Beautiful.  As Target and Nordstrom's receive positive feedback from their approaches, we can only hope that other brands will begin to value inclusion of all America's beauty and include more diverse imagery in their ads.