Content Catchup: The Ultimate ROI Guide, the Bitcoin of Ad Currencies, and More Must-Reads
Here's what you missed while contemplating recreating Weekend at Bernie's...
The Content Strategist
Here's what you missed while contemplating recreating Weekend at Bernie's...
When trying to make sense of the modern media world, an anonymous source led me to a well-known classic film called Miami Vice.
The war over content distribution is heating up, and venture capitalists are rushing to provide ammo.
Despite native advertising's impressive rise, universal best practices remain elusive.
In the Hyperlocal Content Wars of 2009, two successive rounds were fired in my town of Maplewood, N.J., when Tim Armstrong’s Patch.com and the The New York Times Local both set their sights on our village, seemingly destined to dominate.
It’s only been a few months since AOL sold majority ownership to Hale Global, and the Times reports that Patch has retained 85 percent of its traffic, with 17 million uniques in April, and is on track for $21 million in revenue this year. But those successes come with some serious caveats, and I'm betting against them continuing. Here are five reasons why.
Even though underwritten content contains a bit of branding, the publishers retain their editorial independence. So, how exactly does this arrangement work, and what are brands getting out of it?
A few companies have managed to create chug-worthy beer brand marketing that’ll get you buzzed (or buzzing) without stepping over the line.
For over a century, brands have been crafting their native ad strategy to fit new ways to reach people—from print, to radio, to TV, and beyond.