Talk:Branded content/Archives/2013

Feedback

Hey, after reading your article I think you have a lot of good stuff in there. I think that possibly you could expand on what exactly happens at the One Show Entertainment because you only had that thrown in there as like an afterthought/one sentence, so maybe explain what you mean by it gets awarded? What does that mean for that film? Also, in your "risks" section, maybe bring up examples as to how much money a company could lose if they do it wrong or how it may affect the product if the film is receive badly? (Scriptgeek (talk) 18:58, 27 October 2011 (UTC))

Merge

I disagree with the notion that branded content should be merged with branded entertainment. (me 2, it's different)

While branding might further a product's entertainment value, branding in and of itself is not entertainment. ---

There is some brand-sponsored content which is not entertainment based. It may be entertaining, but it is not entertainment. Think news and documentaries which are funded by companies to engage audiences, spark discussions and position the sponsor as a thought-leader in the particular area of interest.

CNBC's Questions for the future project is a case in point: http://www.questionsforthefuture.tv/

220.255.7.149 (talk) 14:57, 26 December 2008 (UTC)Mark Laudi, CEO, HongBaoMedia.com

The articles are short and largely redundant; I don't see why "branded entertainment" can't be a subsection of "branded content."— TAnthony^Talk 15:29, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

As it stands now, the Branded content article is written in a way that only really talks about entertainment; would you be interested in attempting a rewrite to address the other aspects of the concept? Then it may be more clear if Branded entertainment should stay on its own or become a subsection.— TAnthony^Talk 15:51, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

---

I see both branded entertainment and brand utility as being 'types' of branded content. Steve Sponder Media:http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3301/3512424299_f45b9455dc_o.png —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevesponder (talk • contribs) 15:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, this is a potentially helpful link; do you know its source by chance? — TAnthony^Talk 17:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I created this. Steve Sponder —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.203.24.231 (talk) 19:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

---

Branded Entertainment suggests something entirely different to branded content. Branded entertainment could mean merely cuepoints and logos over ANY content, whereas branded content can mean content that is by a brand rather than merely branded via logo or cuepoint.

I am Matt, I work for Adjust your set in the UK. We create Branded content, it is not necessarily branded entertainment that we create because it could be edutainment, infotainment and most importantly content with a product marketing theme, hence the disagreement as content that might always resemble entertainment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.148.44.214 (talk) 16:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I think in order to eliminate this confusion you could better define branded content in your intro and back it up with a source so these confusions won't arise in the future. However, I do think you do a good job of explaining it later within the article. Maybe bring that up and focus on the effects (positive or negative) and specific examples in the body of your article. I think this article has the base of what it needs just a little more clarification and it'll turn out great! Laural17 (talk) 15:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)