- Earned media is presented as inherently better than the paid-for kind at a moral level (as opposed to just a financial one) in much the same way that "earned" sex is inherently better than the paid-for kind*.
- Men who pay for sex do not necessarily do so out of desperation. They may want sex but not a relationship. Is deceiving someone that you want a relationship with them when really all you are after is the sex more moral than paying some for it? Isn't a honest transaction better than a fraudulent relationship?
- A lot of earned media seems to consist of stressed journos recycling press releases - like a relationship where one partner trades security for sexually satisfying the other?
- As the cliche goes "You always pay for sex". What are your actual costs with with not seeking paid-for advertising?
Monday, August 31, 2009
pay for play
Some of these discussions around "earned media" vs "paid-for media" remind me of sex (I'm a man, everything reminds me of sex).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
There are a lot of ways to pay and lots of ways to play. You may as well ask how/why we choose our employers or our careers. There is a transaction taking place somewhere.
Think about how many jobs you have and how many of those colleagues that you actually keep in contact with years down the track. This doesn't mean that your relationships weren't real at the time. They were only sustainable within a certain context.
Hi Gav - You're dead right, relationships are all about context. Not that there's anything wrong with that...
Hi Matt, Interesting Post. Pretty much covers most of the Customer/Product Relationship, doesn't it? AS organisations, we have products which we need to sell to make ourselves relevant. In order to ensure we get (AND KEEP!) customers we sometimes have to overemphasise parts of the service. As with most things, the challenge is to find the balance between creating Need and filling a need which exists.
Post a Comment