Reading the marketing magazine supplement on Customer Publishing and I'm struck by the longevity of a 'new' marketing discipline that hit the scene a mere 15 years ago.  One of my former colleagues made a fortune in an early customer publishing agency and failed to capitalise with subsequent genius… but I digress.

I receive a couple of magazines produced by brands and organisations as a means of driving loyatly and brand engagement.  Reading them, as a marketer, I am usually struck by how little of hte content I really engage with.  But it seems I am a-typical.

The supplement format is standard.  A lead article by a journalist, a reportage of a round-table lunch with the participating (read paying) agencies and then a DPS for each agency to sing their own song.

It must be worth doing, or else agencies wouldn't continue to shell out for such features and I can think of some clear times when it'd be great to be paying for such a feature.  

Reading it this time, I was struck by the quality of articles.  If you consider that these are industry professionals who specialise in writing engaging content, what they write about themselves must contain a clear message.

What they wrote

Here are the sub-titles of each article.   Which grabs you?

• Customer publishing is unique in its ability to create relationships – not just improving retention, but also boosting acquisition
• Companies are mistaken if they think they can produce engaging content without recourse to a specialist publishing agency
• People love magazines, so brands would be foolish to migrate too much customer publishing content online, too quickly.
• Creativity in customer magazines yields results, so why do marketers fail to use this strength outside the traditional format?
• Why read about customer magazines when you can read the magazines themselves?
• I learned a valuable lesson at a disco way back in 1982 – that relationships depend on mutual trust, rapport and sustaining interest.
• To build a meaningful online relationship with customers, brands must turn complex information into a compelling narrative.

All a bit dull.  I think that Marketing magazine may have copy edited these parts… they have a ring of boredom about them.

The Articles

Leading off is an article with some great statistics smattered through the text… people spend 25 minutes reading a magazine, a lenght of engagemetn that has only increased since the growth of digital content.  Grabbed me as I know readers of this blog generally spend an average of 2.6 minutes on reading it (thanks!).  

Less-punchy was the disco attendee who had a nice introductory anecdote about Melissa and the disco and ended with seven principles that a reader could take away and use for their own brand.  Nice.  Free information.

So which ones actually engaged my interest? 

Leading the pack was the article opening with "I will have a bet with you.  Every other essay from a customer publisher contained in this supplement is about the same thing, isn't it?  How all customer publishers are, in fact, content producers now and damn good ones."  She ends by promising that by reading (online) her company's offering this will be "your best editorial experience" in the supplement.  Punchy and challenging. 

And the best biz dev pitch of the lot. 

The offer could have been more explicit than just the 'best' experience.  But overall.  This lady wins my vote.

Plain dull was the one magazine publisher MD who I actually know…. reckon it's time I gave him a call and spiced up their biz dev.  Time to hit the phone.

Bookmark It