Topps, the storied baseball card company, has recently released the web comedy series called "Back on Topps" starring twin comedians Randy and Jason Sklar (recently featured in the LATimes).
Since Topps was bought out by Michael Eisner's Tornante Co. in 2007, change is afoot. Eisner is poised to turn the very traditional Topps into a media machine. Co-promoted by Fox Sports and sponsored by Skype, the short videos integrate the Topps fabric into the entire story line, in which two brothers (the Topps' brothers as performed by the twin actors) lose the company and try to get control back in some fashion throughout the series.
The strategy, although far from unique, is a huge step for the Topps brand, which has usually fallen behind competitors such as Upper Deck in the innovation category. (In addition to the comedy series, Topps has also launched ToppsTown, which is a virtual world for card collecting fanatics.)
The LATimes article states that "the branding of this series is part of [Eisner's] strategy to turn the card company into a media company." My question here is, what company isn't trying to turn their brands into media properties, whether it's the blog from Whole Foods or the Blendtec's Will it Blend?
I guess it depends on your definition of media.
To me, most people view a media company as an entity that distributes content, via multiple channels, for the express purpose of generating revenue and profit in some fashion, like the NYTimes or NBC. But even from that definition, brands now must be included in the conversation.
Why? The answer is simple. Brands create and distribute content for the purpose of ultimately generating some type of sale, although often times indirectly. The web series created by Topps should have an ultimate purpose to generate more interest and sales in Topps products, correct? The fact that the series is being defrayed or supported by Skype is secondary to the ultimate goal of selling more Topps' cards and ancillary products.
Why does Whole Foods consistently participate in their blog? Somewhere in there should be an objective to grow the business. Same for Blendtec.
So now there is this massive gray area for what a media company is or does. That's good news for brands, who can compete with media in their own industries to position themselves as trusted content providers. Traditional media companies won't go away, but they are struggling to find their own place in this new world of communication and conversation. They will find their place, but so will corporate brands.
Look, I like what Topps is doing. But it is in line with what John Deere did in the late 1800's by creating their own customer newsletter (called The Furrow). Brands becoming media companies is nothing new. Actually, to survive in tomorrow's environment, it's mandatory.
Relevant Articles
I think the difference with Eisner's web show, is that it is a technology boost to a traditional, if not archaic media brand. Trading cards may have hit their boom in modern times, but their origins are pre-television, even pre-cinema. Their existence was supported by the value of perpetually strong independent entities of pop culture and professional sports. This symbiotic relationship between the Topps brand, and established strong if not bulletproof markets can quite easily and logically be extended beyond ink and cardboard, just as "Time" once only brought to mind clocks and a weekly magazine. Considering his track record, I think Eisner is thinking way beyond how to sell more baseball cards.
The difference with the case of Whole Foods, is that they, are less invested in truly creating a media brand, rather, are attempting to extend their brand as a measure of lifestyle.
Posted by: dictionary | October 13, 2008 at 03:17 PM