Check out this short video featuring colorblind individuals who are able to see colors for the first time. It’s a feel-good piece, but more than that, it’s a great example of effective content marketing by Valspar paints.

Content marketing has become a buzzword that brands have latched onto as the age of Google and social media have flipped the traditional advertising model. Where brand communication was once a one-way megaphone through which they could reach customers, they must now also position themselves to be found by them.

The two-pronged strategic response to this change is:

1) Strengthen your SEO (search engine optimization)practices that help consumers literally find you

2) Create content that will be be liked and shared by your target audience.

Some brands have checked their content marketing box by hosting a blog and keeping their Facebook and Twitter feeds active. But the days of easy gains from social media are over. If you want to stand out from the cacophony of brands vying for attention, you have to raise the bar on creativity and quality. Brands have to think about what really makes people care.

Valspar nailed it with this project. Instead of telling you all about their paint products, they’ve partnered with EnChroma, a company that creates lenses to correct colorblindness. They’ve told a story about people who have been given a new way to see the world because of color. This demonstrates a company that understands its brand and its relevance in the lives of people.

The video is extremely sharable, regardless of whether I have any vested interest in paint. They’ve created what feels like a non-profit advocacy campaign within a for-profit business. It even has its own website.

The goal here isn’t necessarily to drive visitors to the Valspar site—though it surely will. The real goal is to increase the brand’s name awareness and engage audiences in a story brought to you by Valspar. Next time you are preparing to lay a new coat on your bedroom wall, you’ll already have a distant emotional connection with the brand.

This project took time. They had a strategy, planned it out, and executed excellently. It’s impact will be worth a thousand blog posts. Bravo, Valspar!

If you own a company, there is a temptation to treat marketing the same way you buy office supplies. You find someone who has design software or you buy one yourself, and dial up a quick advertisement to tell people all about your products and services. Done. Box checked.

Not so fast. If you’re that focused on efficiency, you could have wasted money much easier by lighting it on fire. It’d be more entertaining anyway.

In fact, when it comes to marketing, there really must be a balance between “get it done” efficiency and “do it right” effectiveness. Most of the hard work happens before a designer ever touches a sketchbook or a mouse. Effectiveness thinking (versus efficiency thinking) requires a whole different set of questions:

– What defines us, and what are we trying to accomplish?
– What is our audience looking for?
– How many possible routes could we take to connect the dots?
– What unseen problems should we anticipate?
– Will our strategy still make sense a year or two down the road?

These questions and plenty more like them are the stuff of good business, which happens to be much of the same stuff that makes good marketing. They help you see your target, so when you’re ready to fire, you’re more likely to hit it.

The first step in a marketing strategy isn’t what your logo should look like, or how to start up a Facebook page. Set your social media strategy aside for the moment and focus on the message you need to convey, and why customers should care about you enough to stop what they are doing and give you their time, attention, and possibly their money.

Back in my art classes in high school, my sculpture teacher would always say “measure twice, cut once.” It’s a common saying, of course, but so easy to forget. If you take good measure of exactly what you are trying to accomplish, and what your real challenges are, you are much better positioned to get the results you are looking for. Maximum impact with minimal efforts. That, after all, is what being truly efficient is all about.

The digital age has caused a lot of upset in the music business.

In 2001, major record labels won a lawsuit agains Napster, arguing rightly that the music file-sharing service had infringed on the rights of artists by allowing fans to download music for free without license. It was an awkward moment, as all sorts of tactics were experimented with to stop fans from copying music. Enter: Apple’s iTunes store and iPod. The Apple solution provided a system that could adapt to new consumer demands and still reward artists and labels. Though the industry resisted initially, it became the new business model within a few years.

Today, the emergence of streaming services is once again challenging the existing model, making music even more accessible, and paying artists less. Again, consumers love it, but major players in the industry are dubious. In the case of artists like Taylor Swift, they are flat out resisting.

Back in July, Swift lamented that artists are not given their due worth under this model, asking with trepidation, “Where will the music industry be in 20 years, 30 years, 50 years?” On the recent release of her new album 1989, she put words into action and pulled the album from all streaming services, including streaming giant Spotify.

There are those who join Swift in making the case that buying full albums provides both a better experience and a more fair valuation on an artist’s work. Mark Hemingway at Acculturated argues that “if you care about music, ultimately you have to care about musicians, and musicians have value.” 

But what exactly determines the value of music?

Are we talking about some vague notion of collective value to humanity? That would be hard to pin down. As I interpret Hemingway, he is referring to the value added to a person’s life. But if you could quantify the value one person gets from a Taylor Swift album compared to what any other random person gets, you’d find very different numbers. And it would vary for different artists, of course.

Actually, we do have a quantifiable measure that, while imperfect, estimates this pretty well—that rather simple instrument we call price.

Prices are the result of balancing costs and benefits. A brief dive into economic theory here. The more something benefits someone, the more they are willing to pay for it. Since civilization moved beyond the barter system long ago, a typical exchange involves one person trading money for something they want more (a product/service) and the other person trading their product/service for something they want more (money). Both have something to gain and lose in the deal, so the price ends up reflecting the specific point at which they both win.

Of course, companies like Spotify aren’t going to let every user or artist determine their price, so they do their own calculations to estimate what something is worth for the average target customer, and those who agree can opt-in, while others can continue using another service. Getting this number right is critical to the success of the company.

Now, it might be true that Spotify underpays its catalogue of artists and labels, and we will see how that pans out in time. But a couple of things need to be taken into consideration.

1. When you buy a song, you’re paying a premium for unlimited ownership rights, versus essentially leasing the music for a few minutes at a time. Given the benefits, or lack thereof, the costs should be very different.

2. Because fans can explore new music at no additional cost, Spotify gives both fans and upcoming artists unprecedented access to one another. In other words, the barriers have never been lower, and that’s awesome. From the artists’ perspective, this access comes at a cost…. but most would say it’s worth it.

If access to millions of listeners is worth it, why are artists like Taylor Swift and Radiohead’s Thom York speaking out against Spotify? Let me put the question another way: if you already had millions of loyal fans who are prepared to buy whatever you release, would you rather they purchase your album at full-price or stream it for pennies?

I have to agree with Tom Barnes at Mic.com:

“Swift’s 1989 — with all the records it’s set to break — is going to look like a victory for the industry’s old model. But it’s really not. It’s only proof that the old model is unfeasible for anyone but music’s 1%.”

Spotify isn’t for the well-established artists; it’s for up-and-coming talent that is begging for exposure, hoping that if just a small piece of the massive Spotify audience catches onto their music they can fill larger venues, sell more merchandise, and build a large enough following to land bigger deals.

I would not be surprised if Spotify alters their business model in the near future to increase payouts to popular artists. If they lose brand name stars, they lose their audiences. But I also won’t be surprised to hear a whole new chorus of complaints emerge about the unjust practice of paying struggling artists less than those who are already making millions. At the end of the day, it’s all about how people leverage what they need versus what they can provide, and it really is a win-win.

Streaming, or subscription-based content, is quickly becoming the norm, even with things like cars and bicycles. People are realizing that you don’t have to own everything. Sometimes it just makes more sense to enjoy something as you need it, then move on. That’s how you maximize value.

Perhaps we haven’t nailed down exactly how to make this model work best, but that’s no reason to throw it out. Instead, we should embrace it, and see where it leads, because it will likely bring new innovation that no one can even imagine right now. Those who fought against the digital age in 2001 could not see what has been made possible in the 14 years since—iPods, cheap music, and a total independence from Radio. And indeed, the “big four” record labels no longer enjoy their dominant status as gatekeepers in the industry as they did when I started making music. Thankfully, it is a far more democratic industry now.

So yes, Taylor, the music industry will be alive and well in 50 years—it just may not look exactly like it does today, and that’s exciting.