Does the brand you work for need to be a publisher/TV production house? Does it need to make content?

Does your brand lack engagement? and does engagement mean the brand has to give you entertainment, information, or otherwise publish information and insights for you to consumer (aka CONTENT)?

PR agencies are getting into the media business turning brands not into the underwriters of articles and video but as publishers (Content Marketing Craze with PR agencies). What is old is new again. Sponsoring scripts and building shows to embed ads into is how the whole TV ad business got going.

There was a time in the late 1990's every brand felt it needed it's own free-standing website. There were a lot of people ready to capitalize on this need. I remember well when saying the following back then: "Does this cracker/laundry soap/toothbrush have something to say on this site that will make people come and what will keep them coming back?" -- well this sounded a lot like "not getting it" to the people with a passion for their own brand site.

Context is everything is an adage we should pay a lot of attention to in these "comms planning/channel planning, path-to- purchase, mobile-marketing, GPS timed offer" days.

Can't a brand find a world to be a part of and to underwrite? Does it need to create a world to be in and underwrite? 

Maybe a cracker wants to raise it's importance and engagement. That's understandable. But can't a low interest thing like a cracker brand engage and really shine in the right context? I think so. A cracker or any brand can be engaging if it finds actions to be of use. A cracker is not unimportant, but it may not need to be a publisher -- it can be embedded in a world of parties, food programming through product placement, recipes, and in a context where a cracker can shine an be useful.

Does it need to write and produce this content to have a context? 

Instead of asking this question, what I really want to ask is where is the filter? I need a filter. I'm drowning in content. Aren't you?