For the past two decades, “content marketing” has been hailed as a revolutionary strategy, a discipline unto itself that supposedly reshaped the way brands engage with consumers. Industry reports, agencies, and thought leaders have treated it as a seismic shift—an alternative to traditional marketing, a solution to ad fatigue, and a way to bypass paid media altogether.
But this is a fallacy. Content marketing is not a standalone discipline. It is not new. And it is certainly not a substitute for marketing—it is marketing.
The Illusion of Content Marketing as a Discipline
The notion that marketing “through content” is somehow distinct from traditional marketing is misleading at best and self-serving at worst. The Content Marketing Institute (CMI), which has been one of the most vocal advocates of content marketing, defines it as:
"A strategic marketing approach focused on creating and distributing valuable, relevant, and consistent content to attract and retain a clearly defined audience—and, ultimately, to drive profitable customer action."
This definition describes marketing itself. All effective marketing is built on creating relevant, valuable, and compelling messaging to attract and retain customers. The distinction between “content marketing” and marketing is artificial, designed to sell books, courses, and consulting services under the guise of a new discipline.
Philip Kotler, the father of modern marketing, has long emphasized that marketing is about creating, communicating, delivering, and exchanging offerings that have value. There has never been a time when content wasn’t central to this process. From Procter & Gamble’s early radio soap operas in the 1930s to Michelin’s restaurant guides in 1900, marketing has always leveraged content to build brands, engage audiences, and drive commerce.
Content Is Essential—But Content Marketing Is a Myth
What’s truly revolutionary today is not the idea of content as a marketing tool but the digital acceleration of content production and distribution. The explosion of social media, search engines, and on-demand media has made content more accessible, measurable, and scalable. But none of this makes content a separate discipline—it simply changes the way marketing is executed.
Even in the modern era, the brands that win do not succeed because they are “doing content marketing.” They succeed because they create great marketing with great content. Nike doesn’t rely on a blog to build brand affinity—it crafts emotionally charged, purpose-driven storytelling that spans video, social, and experiential formats. Apple doesn’t need a “content marketing strategy” to sell products—it uses a carefully controlled ecosystem of visual identity, product storytelling, and brand messaging to shape consumer desire.
Great brands don’t create content for content’s sake. They create marketing that earns attention, drives engagement, and ultimately converts.
The Fallacy of “Brands as Publishers”
One of the biggest content marketing fallacies is the belief that brands should behave like media companies. The idea that every brand should build its own content empire, develop an owned media audience, and bypass traditional advertising is a flawed premise that rarely delivers results.
Research from the Ehrenberg-Bass Institute has shown that brand growth is primarily driven by reach, mental availability, and distinctiveness—not by fostering niche audiences who engage with brand-owned content. Most brands simply do not have the cultural weight, editorial credibility, or audience demand to compete with traditional media companies.
Red Bull is often cited as the poster child for content marketing success, but Red Bull’s media empire exists to reinforce an already powerful brand with deep cultural roots. The vast majority of brands do not have the resources or brand elasticity to create their own media channels at scale.
The Creative Advantage Is Real—But Content for Content’s Sake Is Not
What separates the world’s most successful brands from the noise of “content marketing” is creative advantage. The best marketers understand that content is a means to an end, not the end itself. Creativity, storytelling, and strategic brand positioning are what make content effective—not the mere act of publishing blog posts, videos, or whitepapers.
Mark Ritson, a vocal critic of content marketing hype, argues that much of what is labeled as “content marketing” is simply bad marketing—producing endless streams of low-quality, low-impact content under the illusion of engagement. This obsession with volume over impact has led to what he calls “content pollution,” where brands flood digital channels with forgettable, mediocre content that fails to drive business outcomes.
Marketing Needs Content, But “Content Marketing” Needs to Die
None of this is to say that content isn’t critical to modern marketing. It is. But calling it “content marketing” misrepresents what marketing has always been. The success of any marketing effort—whether digital, social, experiential, or traditional—hinges on the strength of its message, strategy, and execution.
It’s time to retire the myth of content marketing as a standalone discipline. Instead, we should refocus on what has always mattered: great marketing, driven by great content, with real creative and commercial impact.
Comments