Ojude Oba: A Cultural Stage or a Branding Battlefield?
<p><br/></p><p>There I stood, tucked quietly in the pavilion, watching what seemed less like a celebration of heritage and more like a battleground of brands.
</p><p>Ojude Oba, once a regal tribute to royalty and ancestry, now danced dangerously close to becoming a runway for logos and loud branding.
</p><p>From where I stood, helpless on the agency side, all I could do was observe and advise.
</p><p>Brand assets towered around me, waving like flags of conquest.
</p><p>This wasn’t just presence, it was cohesion. A race not just to be seen, but to own the moment (dominate).
</p><p>And then the questions came:
</p><p>What place does a brand with no cultural connection have in this sacred space?
</p><p>Why are we letting everyone gamble with something this sacred?
</p><p>Some had no business being there, yet they came, not to align, but to hijack.
</p><p>Even the media, both traditional and digital, read through the schemes and repositioned themselves.
</p><p>Coverage became curated. Access, intentional. A quiet rebellion in its way.
</p><p>But the damage had already peeked through.
</p><p>Culture began to wear corporate perfume.
</p><p>And slowly, the line between celebration and campaign blurred.
</p><p>I imagined what could be done.
</p><p>Perhaps a framework that filters sponsors not just by spend, but by story and the brand affinity to culture.
</p><p>Privileges tied not only to money, but to meaning.
</p><p>Only brands with cultural relevance should stand center stage, not just because they can, but because they belong.
</p><p>There have been improvements, yes. But we must be honest, this beautiful festival needs protection.
</p><p>From erosion. From excess.
</p><p>From the slow drift from meaning to marketing.
</p><p>Because if we’re not careful, the drums of Ojude Oba may soon beat, not for tradition, but for the highest bidder.
</p><p>And that would be the biggest loss of all.</p><p>
</p><p>
</p><p>
</p><p>
</p><p>
</p><p>
</p><p>
</p><p>
</p><p>
</p><p>
</p><p>
</p><p>
</p><p>
</p>
Ojude Oba: A Cultural Stage or a Branding Battl...
At the end of each month, we give out cash prizes to 5 people with the best insights in the past month
as well as coupon points to 15 people who didn't make the top 5, but shared high-quality content.
The winners are NOT picked from the leaderboards/rankings, we choose winners based on the quality, originality
and insightfulness of their content.
Here are a few other things to know
1
Quality over Quantity — You stand a higher chance of winning by publishing a few really good insights across the entire month,
rather than a lot of low-quality, spammy posts.
2
Share original, authentic, and engaging content that clearly reflects your voice, thoughts, and opinions.
3
Avoid using AI to generate content—use it instead to correct grammar, improve flow, enhance structure, and boost clarity.
4
Explore audio content—high-quality audio insights can significantly boost your chances of standing out.
5
Use eye-catching cover images—if your content doesn't attract attention, it's less likely to be read or engaged with.
6
Share your content in your social circles to build engagement around it.
Contributor Rankings
The Contributor Rankings shows the Top 20 Contributors on TwoCents a monthly and all-time basis.
The all-time ranking is based on the Contributor Score, which is a measure of all the engagement and exposure a contributor's content receives.
The monthly score sums the score on all your insights in the past 30 days. The monthly and all-time scores are calcuated DIFFERENTLY.
This page also shows the top engagers on TwoCents — these are community members that have engaged the most with other user's content.
Contributor Score
Here is a list of metrics that are used to calcuate your contributor score, arranged from
the metric with the highest weighting, to the one with the lowest weighting.
4
Comments (excluding replies)
5
Upvotes
6
Views
1
Number of insights published
2
Subscriptions received
3
Tips received
Below is a list of badges on TwoCents and their designations.
Comments