Promise what you can deliver

Because of untrustworthy release dates, Nintendo is video game land’s worst offender in broken promises. With Virtual Boy, a console that used depth perception tricks and the color red to make you think you were in a virtual reality environment, they reached too far and dreamed too big. Nintendo wanted us to believe a legitimate virtual reality could be found in the console, but the closest you might get to that was seeing the real world with rose-colored rods and cones after long play sessions.

The games were actually fun but shelling out close to $200 for an uncomfortable and non-”virtual” experience was extremely disappointing. The technology wasn’t (and still isn’t) commercially available for virtual reality, and Nintendo should have owned up to that before they decided to make 3 million units.

Make the message fit the medium

Similar to Virtual Boy, the Wachowski brothers’ vision for The Matrix sequels was simply too grand to realize. Trying to tell a cohesive story over vastly different mediums like video games and film is possible, but incredibly difficult with large audiences. A small and dedicated audience for a niche product, not a blockbuster film, has a better chance of consuming a whole story.

Even George Lucas hasn’t tried this with Star Wars. His “universe” has loads of products and story elements separate from the films, but that’s probably why they sell fairly well. They’re not one piece of a large puzzle consumers have to navigate to enjoy the story; each product can more or less stand on its own with little interaction from others.

Overstretched, The Matrix product bonanza was at a disadvantage from the get-go, because back in 2003 there weren’t nearly as many ways to interact with fans as there is now. Set those movies up with Facebook pages and Twitter accounts and they might have a better chance of letting everyone know they can get more of the story by rearranging Matrix M&M’s.

It also helps if the game/film/comic is considered good in the first place.

Stay authentic

It’s important to stay authentic and not lie. Gamespot, a video game review site, got a lot of bad press and damaged credibility when they fired an editor for giving a bad review of a game they essentially cobranded with. “Kane and Lynch” was plastered all over the site and when the negative review was placed, they not only edited it and changed the score, they fired the reviewer and then lied about doing it.

Is compromising your entire business’s integrity really the way to get more money? Since publisher Eidos was so interested in cobranding, GameSpot management would have been wise to use that connection to get an even earlier look at the product than usual. If they didn’t like it, they likely could have had a different
featured game, since Eidos is fairly prolific.

What else can we learn from these marketing flops? Let me know what tips you have in the comments section below.

Dave Taylor over at Gamasutra reminded me of much of what I’ve learned in the IMC program at SBU. He asks how to overcome the overwhelming pessimism of the video game industry in creating a video game. His advice is not to lie.

This seems somewhat difficult for game publishers. The ever nebulous release date is likely the most used lie, with unfulfilled advertising promises of better features a close second. Lying, today, is not smart. Social media makes the lie just seem stupid. Gamers are a savvy bunch and are better equipped than most markets to jump on dishonest claims to bring a publisher down.

Hearing “don’t lie” warms my heart not just because it’s good advice; I’ve heard it consistently throughout our curriculum. Lying is seen as particularly dangerous in the advertising and social media textbooks, but any marketing channel will do well to keep things honest. Honesty is now in a business’s best interest, amazing as that sounds.

I never thought I’d say that about marketing.

Surely, honesty policies will not give copy that says “the game is great but the ending sucks because we had to rush at our publisher’s behest.” Companies will, however, own a game’s problems and be responsive to people’s complaints. The greater the communication the less bombs dropped by unscrupulous companies.

Do you believe honesty is the best policy or would you sprinkle a lie here and there when convenient? Let me know your thoughts by commenting below.

After talking last week with Kelly Revak of The Behemoth, this week I interviewed Robert Juster from G4 TV’s X-Play. It’s so cool interviewing people who are in or who report on the video game industry.

1. Give us some background on X-Play and your role there.

X-Play is the longest running and most watched video game show on television. I’m Robert Juster, Vice President New Media and Interactive.

2. What social media does X-Play use?

At this point mostly Twitter and Facebook… But we play around with each new social network as they come out to see what we can do with them. We’ve been using social media to help drive tune-in, content consumption/web traffic and interactivity for 3 or 4 years.

3. How do you use social media?

We use twitter in a number of ways – drive tune-in, drive traffic back to the site and drive on-air/ online interactivity with the audience. Tune-in and traffic-driving tweets are fairly self explanatory, but the interactivity is a bit more interesting and complex. For each airing of X-Play in the 6:30pm weekday slot, we post a question to the audience, then cull the best answers and display them on-air during one of the segments of the broadcast. We’ve built a custom application that grabs all @xplay (and @aots) tweets and puts them in a cue for a person to go through and push to air.

4. Do you believe you effectively communicate with your fan base?

Yes, though there’s ALWAYS room for improvement. Gamers are an especially opinionated bunch… We’re continually working on ways (both on-air and online) to give them a forum for those opinions.

5. Specifically, what are the benefits of a game company using social media?

Word-of-mouth marketing is far more valuable than any paid campaign. If a game publisher can use social media to get fans talking about their games, the things they (the fans) say socially are worth many multiples more than banners and ads and are typically free. They just have to be willing to take the downside (negative reactions) along with the upside.

6. What is your impression of the way most video game companies use Twitter, Facebook, and other social media? Do you find it effective?

Just like any other form of marketing, there are hits and misses. Some of the bigger games this year have used social very effectively to stir up passion in their fanbases: Uncharted 2, Brutal Legend, Modern Warfare 2 are good examples.

7. Other comments?

In this economy, with dwindling (marketing) budgets, using social to our advantage will be key. Its probably my biggest focus in 2010 (at least in terms of marketing). I probably won’t spend any time on banner ads or traditional campaigns…

A huge thanks to Robert for lending me his time to answer some questions. Let me know your thoughts on Robert’s social media approaches in the comments section. Don’t forget to watch X-Play on G4TV!

Mobile phone gaming has exploded in recent years with easy-to-find and simple-to-play selections on major platforms like the iPhone. The iPhone has become a great resource for the casual gamer because mobile games are much less expensive and intensive than console games but still fun to play.

According to Rob Murray of iPhone developer Firemint, creating a successful mobile game is simple: make it fun. Of course, that is easier said than done, and marketing to allow the game to “sell itself” takes a few forms similar to traditional media planning.

First, know your audience.

The most popular iPhone games are very simple in concept. Take Guitar Hero and similar knockoffs, for example. At first thought, such rhythm-based games may seem needlessly complicated for portable devices. At its heart, however, Guitar Hero is really “whack-a-mole” set to music. “Whack-a-mole” is simple enough for 3 year olds to play and yet is still fun for older crowds, which is why Guitar Hero translates well to the iPhone.

Second, be “simple and direct.”

Murray believes this especially important for titles, as his team is responsible for popular titles Real Racing and Flight Control. Obtuse titles that might work on gaming consoles like The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle-earth II — The Rise of the Witch-king imply a game too complex to buy on the iPhone. Similarly, product descriptions and pictures should not overwhelm but simply inform.

Third, converse via social media.

This is probably where the game “sells itself” the best, as Twitter and Facebook give games unfiltered endorsements from satisfied gamers. The “browse and buy” crowd that values “pick up and play” will quickly switch apps to tell their Facebook friends and Twitter followers how much they love a game.

Fourth, network.

Having quality professional relationships with the media is key to Apple recognizing great but not popular games. Featured by Apple, Firemint’s games went on to become immensely popular.

Fifth, pick a reasonable price, then lower it.

Murray says the best price for a mobile game is “uncomfortable” for the publisher, making it that much more enticing to potential gamers.

The principles Murray lays out are essentially the 4 P’s for marketing mobile games. “Meeting people’s expectations” about a game involve product, lowering the cost is price, simple and direct define a mobile game’s place in the App Store, and networking with consumers and media is promotion.

So, what do you think? Is Murray right on with using the 4 P’s to market mobile games or does advertising for the iPhone require radical reconsideration? Tell me your thoughts in the comments section below.

I had the opportunity to converse via e-mail with Kelly Revak from indie game developer The Behemoth. You may have heard of them from such titles as Alien Hominid and Castle Crashers. Revak runs The Behemoth’s social media presence across their forums, Facebook, Twitter, a blog, as well as YouTube and Digg. Collectively, all of these sites are known as “The Behemoth Community” and Revak herself (I’m assuming Revak female based on her forum avatar) is known as “The Mayor of Behemothtown” because of her position. How cool!

Revak’s forum avatar.

Revak says the goal of The Behemoth Community is to create dialog between players and game developers. They give fans behind the scenes access that generates a lot of commentary that developers then use to refine game play. As a reward, Revak says The Behemoth holds contests and giveaways to their supporters.

Being a very small company, Revak says social media is crucial to The Behemoth’s marketing efforts because of a limited budget. The communication between the company and its fans is strong as Revak claims The Behemoth “reads and responds as much as possible” and gives personal responses when questions are posed. This personal communication not only builds greater brand loyalty but again helps the developers know what people like and dislike for further game development.

Speaking personally, I was very impressed with Revak’s swift and informative response to my inquiry and intend to follow The Behemoth’s future developments because of it. It also helps that I like their games as well, of course.

Do you think excellent customer service is a necessity or can you get away with one-way communication? Let me know by leaving a couple comments.

In contrast to my blog last week regarding negativity toward advertising in video games, this week I will focus on a more optimistic tone from Microsoft’s in-game advertising firm, Massive. My tone, however, is not completely positive.

JJ Richards, Massive’s boss, boils down the state of in-game advertising to five facts. Essentially, in-game advertising is effective, contrary to what Kevin Slavin says. I’ll take Richards at his word because his numbers are convincing.

I do, however, take issue with a few other points.

First, he says in-game advertising is easy. While it may be true to take a game set in modern times and slap a billboard in it, what about the hundreds of other games where that won’t work? You won’t be seeing an ad for Pepsi in a game set in another galaxy or a Toyota in Soul Calibur because they’ll break the user experience, which Richards admits is key.

Because of the increase in in-game advertising, and because many games do not lend themselves to product placement, I believe we will see games intentionally curved toward a contemporary aesthetic simply to place more ads. Similarly, existing brands will easily fit into hypothetical futures. Take DOOM, for example. The basic story involves a future marine from Earth so it’s not inconceivable to create a new line of Doritos to place in the game that assumes Frito-Lay expanded operations to Mars. If the game is a hit and players “interact” with the Doritos bags enough, then it’s time to make the fake chips real.

Second, I can’t believe he claims that gamers like in-game ads. His argument boils down to the idea that because ads are omnipresent in real-life, if they are omnipresent in games, the experience is more authentic. This assumes people like seeing ads everywhere they go in real-life. Is he joking? In an ArsTechnica article, he sheds a bit more light on his rationale by stating:

“If you ask Americans if they like paying taxes, you’ll likely receive a resounding ‘no.’ But if you ask Americans if they like living in the US, where they have to pay taxes, the answer will likely be a resounding ‘yes.’”

We gather a few ideas from this statement:

1. Advertising is a necessary evil, like taxes.

2. Advertising in games is here to stay.

The first argument falls apart when you realize that mass-marketed games have gotten along fine without in-game advertising for over 20 years. We don’t “need” in-game advertising to support the production of a game like we need taxes to build roads. If that were the case, wouldn’t games be priced cheaper to reflect such support? Indeed, in-game advertising has had no effect on game prices thus far.

Not only does this make advertising itself seem like a negative process, it has no benefit to the consumer aside from claiming enhanced realism by including media they are already tired of seeing in the first place.

The only reason ads have any presence in games is that they make more money for the game publishers. And that is the sole reason the second argument is irrefutable.

Is Richards correct? Do you like seeing more ads or am I wrong in assuming you’d rather not see the Kool-Aid Man bust down a wall you just built in The Sims? Let me know what you think by posting in the comments section below.

Should you advertise in video games?

Advertising Age recently posted a video about the difficulty of advertising within video games. Game designer Kevin Slavin of Area/Code essentially says that the normal rules of advertising do not apply to games: traditional advertising wants its message out immediately, whereas games keep an idea just out of reach—otherwise there would be no incentive to play.

With this in mind, I present the top five ways to advertise in games:

5. Brand an item players use repeatedly

Most games require players use various tools to complete objectives, so why not claim one for yourself ? Use a real world product or something unique to the game (which you can bring into the real world if demand is high). The item should also be fun and integral to a player’s success. You don’t want just any “McDonald’s Big McClaymore,” but an item believable within the game that still conveys the messaging of your brand. Cell phone sponsorship in games is one simple example.

4. Create an extended portion of the game at your location

This could be great fun in games that employ advanced physics engines. Wouldn’t it be cool to stealthily break into Harrods to nab (or prevent the nabbing of) the Queen’s newly made jewelry? Augmented reality could be filled with interactive experiences of this kind: want to be like Sponge Bob and polish your grill skills at Burger King? How about doing a barrel roll over Niagara Falls without the hassle? Players will gain a sense of ownership with the location and may take a trip to show their friends where they blasted through your display window.

3. Sponsor a game

Take an existing game and add your own content to it. The latest example of this is Beatles Rock Band, though one of the best is the Def Jam fighting series, which took a great fighting engine and put popular hip-hop acts in to fight with. Be sure the game engine is good, or else you’ll end up with “A Boy and His Jell-O Mold.”

2. Make your own game

Sponsored games have always been littered with bombs like Yo! Noid and McDonald’s Kids. But even if they are bad, they still increase exposure to a fast growing market of game players. The Burger King value-priced games were poorly received but still helped increase profits 40%. The key is creating a user experience people will want to return to because they like the game and not have your copy smashed into their heads. Keep dangling those patties just out of reach and tease them with a ketchup packet after every mission.

1. Do it like Seinfeld

The greatest example of product placement has to be Seinfeld. Entire episodes were written with brands in mind yet were so well-written you don’t think of them as advertising. Pez, Junior Mints, the New York Yankees, Gore-Tex, PBS, Rudy Giuliani, Jon Voight, Bosco, Frogger and more were featured in episodes and made the action more believable. The episodes weren’t about the brands, but about the foibles of Jerry and his cohorts, who happened to do something hilarious while interacting with the brand. It made the brand fun. A character’s personality decided how a product was used—not the other way around. Put something in the game and let the player decide how to have fun with it. (See Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle for similar ideas.)

Advertising in games is a fairly new phenomenon with lots of great ideas waiting for implementation. Do you think mine work? What ideas do you have? Give some of your in-game advertising ideas in the comments section below.

Posted in Advertising, Uncategorized, Video Games Tagged: Advertising, creative, games, in-game, list, marketing, Video Games ]]> http://themarkinman.wordpress.com/2009/10/07/top-5-ways-to-advertise-in-video-games/feed/ 0 Mark Inman http://themarkinman.wordpress.com/2009/08/13/are-pro-sports-ludicrous/ http://themarkinman.wordpress.com/2009/08/13/are-pro-sports-ludicrous/#comments Thu, 13 Aug 2009 17:02:44 +0000 Mark Inman http://themarkinman.wordpress.com/?p=8 ]]> Mike Tomlin, coach of the NFL’s Pittsburgh Steelers, taunts me during his NFL Network bumper.

The Pittsburgh Steelers' Mike Tomlin. Courtesy Peter Diana/Post-Gazette

Mike Tomlin, coach of the NFL’s Pittsburgh Steelers, taunts me during his NFL Network bumper.

“You stop watching, I’ll stop coaching,” he says.

I tried in vain to do so before this year’s Super Bowl. Why?

I have recurring thoughts that professional sports are a complete waste of time and resources.

Is there any utility in pro sports beyond high profits for sponsors and owners? Many other businesses, such as food vendors and merchandisers, also gain from such spectacles, but what is the overall benefit to society, if any?

My concern took full bloom my freshman year of college. I had a highly cynical and conspiratorially-minded anthropology professor who would attempt to scare the hell out of us poor students every class period. One day he talked about how the Roman oligarchy satiated the masses with “bread and circuses.” That is, keep the plebeians distracted while the elite continue to amass wealth and power.

It’s not a great leap to go from the gladiatorial ring and chariot races to gridiron football and stock car racing. You have undoubtedly heard these comparisons multiple times. What concerns me is that, since the rise of leisurely pursuits in the Victorian period, are sports still innocent fun or another opiate of the masses, regardless of intent?

Of course, you can include games and entertainment of any kind to fit into the “opiate” category, but professional sports are different. The massive shared experience pro sports provides, historically, is only rivaled by network series finales and major world events, such as The Beatles first appearance on American television. With the increase of new entertainment outlets, however, the biggest spectacle in America, the Super Bowl, is probably the largest reoccurring shared experience.

Because the Super Bowl, and consequently American football, is shared by so many people it has a greater effect on consumption than any individual entity or event. Again, food, gadgets, travel, and the like all increase sales because of these spectacles. Industry has a monetary interest in keeping spectacles thriving.

Does this benefit John Q. Public in any way besides getting to talk to his good-time buddies about the big game? Probably not. Shared experiences are great and worthwhile, but you may think it disappointing that experience (and The Beatles and M*A*S*H*) is about a contrivance.

You may even find it disturbing then that the Latin word for “game,” ludus, is the root of the modern English word “ludicrous.” I know I did.

I don’t want you to think I am completely against sports. Sports played on the “friendly” level are worthwhile activities that may promote fitness and team-building. They are also, depending on the sport, low-cost and high reward. (Cost in collegiate athletics is an entirely separate issue that deserves its own treatment.)

Professional sports exist primarily to increase the wealth of investors. Obviously, some owners have genuine like for the sports they invest in, but they would never have bought a team had they not thought they could make a profit. And there is nothing wrong with that in a free market system: an entrepreneur sees (or contrives) a need the consumer wants on some level and fills it at a cost.

This is where my conundrum increases. All these rivalries, all these contests, all the pomp and myth appear to have no worth to society at-large. Ultimately, what impact did the Giants beating the Patriots in Super Bowl XLII have on anything of merit in 2008? Even sportswriters admit that their jobs, while fun, are not important (see: Mike Greenberg, Tony Kornheiser). How are professional sports a net gain for American productivity?

I don’t know. And I can’t slough it off as simply an escapist activity. Yet, I cannot break away from the circus.

As a child, my first memories of pro football involved successful Buffalo Bills seasons. The first game I ever watched with interest was the first playoff win in Buffalo’s infamous four year Super Bowl losing streak. My team was a “winner” and my family would have friends over to watch the games every Sunday. I wore Bills t-shirts. I bought licensed video games (and still play them today). It was an extremely enjoyable shared experience and I learned to love the NFL because of it.

This summer I have had to confront the question almost every day, albeit on a semi-pro level, with my working as the statistician for the Southern Tier Diesel. It is cool to be working with a sports team in such a capacity because I enjoy football and statistics, and even the travel is fun for me.

Despite all that, it is so hard for me to rationalize continuing to pay attention to sports when I stop and think about the issues raised above. Can someone convince me that pro sports are not ludicrous and that watching, buying the merchandise, tailgating, etc. is good for me and for society?

On the other hand, can someone convince me to completely abandon pro sports? I know the Bills will never win the Super Bowl in Buffalo (they will do it in Toronto), but I have to know for myself!

Until then, as much as I don’t want to say it, Mike Tomlin, I don’t think I want you to stop coaching.

Thank you to Scott Eddy, Brandon Rohwer, and Benjamin Yeager for reading drafts of this blog.