Shampoo, Insurance, Heavy Rain
- Thread starter Susan Arendt
- Start date
Recommended Videos
You said it yourself, Susan: "it makes far more sense to spend it on full-page spreads in EGM or on banners on a gaming site like this one, because that's where people already predisposed to buy games are likely to see them"
The bottom line is that the marketroids are going to feel that the 'Return On Investment' for targeted advertising is going to be much greater in the millieu that gamers haunt than by doing a wide-spread, far-flung campaign.
And to be honest? The data to this point supports thier hypothesis. Only the big-time games, like Halo, like WoW, are broad-spectrum targeted. ("I'M A NIGHT-ELF MOHAWK...!)
I really think this is a chicken+egg scenario that will play out to a specific result: the marketroids for games are going to stay away from the mainstream until they get survey data that indicates that most homes have a console of some sort in them: then we'll see gaming ads during the Super Bowl (the most expensive advertising time on a per-second basis).
Personally, I wish the game companies would ardently (ha ha, see wut I did ther?) pursue developing markets, but I just don't think that a conservative business strategy supports that possibility... particularly during a recession.
The bottom line is that the marketroids are going to feel that the 'Return On Investment' for targeted advertising is going to be much greater in the millieu that gamers haunt than by doing a wide-spread, far-flung campaign.
And to be honest? The data to this point supports thier hypothesis. Only the big-time games, like Halo, like WoW, are broad-spectrum targeted. ("I'M A NIGHT-ELF MOHAWK...!)
I really think this is a chicken+egg scenario that will play out to a specific result: the marketroids for games are going to stay away from the mainstream until they get survey data that indicates that most homes have a console of some sort in them: then we'll see gaming ads during the Super Bowl (the most expensive advertising time on a per-second basis).
Personally, I wish the game companies would ardently (ha ha, see wut I did ther?) pursue developing markets, but I just don't think that a conservative business strategy supports that possibility... particularly during a recession.
Even if Quick Time Events aren't good game mechanics, they are more accessible than the average game's controls.Ryuk2 said:
After all, many more millions of people played Simon Says (Or electronic Simon) in their youth than played Street Fighter 2. Who couldn't quickly press what buttons the game tells them to? It has 'Gaming With Training Wheels' written all over it! Once they grow accustomed to the Dragon's Lair style of game play, they can move on to more complex fare. People who already bought it primarily for the Blu-Ray player can finally get their money's worth with games like Heavy Rain.
They could also advertise Ace Attourney games during Law and Order or People's Court!
Wasn't that only for interaction? The action sure won't be like that. It's not like they will give ''punch'', ''kick'', ''block'' and ''run'', when you are attacked by somebody. And there sure will be choices that will just get you killed, meaning that only one button saves you.vivaldiscool said:
Fahrenheit had this annoying buttonm mashing.
I'm from Eastern Europe. For the second Transformers movie, there was this advertising campaign in my city: I don't think there were billboards or TV ads, I may have just missed them, but the main thing were these Autobots and Decepticon logos printed on the ground at the busiest places in town. I see them to this day and feel like geekdom has somehow claimed this land. It fills me with glee.Jaredin said:
Another thing I saw recently were the Avatar posters in our subway. It's a film about a guy controlling a giant blue-skinned cat-person on an alien planet and I can see a poster of it in our subway (they haven't done that for any other movie before, mind you)! So, things are getting better on that front. In Eastern Europe, even.
It won't be long until we start seeing games taking those places. Maybe around Blizzard's next MMO?
I know I'm a rarity, but I have not watched television in nearly ten years. At this point in time I don't even own a TV. I stopped wasting time on television, and instead focused on interactive media (the PC). Around the same time, I quit buying print. So, neither of those media is going to entice me into buying a console or its games.
Every once in a while I get a strong urge to buy a Playstation (the original) and replay some of my favorite games of yore. But there's no money in that for the big three.
Every once in a while I get a strong urge to buy a Playstation (the original) and replay some of my favorite games of yore. But there's no money in that for the big three.
I don't watch commercials anymore. I record everything on my DVR and only watch what I have recorded so I can skip the commercials.
The marketing monkeys will back me up on this. Most people likely to be persuaded to purchase a game are already fairly tech-savvy people. The kind of people that will more likely see a game advert on a website or techie magazine.
The marketing monkeys will back me up on this. Most people likely to be persuaded to purchase a game are already fairly tech-savvy people. The kind of people that will more likely see a game advert on a website or techie magazine.
I don't think it's quite the same on British T.V. as it is U.S. - Ok, I'm a gamer by nature but many titles are promoted on big stations here I'm sure there's room for more of the niche releases.
For me the most effective ad I ever saw was for Gears of War the one with Mad World as the theme and the giant spider at the end. It was such beautifully performed cinematography it managed to sell me in to a title of a genre I don't really like.
This was also during daytime t.v. demographic: Students & house wives
Hmm I guess I've actually just proved your point, well done
- Still it'd be a turn up if a few more house wives went out and picked up Gears instead of watching Loose Women
For me the most effective ad I ever saw was for Gears of War the one with Mad World as the theme and the giant spider at the end. It was such beautifully performed cinematography it managed to sell me in to a title of a genre I don't really like.
This was also during daytime t.v. demographic: Students & house wives
Hmm I guess I've actually just proved your point, well done
- Still it'd be a turn up if a few more house wives went out and picked up Gears instead of watching Loose Women 
Very rarely. But people are already very familiar with books and the type of experiences they offer. They're introduced to books as children, required to read them in school, and so on. They're very well indoctrinated to the concept of fiction books by the time they're adult consumers. So while they might not know that a specific book is coming out, they do at least know where and how to look for books that might be of interest to them. The same definitely can't be said of videogames.thenumberthirteen said:
They did a little bit with Modern Warfare 2 and I think Call Of Duty:WaW and they do it for the majority of DS games.
They probably don't because the people the games are marketed at are on their consoles not watching tv? So they won't see the ads.
They probably don't because the people the games are marketed at are on their consoles not watching tv? So they won't see the ads.
True. Then why is food advertised on TV?Susan Arendt said:
Now Nintendo has broken the barrier to gaming, in a fashion, maybe we'll see more games advertising.
Actually I think that the fact the gaming generation is now old enough to be an economic force will be what breaks gaming into the mainstream TV. Nintendo are attacking from the opposite end.
Well that's my take on it, but I'm not a games journalist
For starters: great article.
I don`t see TV ads as a good bet because I`m sorry to say that you will appeal to the public that buys the games. I bet a lot of goldz that a vast majority of the people that have seen the MW2 TV ad didn`t understand shit from it accept maybe that it`s about some video game thing. And in my opinion this is normal, I don`t see gaming reaching the audience of TV or other forms of media in the next 100 years because lets be honest kids, gaming is hard. It is a proven fact that if you take 10 (I originally wanted to say women because it`s the public that is the least interested in gaming ) people of the street and ask them to complete a easy level in a generic FPS there is a pretty good chance that they will fail at it badly. The why ? is very easy, above Tetris most of the worlds population cannot go due to hand-eye coordination, attention span, brain power and spatial realization.
Conclusion : You can`t go mainstream when the audience cannot understand you medium.
I don`t see TV ads as a good bet because I`m sorry to say that you will appeal to the public that buys the games. I bet a lot of goldz that a vast majority of the people that have seen the MW2 TV ad didn`t understand shit from it accept maybe that it`s about some video game thing. And in my opinion this is normal, I don`t see gaming reaching the audience of TV or other forms of media in the next 100 years because lets be honest kids, gaming is hard. It is a proven fact that if you take 10 (I originally wanted to say women because it`s the public that is the least interested in gaming ) people of the street and ask them to complete a easy level in a generic FPS there is a pretty good chance that they will fail at it badly. The why ? is very easy, above Tetris most of the worlds population cannot go due to hand-eye coordination, attention span, brain power and spatial realization.
Conclusion : You can`t go mainstream when the audience cannot understand you medium.
For many reasons. The first is that we're creatures of habit. If we find we like a particular cereal, as a rule we're happy to keep eating that cereal over and over and over again. Until someone pokes us and says "Hey...how about this cereal?" we're not overly likely to start looking for another option. Food commercials also help educate the consumer about options...this cereal is sweet, that one lowers your cholesterol, that other one is gluten free, this other one benefits the rainforest. Food is a necessity, but the reasons for choosing food vary wildly.thenumberthirteen said:
Hi Susan.
I think this article misunderstands the purpose of advertising on TV, and the reason why videogames are only advertised on certain channels. Let's go through it bit by bit. Some of this was covered in passing in your article, but it all feeds into the conclusion, so bear with me.
TV AUDIENCES VS WEB AUDIENCES
Unlike pet food and Snuggles a computer game is not a useful item in of itself. You can't take the Bayonetta disc out of the box and immediately have an enjoyable gaming experience (unless you use it as a frisbee). No - you need to be in posession of a videogaming console. Which means that there isn't a lot of point in advertising a videogame on TV unless the majority of people watching actually have something to play it on.
This is why games companies advertise so much on gaming websites and magazines - because they know for damned sure that anyone reading them has a console or PC and an interest in their product.
BUT WHAT ABOUT DVDs?
You might well ask. A DVD (or Blu-Ray, you crazy, affluent kids) is just as useless as a game disc if you don't have something to play it on. But DVD players already have a much, much bigger market penetration than videogame consoles do, so the majority of viewers will already have one. And even if they don't, they can buy one for $50 at Wal-Mart, compared to a couple of hundred for a PS3.
Also, DVDs are a much easier sell to non-tech-savvy types, because they are an extension of the television, something that the viewer is (of course) already well-versed with. It's like having a TV network on your shelf! Not so videogames, with their fiddly, unintuitive controllers and weird looking characters.
DEMOGRAPHIC SELECTION
This is also why videogames mostly get advertised on niche channels - because those channels' target demographics (male, 18-35, disposable income) fit with the demographic for console or game-ready PC ownership*. There's no point splurging money on a higher-rated show if its demographics are so wide that they hit middle-aged women who don't have consoles, or older males who have no interest in videogames.
In the case of Heavy Rain - yes, the game would probably strike a chord with crime show fans, and probably with non-traditional (ie. middle-aged female, whom I believe are reasonably large consumers of mainstream crime shows) gamers, provided the advert could get across the emotional and storytelling complexities of the game. But it's also PS3-only, which means that it's available to a niche of a niche. How many middle-aged women have consoles, or free and easy access to them? And how many of those consoles are PS3s? And what's the projected 'money spentotential consumers' ratio for buying an advertising block in the middle of Bones compared to buying an advert on The Escapist? Advertising is about money, and targeted advertising will get you better returns than scattershot spending.
OUTLIERS
GTA and Wii games do appear on non-niche channels or programmes, but they are a
out of the ordinary - the former because it's got enough cultural penetration that non-gamers or casual gamers might dabble with it just to be on the zeitgeist, and the latter because it appeals to non-standard demographics (young women and the elderly).
THE PURPOSE OF ADVERTISING A GAME
Now I know that this is by-the-by for your argument, because you are saying that games companies can broaden the appeal of videogaming as a whole by advertising to a wider, mainstream audience, thereby legitimising it as much as DVDs, movies and Snuggles. This may be true, but it's not why games companies spend millions (or hundreds of thousands, in the case of smaller games) on advertising in the first place.
EA doesn't give a fuck about - well, anything beyond money, really, but for the sake of argument they specifically don't give a fuck about how videogames as a whole are viewed by the masses. What they care about is making money on Game X, and they're not going to spend a cent more than they have to to achieve that.
They're not interested in attracting someone who wouldn't ordinarily pick up a controller, because - as explained above - the chances of getting one of those people to do so based on how good their game looks is negligible. Instead, they want to exploit the sizeable existing market to its fullest, because that's how they'll get the best returns for the least investment.
SO WHO CAN HELP?
Not the games companies, that's for sure. No, the ones who would benefit from convinving non-gamers to pick up a joypad are the console manufacturers - they're selling a product that is of immediate use to non-gamers, so their advertising will (if it works) have immediate benefits in non-gaming TV blocks.
But to non-gamers a PS3 or an XBox can look intimidatingly complicated, and saying 'it has fancy graphics and cool games' doesn't mean much at all because they don't have a context to place it in. That's one of the reasons the Wii sold well to (I hate this term) casual gamers - because non-gamers could understand how waving your arms about like you're rowing might allow you to interact with a WiiPaddler or whatever. A kid pressing buttons while some chap twats things with a sword doesn't have that immediacy.
So here's a solution: rather than suggesting that videogame companies should spend money advertising their products to non-gamers, suggest that they (particualrly if they're making console exclusives) should look at partnering up with console manufacturers. Have an advert that focuses on an ad-block-relevant game and ends with '...get the experience on PS3' or whatever. You're selling the experience and the medium that way.
Still, the chances of getting a CSI-loving housewife to splash a few hundred on a PS3 because Heavy Rain looks good are pretty slim.
So how about this? Just stop worrying about it and let it come with time. To the kids of today, gaming is just another thing you do to pass the time. Hell, it's like that for a sizeable chunk of teens and twentysomethings, too. And as these generations grow older and supplant the ones that came before them, gaming will become just as legitimate as going to the movies or watching CSI. You don't have to fight to get the middle-aged folks onboard, because the industry as it is is perfectly self-sufficient with the current audience, and will continue to grow naturally with time.
Yeah, your parents don't appreciate you spending house on World of Warcraft. That's fine - their parents didn't appreciate them listening to rock 'n' roll albums with their friends. It's just the way it goes. Just you wait till your kids are trying to ween you off those old-fashioned videogame console things so you can try their mass-consiousness psychic transference or whatever...
(Apologies if this is a bit rambling - I've pretty much just hammered this all out off the top of my head, but I hope it gets my point across)
*You can go on about how your girlfriends play videogames, or how your 50-year-old dad aced Devil May Cry 4, but these people are, statistically, not representative of the large body of game players.
I think this article misunderstands the purpose of advertising on TV, and the reason why videogames are only advertised on certain channels. Let's go through it bit by bit. Some of this was covered in passing in your article, but it all feeds into the conclusion, so bear with me.
TV AUDIENCES VS WEB AUDIENCES
Unlike pet food and Snuggles a computer game is not a useful item in of itself. You can't take the Bayonetta disc out of the box and immediately have an enjoyable gaming experience (unless you use it as a frisbee). No - you need to be in posession of a videogaming console. Which means that there isn't a lot of point in advertising a videogame on TV unless the majority of people watching actually have something to play it on.
This is why games companies advertise so much on gaming websites and magazines - because they know for damned sure that anyone reading them has a console or PC and an interest in their product.
BUT WHAT ABOUT DVDs?
You might well ask. A DVD (or Blu-Ray, you crazy, affluent kids) is just as useless as a game disc if you don't have something to play it on. But DVD players already have a much, much bigger market penetration than videogame consoles do, so the majority of viewers will already have one. And even if they don't, they can buy one for $50 at Wal-Mart, compared to a couple of hundred for a PS3.
Also, DVDs are a much easier sell to non-tech-savvy types, because they are an extension of the television, something that the viewer is (of course) already well-versed with. It's like having a TV network on your shelf! Not so videogames, with their fiddly, unintuitive controllers and weird looking characters.
DEMOGRAPHIC SELECTION
This is also why videogames mostly get advertised on niche channels - because those channels' target demographics (male, 18-35, disposable income) fit with the demographic for console or game-ready PC ownership*. There's no point splurging money on a higher-rated show if its demographics are so wide that they hit middle-aged women who don't have consoles, or older males who have no interest in videogames.
In the case of Heavy Rain - yes, the game would probably strike a chord with crime show fans, and probably with non-traditional (ie. middle-aged female, whom I believe are reasonably large consumers of mainstream crime shows) gamers, provided the advert could get across the emotional and storytelling complexities of the game. But it's also PS3-only, which means that it's available to a niche of a niche. How many middle-aged women have consoles, or free and easy access to them? And how many of those consoles are PS3s? And what's the projected 'money spent
otential consumers' ratio for buying an advertising block in the middle of Bones compared to buying an advert on The Escapist? Advertising is about money, and targeted advertising will get you better returns than scattershot spending.OUTLIERS
GTA and Wii games do appear on non-niche channels or programmes, but they are a
out of the ordinary - the former because it's got enough cultural penetration that non-gamers or casual gamers might dabble with it just to be on the zeitgeist, and the latter because it appeals to non-standard demographics (young women and the elderly).
THE PURPOSE OF ADVERTISING A GAME
Now I know that this is by-the-by for your argument, because you are saying that games companies can broaden the appeal of videogaming as a whole by advertising to a wider, mainstream audience, thereby legitimising it as much as DVDs, movies and Snuggles. This may be true, but it's not why games companies spend millions (or hundreds of thousands, in the case of smaller games) on advertising in the first place.
EA doesn't give a fuck about - well, anything beyond money, really, but for the sake of argument they specifically don't give a fuck about how videogames as a whole are viewed by the masses. What they care about is making money on Game X, and they're not going to spend a cent more than they have to to achieve that.
They're not interested in attracting someone who wouldn't ordinarily pick up a controller, because - as explained above - the chances of getting one of those people to do so based on how good their game looks is negligible. Instead, they want to exploit the sizeable existing market to its fullest, because that's how they'll get the best returns for the least investment.
SO WHO CAN HELP?
Not the games companies, that's for sure. No, the ones who would benefit from convinving non-gamers to pick up a joypad are the console manufacturers - they're selling a product that is of immediate use to non-gamers, so their advertising will (if it works) have immediate benefits in non-gaming TV blocks.
But to non-gamers a PS3 or an XBox can look intimidatingly complicated, and saying 'it has fancy graphics and cool games' doesn't mean much at all because they don't have a context to place it in. That's one of the reasons the Wii sold well to (I hate this term) casual gamers - because non-gamers could understand how waving your arms about like you're rowing might allow you to interact with a WiiPaddler or whatever. A kid pressing buttons while some chap twats things with a sword doesn't have that immediacy.
So here's a solution: rather than suggesting that videogame companies should spend money advertising their products to non-gamers, suggest that they (particualrly if they're making console exclusives) should look at partnering up with console manufacturers. Have an advert that focuses on an ad-block-relevant game and ends with '...get the experience on PS3' or whatever. You're selling the experience and the medium that way.
Still, the chances of getting a CSI-loving housewife to splash a few hundred on a PS3 because Heavy Rain looks good are pretty slim.
So how about this? Just stop worrying about it and let it come with time. To the kids of today, gaming is just another thing you do to pass the time. Hell, it's like that for a sizeable chunk of teens and twentysomethings, too. And as these generations grow older and supplant the ones that came before them, gaming will become just as legitimate as going to the movies or watching CSI. You don't have to fight to get the middle-aged folks onboard, because the industry as it is is perfectly self-sufficient with the current audience, and will continue to grow naturally with time.
Yeah, your parents don't appreciate you spending house on World of Warcraft. That's fine - their parents didn't appreciate them listening to rock 'n' roll albums with their friends. It's just the way it goes. Just you wait till your kids are trying to ween you off those old-fashioned videogame console things so you can try their mass-consiousness psychic transference or whatever...
(Apologies if this is a bit rambling - I've pretty much just hammered this all out off the top of my head, but I hope it gets my point across)
*You can go on about how your girlfriends play videogames, or how your 50-year-old dad aced Devil May Cry 4, but these people are, statistically, not representative of the large body of game players.
gee i gave up watching tv , too many ads , crappy shows and too many channels showing the same program ( i was on sat tv ) , there are few channels i'd watch anyway , discovery ,tlc , g4 , fox and speed ... so paying for the rest is a waste so i buy games instead
It depends on the game having mass appeal, which Heavy Rain does not have. It is niche, just like Fahrenheit. And it's Playstation 3 exlusive. Even bigger niche. A TV ad wouldn't help too much, which in turn could explain why we DON'T see ads for most games.
This goes to show that gaming is still far away from mainstream. Since an advertised product would try to aim for many people and not just a specific audience, videogames are still a niche. And from what I see, upcoming games don't show an intention to go mainstream.
This goes to show that gaming is still far away from mainstream. Since an advertised product would try to aim for many people and not just a specific audience, videogames are still a niche. And from what I see, upcoming games don't show an intention to go mainstream.