Xin Zhang makes an excellent case for the merits of Angry Birds in her blog post about its recent success and marketing strategies. Until my recent eye-opening experience I would have had a strongly opposing view on it. Given that I’m familiar with news and happenings in regards to technology I’d already heard about Angry Birds many times and, frankly, was not too impressed. I’ve been playing flash games for years and had encountered games similar to Angry Birds multiple times. They were all free, some were more entertaining or had more depth to them and most of all they weren’t just copying a pre-exsisting idea and making it seem to be their own. In short, I didn’t like Angry Birds and made a point of revealing its flaws whenever someone brought it up. In my mind it didn’t deserve all the praise and was just a attention-grabbing latecomer. Although I still feel that way in some respects about Angry Birds (unoriginal and not deserving of so much praise) my views have softened somewhat in light of its contributions to mobile gaming in general.
About a week ago when I was rushing to school from my home in North Vancouver (as I often end up doing as I find it difficult to wake up in the mornings) I was waiting anxiously for the 99 at West 10th and MacDonald when I overhead a very intriguing conversation between a group of girls. One of them was talking about a new game that she’d just got that she had been playing.
“It’s called Angry Birds.” she said “You slingshot these birds to knock over wooden blocks and kill green monsters. It’s actually really fun!”
The other girls giggled at the thought of such a silly game.
“It’s fun killing things?” asked one of the girls with a frown, seeming to have trouble figuring out how such a thing could be enjoyable.
“Well you don’t really kill them. They sort of disappear…” said the first girl.
“Oh,” said the girl who had asked the question “sounds kind of fun.”
It was such an eye-opening conversation for me, because, before that point I was looking at the game and its success from the viewpoint of someone who was familiar with gaming and had been playing games for many years. To people like that group of girls, Angry Birds was a friendly introduction to gaming that they probably wouldn’t have had otherwise. It provided a gentle way for them to get acquainted with the possibilities offered by this sort of interactive entertainment.
Later on, another of the girls described one of the games her guy friend played and they discussed that. It was just so amazing to see people talking about video games from such a fresh perspective. I’ll never think of simple, derivative games like Angry Birds the same way again.
As always, value is in the eye of the beholder, and, obviously, not everyone sees the same way I do.
I’ll leave you guys with some entertaining Angry Birds themed videos, :).
With the New York Times recently erecting a pay-wall the online world had come abuzz with opposing viewpoints on the matter. Some find the move incredibly stupid, others think it is logical and allows the NYT to show to advertisers that they do have a group of truly devoted readers and others plan to circumvent it in a astonishing variety of ways (through Twitter where a account was set up (and promptly shut down) that existed solely to tweet new articles and allow access to them through there, through search engines or by getting a print subscription and having a online toehold that way).
In their article, The Online Journalism Blog mostly touts the benefits of forcing heavy users to pick up a digital subscription (proof to advertisers that they are engaged, better metrics, new revenue streams) but I happen to disagree. I think that the way that the New York Times has approached the issue in regards to charging different rates for users on different platforms is going to lead to nothing but trouble for them. There has already been controversy brewing in the tech world for the effective price discrimination that they apply between smartphone (15$/month) and iPads (20$/month). Although price discrimination is the holy grail of economics I don’t think that they should apply it in such an obvious fashion.
Aside from the issues arising from their treatment of different user groups I agree with, and admire the way that the New York Times set up their paywall. For those who wish to circumvent there are ways for them and the others will pay for the convenience of being able to access it simply. Hopefully other newspapers can adopt models similar to these and help make their operations more sustainable so they can continue providing quality content to all of us who appreciate it. Its about quality over quantity, right?
I discovered podcasts about two years back and really got into them about six months later. I listen to them to relax when I’m stressed out because of university and the impending doom that my pile of homework represents or just to tune out the sounds around me and make my hour and fifteen minute long (on a good day) transit ride less dreary. While taking the bus home I can keep up to date with what’s going on in the video game world (Gamespot Presents the Hotspot and 1UP’s Games Dammit!) learn about tech related topics (TechStuff from HowStuffWorks.com), find out how all sorts of things work (Stuff You Should Know from HowStuffWorks.com) or even learn more about Marketing (Age of Persuasion from CBC Radio)!. Listening to podcasts has turned into a soothing routine for me and greatly expanded my knowledge on all sorts of subjects.
Obviously I am quite passionate about podcasts. I eagerly download the latest episodes whenever they are available (doing that right now actually!) and pay full attention when I am listening to them. This makes me a captivated, interested and clearly segmented target market. Additionally, the subject matter of many podcasts is quite niche which means that it is very clear what the people listening to it are interested in and what products they might be drawn to.
Might this be the perfect marketing opportunity? A captive, interested audience that is almost guaranteed to be part of the target market for your product (assuming you’ve done your research correctly)! Some advertisers seem to agree (at least partially) with this assessment with the New Times marketing a spot on their podcasts like this “Reach an audience of curious and engaged consumers with a :5 – :10 second billboard prior to the Podcast feature.”.
I know that, on my end, as long as the advertisements are kept short (as in Stuff You Should Know) or they involve the hosts speaking about the product (as in Tech News Today) I am willing to listen to the advertisement. This is very different from my attitude towards more traditional forms of advertising which I tend to ignore, shut off or be annoyed by. All things considered (the specific targeting of a niche market, the newness of the medium and the opportunities present there, and the comparatively low cost), advertising is an attractive option as long as you know your target audience and have a product that they would be likely to appreciate.
Which is fine with me. As long as they’re supporting creation of material that I enjoy consuming I’m all for it, :)!
Released in the summer of 2009, Battlefield Heroes immediately caught my attention. It was a online third person shooter that offered an experience that was quite different from the traditional interpretation of the shooter genre (gritty, bloody, aiming to provide a semi-realistic or realistic military focus). But the contrasting gameplay style wasn’t what caught my attention initially, it was the free to play aspect that really drew me in. This game was built on a system where you didn’t necessarily have to pay to play. If you were good enough you could earn the points needed to purchase the weapons that you wanted to use (you needed to keep a steady stream of points coming in because your purchases were timed and expired after a certain period of time). If you didn’t have the skill or didn’t want to spend the time earning your own points you could purchase points yourself and use them to outfit your character in unique ways and obtain weapons permanently.
A wallpaper for Battlefield Heroes
For me, this was a beautiful mix. A game put together in a professional manner that offered a st
able, enjoyable and unique playing
experience all for free. My brother and I spent countless hours (perhaps even hours that we would prefer not to count, 😉 ) playing the game together and making short work of the forces arrayed against us. It seemed that we had finally found something that we could stick with and enjoy playing together for a good stretch of time.
One of the trailers for the game, note the over-the-top music/theme. One of the many joys of playing it was its sense of humour, :).
However, like many good things this balance was not to last. Driven by their corporate mandate to increase profit and add to their bottom line the Battlefield Heroes began implementing changes that would change the game forever. The first change that they made was to greatly reduce the amount of Valour Points (the points you earned for in game successes – quest completions, kills, etc. – that you could then use to purchase weapons temporarily) so that it became nearly impossible to use anything but the default weapons (which put you at a significant disadvantage) if you were not purchasing Battle Funds (the in-game currency that you had to pay to obtain). The reason for this was due to the timed nature of your Valour Point weapon purchases.
With the change, nobody but the most devoted players were able to amass enough Valour Points before their next weapon purchase was due. The game became heavily skewed towards those who were willing to purchase Battle Funds and outfit themselves with the best weapons and consumables. For me, a young fella not wanting to put twenty dollars down for a game that he had once played for free, this meant that I could no longer have the set of options available to me as the others. Bitter, I stopped playing and turned to other options.
This brings up the conundrum for a free to play game. How do you monetize a gameplaying experience when you don’t charge for content up front or on a monthly basis? Is it possible to finance a game through micro-transactions without having those micro-transactions take the fun out of it for all the others? It is a question that still hasn’t been answered for the video game industry. I think that there is an opportunity, especially within the video game space, to charge a premium for advertising within these sorts of games because the traditional audience (18-35 year old males) is one that is very valuable to advertisers. I know that I would certainly prefer advertising to unfair gameplay. Perhaps a developer will take notice of this opportunity and develop a game geared towards that. I know that I, for one, would be very interested.
Isn’t that what marketing is about? Taking advantage of untapped demand? Like many others, I hope that someday, someone will recognize mine.
Hello blog reader. It’s a delight to be the subject of your undivided attention once again.
That being said, have you ever been to Sayan‘s blog? It’s an incredible source of information for those of us who are environmentally conscious and reminds us all to keep an eye on the companies that are using the very tactics that we are learning in class. Sayan’s detailed examples of the power of branding (Dasani vs. tap water at the movie theatre, the value of reusable bags in serving as mobile advertising, and deceptive nutritional information on bottles). In fact, his blog has inspired me to include the environment in my most recent contribution to the blogosphere.
Amid the frenzy that accompanied the launch of the iPad 2 I found myself wondering “Do we really need a successor to the iPad this early?”. Everyone knows by now that one of Apple’s strategies is to create new iterations of its products on a yearly basis (iPod, iPhone and iPad have thus far followed these cycles quite reliably) and get consumers to jump ship for the new, best version leaving their old device to be picked up by friends, resold or, in some cases, redirected to the nearest landfill.
A Timeline of the iPod's Development Cycle taken from ipodhistory.com. Click on the image to see it more clearly, :).
Seeing the product line for the iPod really puts things into perspective and it makes one realize just how caught up a lot of people are in Apple’s marketing machine. I’ve seen and heard friends firsthand talk about how they “must” get the newest version of the iPhone even though their previous version works just fine (it is kind of funny actually, although I am very much into technology my overwhelming thriftiness has me keeping the same old fun until I absolutely must replace it). When I question them about whether or not they really need it they often have no reason other than “I really need it!” or “My phone is just too old now…” to justify the purchase that they are planning for.
Honestly, I find Apple’s ability to persuade consumers to purchase their products (and abandon their perfectly serviceable previous iterations) quite incredible and certainly impressive (in a Marketing sense) but it makes me worry about the future of our consumer-oriented society. If we continue to consume and waste at this rate its hard to see how we can expect to maintain our current lifestyle as resources will begin to run out. So, although Apple has found a great deal of success with their current marketing strategy they may want to consider evolving their business model so that they can sustain it in a future where resources are less scarce and consumer pocketbooks are not as widely stretched. To be fair, they’re showing some initiative on that front as they are expanding the software arm of their company but it would be a remarkable bit of foresight on their part if they were to use their status as a industry leader and be one of the first companies to commit themselves in a big way to operating in a sustainable matter. With their creative talent and innovation they are one of the companies that are best poised to take advantage of this new opportunity.
Cross media marketing is a form of marketing where a product being released (e.g. a book, record, movie, video game) is being released in other forms at, or around, the same time with those other forms helping to promote the initial or main product. An example of this would be a cross media marketing campaign done for a car dealership that is examined by the folks over at the Better Response Blog (click on the link to the slideshow for more details).
Within the video game industry Electronic Arts has been a big leader in the cross media marketing space with big multi channel pushes coinciding with their Dragon Age and Dead Space games. For the Dead Space series, the main product (the video game Dead Space) was being promoted and supported by other products that branched off of the IP ( they released a comic book series, a animated film, and created a website where users could interact in a world closely linked to that of Dead Space). Dead Space ended up selling 2 million units (across all platforms) by the end of 2009.
A wallpaper released to promote the second installment in the Dead Space franchise - Dead Space 2 (found @ http://deadspace.ea.com/#medialist/wallpapers/group=&mediaid=beat4keyartwallpaper-20101208102836919)
As previously mentioned, EA has also employed this cross media marketing strategy with the Dragon Age series by creating a free flash game (a game that can be played on the internet and only requires a browser) that tied into the purchasable PC and console game with achievements that you could use to unlock in-game items. With the release of its sequel, Dragon Age 2, coming up EA is again using a cross media marketing strategy but this time with a web series based on Dragon Age. The web series will follow an elven assassin tasked with dealing with a rogue mage and should tie into the stories of characters that are featured in Dragon Age 2.
As for my personal opinion, I find the concept and idea of cross media marketing to be quite intriguing but I’m not entirely certain of how effective these campaigns are. Although it cannot be denied that having the universe of the game extend into other forms of media certainly excites fans and people who are looking forward to the release of the game. I am not entirely certain that this sort of strategy (at least in the way that it is being employed at the moment) is as effective as it could be when it comes bringing in new consumers and extending the audience for the game. For example, since I love RPGs (role-playing games) I was intrigued by the flash game released for Dragon Age and decided to give it a try. In the end, it served to increase my level of interest in the game but I feel that, for the most part, it attracted people who were already familiar with the genre and the game. A definite, personal example of this is my relative disinterest for Dead Space and the accompanying failure of any of the cross media content to attract my attention. I imagine that all the additional content completely drew those who were already engaged in the series even further in but it didn’t catch my attention at all.
As it often occurs in marketing, it all comes down to planning. Companies who employ a cross media marketing strategy should carefully consider whether they want to further draw in their current customer base or extend that customer base (0r maybe even both!). Depending on the end result that they desire they should then tailor the additional content that they release (more in-depth into the universe and characters, or more accessible and broad for those who are new to the universe) so as to achieve that end result. That is the key to making a cross media marketing strategy a successful one.
In my previous article, I wrote about Bulletstorm’s unique approach to getting word about their game out by making fun of Call of Duty the biggest game in the shooter franchise (they also poked fun at another big seller, Halo, in a trailer that they recently released) through a demo for a fake game called Duty Calls (website down at the time of the writing of this post). This approach drew a lot of attention within the video games media but didn’t create much of a sensation among the mainstream news media. However, recently Bulletstorm has attracted the attention of Fox News in a much less desirable way.
In their article “Is Bulletstorm the Worst Video Game in the World?” Fox News slams Bulletstorm as being “particularly gruesome, with body parts that explode all over the screen” and takes special offense to the in-game system for achievements which is based on Skill Shots (based off the game’s theme of ‘Kill with Skill” where an emphasis is placed on the quality of the shots used to dispose of an enemy combatant) claiming that it “ties the ugly, graphic violence into explicit sex acts”. Later on, they quote Carole Lieberman who makes the far-fetched claim that “The increase in rapes can be attributed in large part to the playing out of [sexual] scenes in video games,”. Granted, that claim is absolutely ridiculous, but it does touch on the problem that video games have had within the mainstream media with an image as being a bad influence on kids and encouraging violence (amongst all sorts of other unpleasant acts). This is a issue that the video game industry has been struggling with for a while now and one that it needs to fix if they hope to eventually form a positive (and potentially beneficial for exposure, sales and revenue due to free, widespread promotion) relationship with the mainstream media.
Now, how could the video game industry apply the same sort of tactics that the Alberta beef farmers did to establish that their product is safe and needed be looked at as a danger to society? The video game industry needs to appeal to the cognitive, affective and behavioural centers that influence people and help them to form attitudes about certain products or brands.
On the cognitive side, the industry could encourage (independent and unbiased obviously) research into whether video games really do have a detrimental effect on children if they, for example, have explicit sexual or violent acts contained within them. Additionally, the industry could again emphasize that there is a rating system that is designed to inform parents as to what age their children should be if they are playing the game (the ESRB rating system).
A title page for a guide from the ESRB
As for the affective side, they could appeal to the positive feelings of nostalgia that those who play video games have and remind them of the good times that they had playing those games. Furthermore, they could play on the patriotic feelings of Canadians and Americans by touting the strong presence of the video games industry in North America and the jobs and taxes that they contribute.
EA's Burnaby Studio
Finally, with regards to the behavioural side, they could offer free demos or copies of games (to the people that are commenting on games) that are on the more kid friendly side but still plenty of fun to play. This would help to change perceptions that all video games are violent and have a bad influence.
A cover of the game Wii Sports for the Nintendo Wii
Hopefully the games industry will be able to eventually shake their bad image but with a concerted effort things could change very quickly.
For anyone who reads my blog regularly (lovely imaginary devoted blog reader that you are) you may have noticed a few changes. I’ve changed the blog name and deviated from my theme. But no need to worry the content should remain it’s usual, dry, witty self.
I’ve also decided to make better use of this format and include more pictures and video when possible to help out the attention span challenged out there who balk at my primarily text based ramblings.
A screen shot of Bulletstorm gameplay (taken from 1UP @ http://www.1up.com/news/e3-2010-bulletstorm-scheduled-release)
Now that that’s been dealt with, onto the post of this week. Bulletstorm (a video game set to release on the PC, PS3 and Xbox 360 on February 22nd) has brought an unusual (at least for the video game industry) approach to its marketing for the game. It has made an impact among the video gaming press (i.e. 1UP and Gamespot among others) by basing part of its campaign around a blatant mocking of the hugely successful Call of Duty series. They have created a free five minute game demo that humorously takes pokes at of the hallmarks the Call of Duty experience and ends with a short trailer for the game. A large part of why its created such a buzz is because this sort of parodying of other games in a degrading fashion rarely happens as studios are usually quite polite towards one and other and focus on hyping the merits of their game (as opposed to making fun of the games of others).
Obviously, Epic (the developer for Bulletstorm) is seeking to differentiate itself and prove its game to be a different take on the FPS (first person shooter for those of you unfamiliar with the term) genre from the rest by making this sort of tongue in cheek critique of the most popular game in the genre’s gameplay and storyline. Personally, I think that it will prove to be a successful tactic (some might already call it successful based on the attention that it has received because of it) because although Call of Duty may be the most popular FPS it certainly has its detractors (especially amongst the hardcore gaming community) who decry its lack of innovation and reliance on a gameplay formula that is now several years old. This demo release will certainly capture the attention of that market (who formed a large portion of the people who bought Epic’s previous entry, Gears of War 2, into the shooter space) and should prove to be an effective way to position Bulletstorm as an excellent alternative for those who want a FPS that isn’t just recycling the same old formula and brings a fresh new take on things.
It remains to be seen who things unfold but I know that I’ll be cheering for David. I’ve certainly had enough of Goliath.
Having been inspired by Tim Blonk’s excellent blog I’ve decided that maybe I should also go with a theme or category and center my thoughts around that. It might even make my thoughts a bit more cohesive and easy to follow! Wouldn’t that be great, :)?!
Now I just need to think of an idea that I care enough to write about for 8 more blog posts. That will come with time I suppose. But it had better come soon. Time is ticking…
Oh well. I guess I’ll continue with my theme of social media and the internet for the time being.
How is it that Groupon managed to turn something that was once considered dreary, old and outdated (coupons) into a internet phenomenon and inspire a plethora of copycat contenders? On top of that, they were valued at $2 billion within 2 years of commencing operations. That’s an impressive set of characteristics for any company to be associated with. On top of that they’re projected to to reach $1 billion in revenue faster than any other business (Weiss, 2010 – “Groupon’s $6 Billion Gambler”.)
So how does a company like Groupon hit that kind of high when they’re doing something as simple as offering a slight variation on an idea that’s been around for years? Using the power of social media and the internet, that’s how! The way that Groupon works is that it offers a new deal every day but it does it with a hook. There must be a certain amount of people who sign up for the deal before it becomes valid. This is what encourages the spread and popularity of Groupon. Picture this scenario.
One person sees an absolutely amazing coupon for a local store that they go to regularly and adore. They sign up for it but are informed that it hasn’t reached the required amount of people yet. Startled they reach out to friends who they think might be interested and tell them to sign up too. Those friends reach their friends and the web spreads outwards. Soon, the deal reaches its required number of sign-ups and the hordes are unleashed. The business gets inundated with customers and Groupon gets a healthy cut of the revenues.
Sounds like a great strategy right? Good ol’ word of mouth will never fail you. Except it gets better. The friend to friend concept gets amplified by being synced with social networking and Groupon now has a hook that draws people in as well as the people around them which expands the group that they are able to contact at no extra cost to them.
That combination of daily updates, great deals and social media has proved to be addictive to many and if recent success is an indicator they can expect that interest to spread and further their success. Now they just have to hold onto their market share by continuing to be innovative and keeping competitors from creeping in. We’ll see how that goes.
Seeing as I’m not quite sure whether or not my first blog post counted as a “Marketing” post I’m going to post another delightful tidbit of concentrated wisdom. To whoever happens to be reading – (probably only the marker with the dreadful job of having to slog through all of these at some point) prepare to be mildly interested.
I was thinking, maybe I should start to consider having more informative blog post titles… I know! I’ll put a dash in after the number and provide some relevant sort of title there! Enough unrelated stream of consciousness babbling for the moment. Onto the good stuff!
With all the frenzy over social media I figured a great sujet du jour would be the complete reversal of roles between our favourite new constant companion. The internet giant, Facebook and it’s disgraced, downtrodden former rival, MySpace.
Now, I came late to the Facebook party (compared to my more integrated high school friends) joining the social media hungry horde on the 20th of July 2007 (in before the stalker grannies though!). But I think that this little excerpt from my life illustrates an important point. I’d heard of MySpace and Twitter before that (heard of Twitter from Icefrog, one of the custom map developers for Warcraft 3 and remember being confused and a bit intrigued by this new site) but never signed up or ever really considered participating in either of them. Which brings up the question, “How did Facebook pull me, the reluctant social media convert, in?”. And that’s where I think the power of Facebook lies.
It pulled me in by using the connections I had with my friends who were already part of it. It was built to accommodate the needs of the user not force them to acclimate themselves to it. And, finally, it kept me in by providing actual value and use rather than relying on its novelty. This is a case which can serve as an important lesson for the introduction of any new product.
How are you going to get the consumer to adopt it?
What needs of the user should you take into consideration when designing the product?
How are you going to provide enough value that the consumer sticks with you and not some other competitor?
Its best to consider or else you might find yourself in the same situation as MySpace. Once the dominant market leader, now relegated to the margins and desperately seeking relevance.
