Games as game marketing.

Video games have been out-earning blockbuster movies for the past few years, and to help stoke the fire, publishers have been spending movie-money on marketing their games. Usually the output is some kind of movie-trailer style video, movie-like banners on the web, movie-esque wildpostings and mass-transit ads, and if the game is a big enough deal, it might get its own flavor of Mountain Dew.

But now, Electronic Arts has announced that they are going to start selling premium downloadable content before in-store game packages are released. Costing around $10-15, it will essentially be a long demo of the game, followed by the full packaged game at full retail price.

“The idea is that if the PDLC gets favorable reviews, it will build word of mouth for the boxed product. If the PDLC has issues, they can tweak the packaged product to address those issues, improving the final product before release.” —EA senior VP Nick Earl

It’s always seemed odd to me that game companies know how to make something that people will want to spend hundreds, maybe thousands of hours interacting with, but don’t apply that knowledge to the marketing of that product. Instead they hand over their marketing to people who specialize in creating messages rather than interactions. This results in a necessity to  focus on the storyline of the game, which is a slippery slope to creative work that mimics marketing for linear media, like movies.

People like games because they like learning new patterns, because learning new patterns is fun. Story is at best secondary (and lets face it, most story in games is almost as bad as the voice acting). So it would seem that the best way to really build hype for a game prerelease is to immerse users in the game world using game mechanics. Give people something to solve, ways to interact with the story … get interactive. Gamers are clearly wired for games, so why not use game mechanics to market them?  This PDLC idea seems like it could be a step in the right direction.

Jimmy Chamberlin rambles about the importance of creative identity.

I saw this video the other day while searching for drum solos. It’s sort of long and rambly, but he addresses some points in here that I think are important for planners and anyone in general who does creative things.

  1. Technique doesn’t equal interesting—Knowing the technical aspects of creativity are not a means to an end, but tools with which to express your personal point of view. Being good at research doesn’t make someone a good planner. Knowing how to flawlessly play modal scales on guitar doesn’t make you a guitar player that people want to hear. It’s only when you plus-up technique with an interesting point of view that you get to an interesting place.
  2. Talent Imitates, Genius Steals (hi Faris)—It’s really easy for creative people to single out their heros and try to get good at doing things they way their hero does. The problem is that some people take it too far, and start to become clones. A few years ago in Virginia, there was an awful plague of drummers who were doing their best to sound like Carter Beauford from the Dave Matthews Band. Some of them were great at imitating him, but no one mistook them for being great drummers because they had nothing to add to the conversation besides the imperfections that come from not actually being Carter. It’s his personality combined with his technique that made him interesting.

The thing that makes creative thinking interesting is the individual’s personality. Technique isn’t an end unto itself. Russell is interesting because he’s Russell. Gareth is interesting because he’s Gareth. Faris is interesting because he’s Faris. The ability to do the job as well as those guys is important, but I it’s how you spin it all together to make it your own that really determines how good you are.

Zoso is a really great (if slightly overweight) Led Zepplin cover band, but they will never be rockstars.

A problem I’ve noticed lately:

Are you a programmer, or the programmed?

Really interesting thoughts on the importance of computer literacy, and seems to support Noah’s assertion (via edutopia) that coding is the new literacy.

As an aside, this feels a lot like what’s happening to music as some hip-hop has redefined the musician as someone who combines complex molecules of existing music rather than knowing how to make atoms of original music. Melody, instrumentation, rhythm, etc. have been mashed into just being “the beat.” Not that this is a bad thing. A lot of really good stuff has resulted from recombinant musical bits. But there comes a point where working with already assembled molecules could be limiting to those who are trying to push music further.  Recombinant cultural ideas are more maleable than recombinant cultural bits. But I digress…

(Video via Mike Arauz via sxsw)

…everyone is so smart and logical and ambitious, but no one is wise.

Excerpts from a brilliantly written piece from Jonathan Harris about technology and being human.

A few nights ago Kyla called, and she was at SXSW, in Austin, Texas, where the digital aristocracy is gathered to learn about the latest developments in the digital world …

She described a sense of euphoria there among them — an excited optimism for what they were building, and for what the online world can become. But there was something that bugged her, too, and she was trying to tell me what she thought it was.

“Everyone’s really smart and friendly and nice,” she said, “so it’s not that. And everyone seems to be having a really good time, but it’s like everyone is so smart and logical and ambitious, but no one is wise. I think that’s it. In all this stuff they’re building, there doesn’t seem to be any wisdom. It’s like everyone is just leaping ahead trying to build the next best gadget to get a lot of users and make a lot of money, but no one’s really asking why, or what it’s all really doing to us as humans.”

Last Advertising Agency on Earth Video. I feel like I’ve been taking crazy pills!

I was forwarded this video this morning. Which I thought was funny, well made, and a poignant commentary on the danger that advertising agencies will face if they stay the way they were 10-years ago.

As I watched, though, I was dismayed to see that this urban-legend that clients are demanding cutting-edge nontraditional work, only to be rebuffed by their agencies who just want to make TV spots and banner ads, has reared its ugly head once again.

Now, my experience in marketing isn’t quite as extensive as many people’s, and maybe I’ve been lucky enough to work at agencies and with clients that “get-it,” but I have never, not once, been in a meeting with a client that went even remotely like this:

Client: “I want to make cutting edge digital things, stop giving me TV ads.”

Agency: “Nah, dude, you need to make TV ads, here’s some scripts.”

Yet this notion continues to appear, over and over again, in CMO surveys and Adage pieces and in the blogs of social media consultants.

Mugatu: “I feel like I’ve been taking crazy pills!”

Am I off the reservation here? Have you experienced otherwise?

(The Last Advertising Agency On Earth from FITC on Vimeo.)

Drums are awesome.

So I made this.

Gaming could save the world. Pew Pew Pew!

After reading “Everything Bad is Good for You,” I felt justified in staying up way too late building college football dynasties, saving princesses, and getting fragged by 12 year olds on Xbox Live. I was learning to think more gooder:

“I’ll come to bed in a minute, I’m learning how to solve cancer.”

So imagine my elation when I read about a recent Ted Talk by Jane McGonigal, a game designer who works at the 1950s-faux-government-agency-sounding Institute for the Future, where she she argues that if humanity played 21 billion hours of games every week we would pick up the skills required to solve all the world’s problems. She even calls gamers “super-empowered hopeful individuals” because when gaming we have an actual drive to overcome challenges and a belief that we can accomplish anything. It is when we switch to reality that we lose these beliefs. (via Destructoid)

This is the power of gaming. I keep reading about how points systems are motivating people to be better at life, and about how the popularity of games is providing advertisers with a new space to place media, but I think that the real value in gaming comes from how playing games helps people to learn things, and help people learn to be better at solving problems.

(I’m off to play MW2 now.)

A planning blog posts something about planning (!?)

It seems like planning blogs are getting less and less about planning for some reason, so I was excited to see that Rob had stepped into the Wayback-Machine and posted some thoughts on, well, planning. Granted, it was just an easy way to have his blog updated while he was in China, but I was glad nonetheless. Check the comments for some great additions, and to read a lot of f-bombs. His thoughts have been stolen and are below:

Planners make average interesting, if they don’t, they’re not a planner, they’re an administrator.

Too many planners seem to come out of a factory rather than a womb so remember, empathy is intelligence, not a weakness.

Planning is an outdoor job, not a desk job.

Saying your curious means nothing. Showing tangible results of your curiosity means everything.

Planners create fate, not ads.

(I know, what is this, 2005? Aren’t we all supposed to be blogging about social media, transmedia, or post-digital things now?)

Gamers prove that hype isn’t obsolete.

Ever since I completely flubbed an interview with Rockstar Games a few years ago, I’ve thought a lot about the marketing of games and how incredibly important the game itself is to its success. Bad games will get bad reviews, which people will see, making the marketing of a less than perfect game a complete waste of money. It seems like a fairly obvious thing … video games reviews and ratings are so prominent, and gamers are so plugged in, that a game that isn’t really good is more than likely doomed to failure.

…or so I thought until I ran across this a couple weeks ago:

“Marketing influences game revenue three times more than quality scores. There’s a giant myth out there that reviews scores are the most crucial to a video game. The reason why that is is the information is readily available – we can go to Metacritic – and we see games like Grand Theft Auto and Call of Duty succeed and we see they have a high quality score and we make that correlation. But the truth is, marketing actually has much more of an influence to game sales than high scores.” —EEDAR’s Jesse Divnich, speaking at the Montreal International Game Summit

If this is true, the Big Takeaway (and gigantic, reckless, assumptive leap) on this is that even in a highly engaged and plugged-in audience, rational information like ratings, reviews and community opinion aren’t going to be the undoing of creative marketing campaigns. It’ll more often than not prevent the fraudulent success of the terrible, but at the end of the day, people still make decisions emotionally, despite all of the information they have at their fingertips.