First of all, I was gratified by the responses to my last post. I had no idea that my blog was even read here! I love the title as well and I'll probably do a little more cross posting in the future.
Which is what I have here!
The original posting in on
The BeanCast™ Network but I'm posting here as well, since this subject is so interesting to me.
Enjoy
==
The discussion on this past week's show about in-game ads has really got me thinking. In particular, the suggestion by John Wall about how game producers could possibly (or already) track impressions within a game is completely fascinating to me.
Why is this important?
The ability to track impressions — or better yet, response — moves in-game ads from a simple branding proposition into the territory of quantifiable marketing. Imagine how valuable this would be for game producers and advertisers alike to be able to say, "30,000 players drove past your billboard about 3,000 times each in this game."
And it would be so easy to implement!
All of the next-gen consoles are Internet networked for online play already and these connected consoles are already grabbing updates and feeding data back to the producers. Same with most computer games. It would be so easy to take it one step further.
But more importantly, it's a form of advertising that seems to be completely acceptable to players. We live in a world full of advertising, so gamers accept ads as part of the realism trying to be created in the game.
A recent report by Massive reveals that gamers consistently have a positive impression of in-game ads. (Okay, Massive has a vested interest in making this stuff seem appealing, but still...) And positive acceptance (rather than interruption) makes the ads that much more effective.
So marry tracking with positive impressions and strong recall and in-game advertising becomes probably the most appealing medium for ads that's currently out there.
Now, a dose of reality here. In-game ads are not for every brand and certainly not every brand can be in every game. Putting car ads (or even featuring cars) in a game like Burnout is probably counter productive for the brand. But the Geico "billboards" are perfectly suited to the game's (how shall we say) "destructive" focus. And in spite of the limitations, I believe more and more brands are going to find venues in which to showcase their products and services in this arena.
There's absolutely no reason that the dog food in Nintendogs should be generic. There's nothing wrong with adding a dose of realism with an offering of Purina or Iams. And don't get me start on the possibilities with The Sims! Just about every household product can find a home.
Obviously this can be taken too far. While Burger King scored a success with an entire line of XBOX 360 games featuring their mascot, Ford flopped with a TERRIBLE racer. And I think that's where the line is. A game's success rests on the factors of gameplay. The focus needs to be on the consumer and their enjoyment. Ads are completely acceptable in this context. But if the ads (or ad premise) gets in the way of the gamer's enjoyment, then everyone loses. The temptation to pack ads into a game will definitely be there. But as long as the game industry judiciously manages the inevitable greed, game ads will continue to flourish and be a premium addition to the marketing arsenal.
Bob
Labels: 360, advertising, beancast, gamers, games, knorpp, marketing, ps3, videogames, wii, xbox
