EA Intervention

[HappyDD]

I gotta say guys, the "Your mom will hate it" thing is not that bad, really. It's just lame, not evil. The DI fake protesters, by comparison, is an awesome idea! Whatever, they're not real protesters, but that is a marketing success in my opinion. I imagine all sorts of people went "Huh? Protesting a video game you say? Let me check that out."

Now, whether or not EA is "bad" or lacks a coherent management strategy is beyond my knowledge, but from the evidence presented I would say there is nothing compelling me to think that they have acted wrong with any of these issues. Even the censorship thing seems like the right call for a corporation even if they just say "too soon", since the Taliban conflict is ongoing.

 

[tunderball]

Didn't somebody once say about the Rollingstones 'you wouldn't want your daughter to bring a Rollingstone home with her', bad attention is the best kind of marketing.

Yes EC is a very, very good show however, everybody else please grow an opinion of your own and stop bleating all over the internet...... your making it dirty.

 

[duchaked]

okay okay I'll finally take some time and start watching Extra Credits haha

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

Not necessarily. People have been complaining about the supposedly harmful effects of videogames for quite some time, but overall distribution and development have emerged unscathed. While I do see merit in trying to maintain a certain quality of image and professionalism, what I don't see is legitimate and diplomatic reasoning for attacking videogames in the first place. The comparison has been made thousands of times before: Games are the new rock music, which were the new movies, which were the new books, which were... There are elements of society that just need to wail on an aspect of society, the less that's known about that aspect the easier it is for them to rationalize.

Do I think some of EA's advertising campaigns are in bad taste? You bet. Do I think it's a problem? No. People are still enjoying their ads and using their ads as prompting to buy EA games. There are plenty of companies with commercials that fall under my own perceptions of "poor taste", but as long as they sell the product they're successful and continue. EA's not stupid, if the DS2 campaign had failed to bring in scores of purchases, they would have to rethink the campaign. It sucks to have that image attached to a company you want to respect, but if they're still making money then...

Its not so much the marketing campaign or if it affects sales, its the direction and tactics used during the advertising itself. Fake religious protestors, the supposedly real and upset mothers viewing the game's content, these are the negative points that point to a fundamentally flawed marketing scheme. You dont move your product by harping on the bad so kids will buy it just so they (and their hundreds of friends) can say they were being rebelious or anti-authoritive. To maximise sales you appeal to the largest and broadest range you can. This is what EA hasnt done.

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

And you'd be surprised as to what misconceptions people have about bad press. Heck, the most samey and unimaginative games ever to exist have gotten blasted several times over for pandering to the easiest audiences, you think people care? Hell no! So long as the game can work decently enough and fulfills that one thing you're after, they couldn't care less and sales are affected sooner by the *quantity* rather than the *quality* of the press.

Not to say that if multiple gaming press stations simultaneously cried foul, then the publishers and developers still wouldn't notice. But if you think that there is that one *special* reviewer who can make all the difference...you are dead wrong. I particularly got a foul taste in my mouth when MovieBob recently harped on how his and the EC and ZP reviews 'don't let them get away with mediocrity' - NEWSFLASH! You are not that important! All they do is provide criticism that may or may not be ignored. And maybe...just maybe, if you're extremely lucky, they'll actually contribute to a general outcry of multiple critics and reviewers that will finally pierce the ivory towers of the publishers (them moreso than the developers).

What EA was trying to do essentially seems to me that they were trying to have their cake and eat it too. As one poster pointed out, they have the Taliban named there long enough for the first wave of gamers to go "Fuck yeah!" but then swiftly back off when the Army comes calling, knowing that most gamers will not check the follow-up stories to the original Taliban announcement while still appearing 'reasonable' to those that opposed this move of theirs. Now...dishonest this might be in a big way and to critical appearances, this strategy is failing hard, though who knows...perhaps they have different consumer numbers that actually make them think something else. I know that what they do (as the 2nd largest publisher) ultimately affects the entire community and yes, I would truly TRULY love it if I woke up one day to see them reverting back to their original statement as read at the end of this week's EC.

I just think that this will never, EVER happen. And if it does, you can be pretty sure that critics and reviewers, no matter how incisive or worth listening to, will not be the ones to galvanize its beginning. Only the publishers and developers themselves can start that (again, publishers moreso), but frankly...the world of money is a very stale place where shining ideas are *always* given a 2nd place to the same, boring, repetitive approaches, that guarantee more money being made.

In this case EA marketing seems content to stick to pandering games not as art but as teenage chattel. Wether it is actually working for them is, I suppose, up to debate and yes - personally I would like to see them change this strategy. But the fact is that it's easier to buy out another studio and then fire the talent only so that you can claim the IPs that come with it, for example. Far easier than it is to actually bother trying to create something new or from scratch, like actually funding the training of a new studio with fresh talent for example. A shame, since EA is probably one of the few that could actually afford to take that risk - but as always, the bigger the business company is, the less likely it is to take risk for the fear that its $$$ will plummet.

And as of right now, marketing games as for hormonal teenagers is the 'tried and true' method. Wether the times have genuinely changed enough for it to not work anymore, however, only time can tell. Not us, who bang away at our keyboards in order to delude ourselves into thinking that words can actually change things. They rarely do and when delivered across the internet you can be certain that the chances drop down to a 1 in a million. But if you feel like you need to comfort your ego by thinking, that words typed or spoken across the internet actually matter that much or that a massive press barrage will in fact change the ways in which money is being made in this industry...go right ahead. Delusion is, after all, humanity's most favourite pastime I suppose.

Perhaps some of us are looking at this whole scheme through rose coloured glasses, not too long ago when I was in the target demographic of 15-25s, the prefered method of advertising was "Sex Sells". The same moral outrage over games was there, just in a different direction. Dead or Alive and Tomb Raider both drew fire for "oversexualised" (concerning DoA's physics, maybe there is some truth to it) depections of women.

Maybe the kids today have no interest in sex, maybe we are just jaded old men these days. Maybe these kinds of stunts EA is pulling is because of shorter and shorter attention spans as the generations move on. In 6 weeks, who will remember?

I like violence as much as the next gamer, but coming up with slogans like "Your mum wont like it", is that really the best way to get your target audience to run out and buy it?

 

[SilentHunter7]

Reading this, and the Extra Credits comments thread; Since when the hell did anyone care how the public the gaming industry as an art medium? Roger Ebert came out and said he doesn't think games can be art, and we all told him he can shove his opinions where the sun doesn't shine.

Now everyone's dogpiling on EA because they aren't playing kiss-ass to all the critics out there. Why the change? And don't say it's because of the upcoming supreme court ruling. The oral arguments on that ended 3 months ago.

 

[PrometheanFlame]

Many gamers do not look at events in terms of "the big picture." They cannot imagine the repercussions of their actions (or inaction). These are the sheepish points of data that marketing professionals prey upon, and their shortsightedness is as dangerous to the health of the gaming industry and community as the corporate vampires that prey upon them.

It's just proof of how you can't look at gaming as some kind of unique form of media, though. I mean, it IS in the sense that it's not like reading a book or watching TV, but it's no different in that you have a wide audience of consumers with wildly varying tastes and levels of maturity. Is TV lambasted in the news because of The Jersey Shore, or whatever other tasteless tripe is popular at the time? No, because television already fought that battle, as has literature, art, music, and cinema before it.

The heart of this debate shouldn't be EA's marketing department mistakes...it should be why the media (and by extension, the general populace) still sees gaming as this pervasive mind-control device instead of what it really is: a form of expression, with all that entails - the good AND the bad.

 

[bushwhacker2k]

One company isn't going to damage an entire industry, so please, everyone. Stop overreacting.

... I believe you are mistaken.

Every company that pulls these big over-the-top schemes because it 'sounded good at the time' damages the industry somewhat. World of Warcraft is a great game, but its monumental success has brought many other companies to the conclusion that making a game just like it is the way to bring in the dough. I don't know what company did it (though maybe several did) but the same thing seems to have happened with FPSs(and I'm not saying FPSs are bad, just uninspired and getting generic). I would also like to add I respect Halo(for example for FPSs) and WoW, as both are great games IMO.

Those examples are differing from the particular point of this video, I'll get back to that now.

Things like this are what make people think video games are bad influences and unsuitable for children (though generally those are rated M, but since when has that argument worked?). It's because of thoughtless marketing like this that people launch entire crusades against the gaming industry. Maybe you're right, one company wouldn't cause that, but even if 5 companies did the same thing, could they all just blame each other? I think not, responsibility has to be taken for one's own actions.

I really do hope EA is learning from this, in a good way. >:|

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

Too be fair, before all this they were doing pretty well. Or perhaps they were just being kept out of the spotlight by Kotick opening his mouth every five minutes. Regardless, I thought the DS2 ad was funny just because of the ignorant reactions of those southern US mothers. I mean, that is the only demographic of mothers that would react that way. My mother and father fucking play Dead Space.

 

[Dogstile]

One company isn't going to damage an entire industry, so please, everyone. Stop overreacting.

... I believe you are mistaken.

Every company that pulls these big over-the-top schemes because it 'sounded good at the time' damages the industry somewhat. World of Warcraft is a great game, but its monumental success has brought many other companies to the conclusion that making a game just like it is the way to bring in the dough. I don't know what company did it (though maybe several did) but the same thing seems to have happened with FPSs(and I'm not saying FPSs are bad, just uninspired and getting generic). I would also like to add I respect Halo(for example for FPSs) and WoW, as both are great games IMO.

Those examples are differing from the particular point of this video, I'll get back to that now.

Things like this are what make people think video games are bad influences and unsuitable for children (though generally those are rated M, but since when has that argument worked?). It's because of thoughtless marketing like this that people launch entire crusades against the gaming industry. Maybe you're right, one company wouldn't cause that, but even if 5 companies did the same thing, could they all just blame each other? I think not, responsibility has to be taken for one's own actions.

I really do hope EA is learning from this, in a good way. >:|

Ok, but do you know why company's follow others? Because it makes money. If it makes money then doesn't that, by its own merit, mean that /that/ right there is what people want?

I have an issue with a website trying to make a company stop catering to a demographic of immature (immature, not underage, please don't mix that up) people simply because they think it hurts the image. Why should we stop ourselves from having fun if other people disapprove? We're knowingly censoring our own industry, just to try and prove that we can be more than immature gamers.

I understand that, I really do, but the entire industry is not immature, it just has immature examples of games. If we want to be taken more seriously, then we need to educate the people who have the perception that gaming is evil, not bend to their ideals of "what's correct".

 

[Donald L]

The problem is that EA are trying to market and sell their games like movies. They need to market and sell them like videogames. They need to just do these things:

1. Buy up all the advertising space in gaming websites and magazines.
2. Send the game reviewers nice things.
3. Give away some free games.
4. Sell games on Steam.
5. Sponsor sports events.

The first two are the most important. If the gaming press love your game, they will defend it to the death. If they don't, you are stuffed.

 

[The3rdEye]

Its not so much the marketing campaign or if it affects sales,

Really? The second line of the original article is:
"If you only have nine minutes this week to spend on videogames, then stop reading my article and check out Extra Credits as Daniel Floyd, James Portnow, and Allison Theus take EA Games to task for their abominable and offensive marketing campaigns."

Your post to which I was replying to was (emphasis mine)

You dont think that prolonged negative campaigning that EA is currently using wont have an adverse affect? You'd be surprised what can happen if enough people complain.

Be it the perceived morality or consequences, it is the ads we're talking about here. It can be argued that I'm mincing words, but my point is that this should be treated as a broad and sweeping mechanical process, rather than one specific liberty taken on the publisher's part.

its the direction and tactics used during the advertising itself. Fake religious protestors, the supposedly real and upset mothers viewing the game's content, these are the negative points that point to a fundamentally flawed marketing scheme. You dont move your product by harping on the bad so kids will buy it just so they (and their hundreds of friends) can say they were being rebelious or anti-authoritive.

I did originally state that I don't personally agree with their methods, but you seem to be under the false impression that marketing has anything to do with morality. Succinctly stated, marketing is the sum of actions taken in transferring goods or services from the seller to the buyer. When your game reaches 2 million units sold in less than two weeks, it's a pretty fair indicator of a positive reaction to your methods. (Of course at the same time in situations like this, differentiating between units sold as a result of commercials/ads and units sold based on product quality is sticky business at best)

To maximise sales you appeal to the largest and broadest range you can. This is what EA hasnt done.

Many of the responses I've seen in this thread so far erroneously equate their own personal opinion or "buy/no buy" action with the public at large. Appealing to a large audience is all well and good, but it's only useful to a company if

a) That audience has money
b) That audience has money and is willing/able to spend it
c) That audience has money and is willing/able to spend it on YOUR product

Furthermore, if you want to "maximize sales" then the best way to do that is to make bread. Seriously, switch from whatever you're doing and work in/open a bakery. Or make soap. If you want to maximize your consumer base, you need a product everyone needs. If on the other hand your product is a creative work, subject to opinion and individual critique on a mass scale and each successfully pitched customer will only buy one unit, you need to be a little more direct to achieve a measurable impact and then an assured return. The simplest obstacles as I see them are

- Not everyone wants to buy a videogame
- Of those who do, not everyone wants to buy YOUR videogame

So step in marketing to tell you, someone who does buy games and who might buy their game, why you should buy their game. They don't want to convert anyone, they don't want to expand to anyone. They know who is likely to buy their game and they market accordingly, based on what they think we want to see.

2 million units says they were right, it really is that simple.

[/professionalism]

The videogame/movie/music industries all ride on the funds of their patrons, you the customer. A happy customer buys product. You want to slap EA's wrists because you don't agree with their advertising? As a person, stop buying EA games. Don't rant, don't petition, nothing. Just don't buy their games.

 

[jp201]

2 million units says they were right, it really is that simple.

Your joking right? 2 million copies is nothing for EA on a big budget title like medal of honor.

Medal of Honor should have been able to sell much more and shows that the marketing was not good enough.

 

[The3rdEye]

2 million units says they were right, it really is that simple.

You're joking right? 2 million copies is nothing for EA on a big budget title like medal of honor.

Medal of Honor should have been able to sell much more and shows that the marketing was not good enough.

I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here. Medal of Honor barely broke the 1 million unit mark in it's first two weeks worldwide, so you say that the marketing was poor. I don't agree or disagree with you, but when one considers that Gears of War 2, a rather successful (?) and well financed (?) title has an opening two week sales of 2.5 million, that should indicate that Dead Space 2, who is enjoying similar numbers can be considered a success as well, doesn't it?

 

[SIXVI06-M]

EA's marketing tactics are so incredibly dated... people would have thought these shock-tactics and tacky and immature campaigns would be impressive and clever in the 80's maybe.

Seriously, shave the mullet and actually try to connect with your customers.

 

[bushwhacker2k]

One company isn't going to damage an entire industry, so please, everyone. Stop overreacting.

... I believe you are mistaken.

Every company that pulls these big over-the-top schemes because it 'sounded good at the time' damages the industry somewhat. World of Warcraft is a great game, but its monumental success has brought many other companies to the conclusion that making a game just like it is the way to bring in the dough. I don't know what company did it (though maybe several did) but the same thing seems to have happened with FPSs(and I'm not saying FPSs are bad, just uninspired and getting generic). I would also like to add I respect Halo(for example for FPSs) and WoW, as both are great games IMO.

Those examples are differing from the particular point of this video, I'll get back to that now.

Things like this are what make people think video games are bad influences and unsuitable for children (though generally those are rated M, but since when has that argument worked?). It's because of thoughtless marketing like this that people launch entire crusades against the gaming industry. Maybe you're right, one company wouldn't cause that, but even if 5 companies did the same thing, could they all just blame each other? I think not, responsibility has to be taken for one's own actions.

I really do hope EA is learning from this, in a good way. >:|

Ok, but do you know why company's follow others? Because it makes money. If it makes money then doesn't that, by its own merit, mean that /that/ right there is what people want?

I have an issue with a website trying to make a company stop catering to a demographic of immature (immature, not underage, please don't mix that up) people simply because they think it hurts the image. Why should we stop ourselves from having fun if other people disapprove? We're knowingly censoring our own industry, just to try and prove that we can be more than immature gamers.

I understand that, I really do, but the entire industry is not immature, it just has immature examples of games. If we want to be taken more seriously, then we need to educate the people who have the perception that gaming is evil, not bend to their ideals of "what's correct".

That's probably true, I believe we DO need to make them understand that our demographic isn't the kind that corrupts children. On the other hand I STILL think gaming as a whole should be more mature. I've stated before (in other threads) that the group that annoys me the most is the group that sees the generic/overused/immature things and approves of them.

 

[DeadlyYellow]

As I've said before in some of the other threads that cropped up about Dead Space 2: EA is to be congratulated for making me feel ashamed of the gaming media.

 

[Skratt]

Good luck getting through to them. They (EA executives) look down their nose at gamers and they don't see themselves as doing anything wrong. They've got their salary and the company is turning a profit - where's the motivation to give two shits? Even if the public rose up en mass, they might change, but they still wouldn't think they were doing anything wrong.

That was a very gentle taking to task as well Shamus. They deserve worse. Their culture is broken and short of a replacement, is not going to change. I know, I've worked for two companies with broken cultures, one went bankrupt, the other is now highly successful. Guess which one changed the top brass?

 

[Chewster]

When you begin to look at video game labour, you start to see that it isn't the most ideal industry to work in and EA is at the top of the heap for being one of the worst of the bunch (EA Spouse anyone?) Thus, all their recent shenanigans don't surprise me all that much. They aren't nice.

I don't find they put out much worthy of support anyway, though they seem to be getting their hands in more and more pies these days.

 

[Afro Man]

The most sensible way to defeat a senseless ad-campaign: ignore it.
The most sensible way to protest a corporation you don't agree with: Don't do business with them.

That's the best way to do it, but your still one out of millions of people who might or might not do the same.