It's OK to Advertise - If We Like You

[Echolocating]

I remember how amazed I was when I saw my first TV commercial in a theatre.

Game advertising has happened and will continue to grow. You'll reach the flag in Mario and be treated to a 15-second toothpaste commercial soon.

I've gone without cable TV for a few years now... and it's been wonderful. The people I work with are finally starting to not bother me with, "Did you see that commercial for the blah, blah, blah?" I got so sick of the commercials that I swore off cable TV. I still buy a few of the newer TV shows on DVD and it's amazing to watch a show for the first time without interruptions. I can't wait to pick up Heroes on DVD. ;-)

In the end, we have a choice; either put up with it... or don't buy it. I don't think there's a middle ground unless gaming companies offer a more expensive advert-free version of their products.

 

[Arbre]

In the end, we have a choice; either put up with it... or don't buy it. I don't think there's a middle ground unless gaming companies offer a more expensive advert-free version of their products.

Which might be a good thing. For most of the cases, it's just a question of changing a very, very small percentage of your texture set with standard ad-free surfaces, and I don't believe that the out-of-the-game advertising would be that different from one version to another that it would engender significant costs.
We actually have a medium which can allow this for very little efforts.

 

[Russ Pitts]

I would not object to an ad-free alternative, depending on how the pricing structure pans out. Then again, you still have to make a good game to put under all of those ads, and that's where a lot of folks get lost.

 

[JohnBaker]

Electronic Arts inserts a sheet that blithely informs you it will collect information on your surfing habits, so IGA Worldwide can deliver in-game ads

I thought I might mention that EA's games, like Madden and Need for Speed, will give you adverts based on the web pages you visit. Just adding even more intrusion with their adverts.

I felt compelled to sign up.

I am involved a fair bit with in-game advertising but AFAIK it is not the case that spyware is used. The 3rd Party Ad agencies/networks that provide ads for EA games IGA or Massive (not totally clear who does what game and it keeps changing) don't do this. There is no spyware provided by them - they do not look at your Internet logs, etc. They use the IP address of the gamer to get "targeted" ads. In theory different brands have can advertise different languages or brand names (eg AXE in US and most of the world, LYNX in UK) in different countries. This has been misinterpreted gamers by some as spyware.

Sorry I thought I would make that clear, other than that an interesting discussion.

The initial post/news about the fickleness of gamers can at the same time be attached to other media. Films for example. 2 action films with Brad Pitt in it made by the same writers, producers, etc. Why did film x become a boxoffice success and film y become a flop. Maybe movie goers are fickle too and music lover, theatre goers, etc?

It is not so easy to explain. No-one can predict the future.

Really the amount companies wanting to advertising isn't too great at the moment and most only want to advertiser in AAA titles and even a full catalgue the publishers/dev house will only get 1 or 2 dollar back per game shipped. Not huge savings/profit (depending on how you look at it) but sure is enough to get interest.

At the moment it is still nearly all like "product placement" rather than "overt subsidy" (they don't stop the gameplay for a 30 second commerical. And like any new medium/sport/etc where ads are not present and introduced they are disliked by some initially.

Also different parts of the world have different ideas of what expectations are and gaming is more of a global business. I am from the UK and in sports, for example, football (soccer) teams have sponsers on the front of the shirts (and most of European soccer teams) but I get the impression that in the US there main sports American football, etc don't have brand sponsers on them. So what is common for one might be more alien to others.

 

[Geoffrey42]

At the moment it is still nearly all like "product placement" rather than "overt subsidy" (they don't stop the gameplay for a 30 second commerical. And like any new medium/sport/etc where ads are not present and introduced they are disliked by some initially.

All 30 second spots in the middle of shows may be "overt subsidies", but not all "overt subsidies" have to be 30 second spots. Banners on internet sites, to me, would qualify as overt subsidies, but they're not forcing me to stop reading the site, or absorbing content. Giant billboards in videogames where they don't add to immersion are more overt subsidy than product placement, because they don't fit. And as I said before, the reason people get upset (IMHO) is because they don't see the subsidy, just the overt. There's this giant ad in the middle of my medieval town, and its obvious that SOMEONE is getting paid for it, but for some reason I still paid "full price" for the game. Perception is key.

Also different parts of the world have different ideas of what expectations are...

I could not agree more. One of the key points is that you have to deal with the expectations of every customer you hope to attract, even as they change in different parts of the world.

...and gaming is more of a global business.

As are many other products which international companies sell. This does not give any company a "get out of jail free" card when it comes to dealing with regional differences in how their product or marketing is perceived. See the Chevy Nova as a classic case of "Well, it tested well in the US, I'm sure it'll play well in other markets."

I am from the UK and in sports, for example, football (soccer) teams have sponsers on the front of the shirts (and most of European soccer teams) but I get the impression that in the US there main sports American football, etc don't have brand sponsers on them. So what is common for one might be more alien to others.

There is a distinct difference between ads on jerseys (or ads superimposed in the middle of the playing field a la American Football) and an advertisement which is so out of context that it detracts from the current endeavor. We have ads all over many things, such as auto-racing, and no one minds, because it doesn't harm the end goal of the exercise, which is fast cars. Ads all over our subways and our bus stops do not prevent those things from functioning as intended. Ads in games which destroy immersion are disliked because they work against the medium in which they are being used.

I am not saying that ads in games cannot work (or that no one would complain if they were done well; someone always complains). Advertisers and game designers just have to rethink the way they're doing it due to the challenges presented by the medium.

 

[JohnBaker]

Thank you for the reply it is the sensible discussion I have seen about in-game ads I have seen. I either read the pro OTT more like press releases from the in-game ad networks or predictable 11 year kid Slashdot type commentary "I'll never buy another game that has ads in it ever I paid my money!!!!!!111111!!!!ONE. GO to h3LL"

All 30 second spots in the middle of shows may be "overt subsidies", but not all "overt subsidies" have to be 30 second spots. Banners on internet sites, to me, would qualify as overt subsidies, but they're not forcing me to stop reading the site, or absorbing content. Giant billboards in videogames where they don't add to immersion are more overt subsidy than product placement, because they don't fit. And as I said before, the reason people get upset (IMHO) is because they don't see the subsidy, just the overt. There's this giant ad in the middle of my medieval town, and its obvious that SOMEONE is getting paid for it, but for some reason I still paid "full price" for the game. Perception is key.

True some ads can be foolish placements and true the line blurs which your decent definitions of different types of ads.

I think it is stupid logic to place ads in worlds where they look out of place like your example. Most people that look at the growing industry of in-game ads do too.

However I do not see this happening too much. Ads are in games where they are not out of place not many medieval RPGs have billboards for this century's products. I believe there is more scope too for ads to be in these games but as a more tongue-in-cheek variety and inject a little humour into it. Maybe "ye olde Budweiser" in the local inn. Complete with Budweiser logos behind the bar looking like they are chiseled out of oak, etc.

Although this is nowhere near the ideal situation adding ads to more unsuitable games. And I don't believe we will see any/many of these in the future. Lessons have been learned and the Big 3 in game ad agencies/networks (Massive, IGA, Double Fusion) all now have more focus/pride themselves for their seamless integration into the games. In fact many WANT to intergrate with product placement much more they are already. More branded Sony/Nokia?etc PDAs when you pull up you map or read your next mission in game. Getting the ad agnecies (who want it as there idea and often don't know the limitation or have any idea what can be done with games) There are no consultants on advising people in the arena as far as I've been able to work out. People that run the V-lodge startup (http://www.v-lodge.com) are the closest I have seen but this will come.

I also disagree the main reason is the overtness of ads (or what I see as overt) in some if not many cases - it is the fact that ads are there now and were not before. Take sports team sponsors is that if suddenly they in the US they started adding ads to sports shirt no doubt some quarters would complain. Are they complaining that the ads are too overt they stop there enjoyment of the game? or on a more basic level they don't want ads on their shirts?

I am sure every area where ads have been added over the last hundred years there is some resistance but we accept it generally and move on. I am not saying it is right just what happens.

The ads in medieval type game settings I am not even sure that has even happened, at least it hasn't as a generic billboard type that you fear. I think generally the ads that are in place; billboards in football sims, Racing games, etc, etc are not really overt. Where you see them in real life and considerably less then in real life if you really look at it at asports event, etc. Ads say in Counterstike if done right I can see no real harm. There is no place for (really) overt ads and most really are not them at the moment they are more like product placement like I said. In fact these ads are more likely to be targeted at your spefic demographic than the more general one of in the actual live sports so they are more relevant to you.

If you know of any ads in actual games that are overly overt then please let me know. I don't want to see tampons in the men's room either.

I think there is a climate of hysteria about ads in games they mostly are just replacing generic billboards/brands (shops, etc) you have seen in locations your GTA and older sports sims, etc with real ads now. So not all that overt.

I could not agree more. One of the key points is that you have to deal with the expectations of every customer you hope to attract, even as they change in different parts of the world.

As are many other products which international companies sell. This does not give any company a "get out of jail free" card when it comes to dealing with regional differences in how their product or marketing is perceived. See the Chevy Nova as a classic case of "Well, it tested well in the US, I'm sure it'll play well in other markets."

Very true. I made my point poorly. I meant that games are more global in that they are very much the same in multiple markets and the ads method of delivery will be the same. The billboard will be in the same place no matter if you by the game in Chile or Germany. True they CAN change the ad on the billboard based on your geolocation but the delivery is the same. Launching a product will often vastly different ad campaigns for each company and often the product will change too a Budweiser beer is a different beer in the US than the UK (classed as a premium beer over here and 5% alcohol volume where I think over there is is like 3%) and different product (alcohol %age and taste) on draught or in bottles, etc. Same with chocolate, soft drinks, soap powder, etc. Whereas music, films, games change very little in comparison.

There is a distinct difference between ads on jerseys (or ads superimposed in the middle of the playing field a la American Football) and an advertisement which is so out of context that it detracts from the current endeavor. We have ads all over many things, such as auto-racing, and no one minds, because it doesn't harm the end goal of the exercise, which is fast cars. Ads all over our subways and our bus stops do not prevent those things from functioning as intended. Ads in games which destroy immersion are disliked because they work against the medium in which they are being used.
I am not saying that ads in games cannot work (or that no one would complain if they were done well; someone always complains). Advertisers and game designers just have to rethink the way they're doing it due to the challenges presented by the medium.

Are you arguing about the placement of the ads (adverts in the middle of the football field) or the ads themselves (tampons advertised in the middle of the football field)?

Both are a problem really. The placement of the ad and the context of the ad to the viewer.

Ads are generally seen as ok to be placed in the mens room (so placement ok) but Tampons not be advertised there (the context is wrong).

Generally though I think we are thinking the same points if the ad is placed well right and context and is the right type of ads. It is just that ads need to be done correctly (and I believe 99% of the time they are from what I have seen - true some could be done better but nothing "wrong")

 

[Geoffrey42]

All in all, JohnBaker, I'm mostly in agreement with you. Yes, the in-game advertising industry is experiencing growing pains, and as it matures, the ads will be better integrated, and fall more cleanly into my original 3 categories than many do now. Agreed.

The billboard in my medieval town was a form of hyperbole, extreme exaggeration with the intent of making a point. I've never seen it happen, and I doubt most developers or advertisers are dumb enough to make it a reality. I was just trying to illustrate the far end of the spectrum in order to help define the spectrum of immersive to non-immersive ads.

I have no issue with the ads in the middle of the field. In theory, I don't think there is any placement of an ad that cannot work (print, TV, videogame, or other); it's just a matter of finding the right ad and the right style to fit that placement.

In reading your response, a new thought occurred to me in terms of the challenge facing videogame advertisements. When playing a videogame, more often than not, I'm engaged in some sort of personal fantasy or role-playing scenario. Puzzle games like Bejeweled aside, I am either Kratos, or Sora, or Amaterasu, or a NOD Commander, or the Master Chief. When advertisers place ads in games, they have to be melding them to the environment of those characters in the game, but the advertisers still want to sell to ME, the 18-24 yo male. There is a disconnect between who I am as the "The Consumer" and as "The Protagonist."

This goes back to some points made earlier where people said that a gamer is living the fantasy of driving an Italian supercar, only to be reminded by the ad for AXE body spray that they really drive a Corolla. Who are the ads in the game for? (To clarify, I'm really thinking of in-game ads like virtual billboards, not product placements here) "The Protagonist" or "The Consumer"? So long as they keep aiming billboards at "The Consumer", I will be continually forced out of my role as "The Protagonist" which is why I'm playing the game to start with. Going back to Arbre's mentioning of Coca-Cola ads in Blade Runner: they made the ads in such a way that you could believe they were trying to sell Coke to Deckard, (The Protagonist), and not necessarily to me (The Consumer). Its easier, because in a movie, (or book, or TV show) The Protagonist and The Consumer are not the same person. Games make it ever so much harder because The Consumer is pretending to be The Protagonist, and they don't like being reminded that they aren't really the hero.

This is sort of tangential to the question of ads at large in games, focusing more on virtual ads displayed in games, rather than just advertising in games in general. I have no answer for this problem, I'm just pointing it out, and seeing if anyone else has further thoughts.

 

[Russ Pitts]

In reading your response, a new thought occurred to me in terms of the challenge facing videogame advertisements. When playing a videogame, more often than not, I'm engaged in some sort of personal fantasy or role-playing scenario. Puzzle games like Bejeweled aside, I am either Kratos, or Sora, or Amaterasu, or a NOD Commander, or the Master Chief. When advertisers place ads in games, they have to be melding them to the environment of those characters in the game, but the advertisers still want to sell to ME, the 18-24 yo male. There is a disconnect between who I am as the "The Consumer" and as "The Protagonist."

This is an excellent and critical point, I think, and perhaps explains why advertising "feels" like it works better in sports or driving games, where we're not accepting a fantasy role, per se. But what's the solution to that, for advertisers? As a fantasy hero, you have no needs or wants beyond surviving the trials of the game, or perhaps grabbing a bigger gun. Things like body odor or hunger don't really come into play - that's why we play after all, to forget such mundane matters. How do you introduce advertising into a game of that kind in a way that doesn't ruin the escapist experience? Or is such a thing even possible?

I guess this brings me back to one of my first questions to all of you guys, about how you, as consumers (or developers if there are any lurking about) think we can bridge the divide. Obviously the answer from the peanut gallery is going to be "don't do it at all," but I'm speaking practically, from a developer/advertiser point of view. Ads are a fact of life, and they will be coming to more games near you in the years ahead. The die is cast, all we can hope to do is deflect the worst of it.

So how can we rectify the needs of the developers - to have ads in games - with our preferences as consumers that they not be distracting? After all, ads are *supposed* to be distracting, or at least attention-getting. That's the point. Isn't it?

 

[Russ Pitts]

I've been thinking a lot about the phenomenon that's (admittedly) not unique to gaming, but is nevertheless prevalent in our "society" - T-shirts. I went home the other day and saw a t-shirt for this game, a T-shirt for that game ... T-shirts of conferences, etc. It's true that sports teams take advantage of this kind of fandom - this desire to proclaim one's affection for a brand - but gamers are really over the top with this. We'll wear T-shirts advertising games we don't even like all that much, and each one has a logo, a full-color picture and a sometimes a little product description blurb. The difference between T-shirts and wall posters is slim, and T-shirts have the added advantage of moving around.

Anyway, my thought in relation to in-game advertising was that perhaps, when we're so willing to run around bearing the standard of things we like, we, as gamers, (without making a value judgement) have a slightly skewed view of advertising. We're willing to wear Nintendo T-shirts until the literally fall off our bodies, but Tag bodyspray ads give us hives.

Is this a choice issue? Are we saying that we'll devote our bodies to the cause, but it has to be our cause? Or does anyone disagree that sporting a T-shirt is brand advertising?

 

[Geoffrey42]

All goes back to context.

When I'm wearing my Nintendo 'shroom shirt, Itsa ME, not Mario. When playing Mario, Itsa me, Mario, and I could care less about Tag body spray. (Disclaimer: I have never seen an ad in a Mario game, just try and glean my point)

I think it's a very small minority that is religiously against all advertising, and that's how you seem to be portraying gamers when you say "we... have a slightly skewed view of advertising." People may say "Advertising is EVIL!!" then turn around and go "Oooooo, Galaga tie, schweet!" This isn't because they hate all advertising, and are being contradictory. It's because you aren't placing their hate of CERTAIN advertising in context, ie, poorly placed, un-immersive in-game ads. (For those people who do truly hate all forms of advertisement, there's really no point in debating about them or discussing with them, because you're not going to get anywhere anytime soon.)

Also, everyone loves schwag, so even if we dislike a game, we have a free t-shirt. There are various reasons for wearing a shirt for a game you don't like or have never played, some of them being "Look, I'm cool, I get free stuff for being connected to the industry" and "I have no idea what my shirt says, it smelled the least bad when i pulled it off the floor" and of course "Retro is cool, and my grandpappy tells me they played games where you could actually SEE the individual sprites back in his day, ipso facto my shirt is cool." Or maybe, you really like the game, and the shirt was free, and that's just a bonus.

To your questions:
1. I'm not sure what you're asking about being a "choice issue". Are we choosing what ads we like and don't like? Is it an active choice, or a passive choice? I like Red Stripe ads, so I choose to pay attention to them, and I dislike the Mt Dew sock puppet ad's sales pitch at the end, so I choose to ignore it. What am I missing?
2. Yes, we will devote our bodies to our cause. Few people want to devote their bodies to someone else's cause unless they also believe in it, at which point it becomes their cause anyway.
3. I don't think anyone can correctly disagree that T-shirt's are advertising. We may not be wearing them for the purpose of advertising, but the effect of advertising still exists. Again, I don't understand your angle here (unless we go back to the assumption that advertisements are anathema to gamers, which I already stated I disagree with.)

 

[Arbre]

Bridge the divide.
That's a nice expression, that sums it all. I assume you mainly talk about advertisement incorporated into the games' universes. So we'll leave the ads that orbit around a product aside (spyware installed, ticket and flyers in the box, web links in the "about" page or whatelse).

rules I think remain rather simple to point out (but harder to apply):

- Analyze the world, the universe, and see if there's room ads. Don't put ads in Lord of the Ring.

- Spend lots of money in the marketing dpt, in thinking your ads, in the way they're going to be placed, if there's going to be modifications to suit the environment and the spirit of the game (analogy: notice how studios like Warner Bros tweak their opening credits to suit the film's mood), so it runs smooth along the game.

The issue is the same as in the films. Safe that this medium is more mature, and has a complete marketing machine that's well oiled now, running in parallel, when it comes to market study and advertisement placement.
Sometimes, the results still feel a bit forced, but not as much as it does in video games.
We just have to be patient.

 

[John Funk]

I do have to agree that it's mainly the immersion--but also a sense of... almost being insulted. Say, in some hypothetical game, I'm about to blow that guy's head off with my sniper rifle in 2062 Tokyo [or wherever] and he's right below a billboard (in English) for Old Spice. It feels like they certainly don't have a high opinion of our mental capabilities if they think we won't notice it's out of place. But that's a minor thing--I agree that the real issues is one of immersion.

I think advertising CAN work in games, and could actually help that feeling of immersion. With the aforementioned GH example--if I'm rocking out on a legit Fender Stratocaster, it really does amplify the feeling of being a world-famous rock star on a stage with legions of adoring fans. If I play Madden and there are billboards all around the stadium... well, that's how they are in real life. Perhaps it allows me to imagine that I'm ACTUALLY the coach down there on the sidelines, leading my team to victory in a multi-million dollar stadium with thousands of screaming fans in attendance.

It can work in other ways, too (the "Bloodweiser" idea Cheeze_Pavilion said earlier made me snicker, and I think I'd find that clever, rather than insulting). Let's say that the devs of GTA4 need to go the advertising route. If I'm our Slavic anti-hero engaged in a shootout in someone's apartment, and I blast their pantry with a shotgun, and boxes of Kraft EasyMac or Cheerios or whatever fall out? That's subtle, and it's a nice touch that adds realism. Or if you can examine a TV up close and it's a Sony. Or if he uses a Nokia cell-phone. Or if he offers a woman a light with his trusty Bic lighter. Those ADD immersion, not take away from it.

Similarly, if I'm involved in post-apocalyptic urban warfare somewhere in the US in, say, 2045, and I see a bullet-riddled billboard for Ford? That also adds realism and immersion, and I think that if the advertisers paid a little more attention to WHERE they were posting things and the actual content of what was being put up? I wouldn't have much of a problem at all.

But I don't want Master Chief to tell the awestruck Marines that he became who he is by eating Wheaties every day.

 

[Russ Pitts]

I really have come to feel in the course of this thread that it's that simple. If the advertisement adds value to the product, gamers will clamor for it. If it takes away value, they'll reject it.

Throw the ball, hit the ball, catch the ball. That's baseball. It's simple, if you know how to play it.

I think your formula is correct, and that it is simple. Baseball simple. But deciding what adds and what detracts, when your target audience themselves often can;'t agree is hard, and why marketers often fail.

 

[Russ Pitts]

There's also the matter of having to pay the bills, and not always getting to choose who wants to advertise with you.