Study Shows Violence Helps In-Game Advertising

[Andy Chalk]

Study Shows Violence Helps In-Game Advertising

A surprising new study has revealed that violence in videogames actually helps boost the effectiveness of in-game advertising, despite the fact that players spend less time looking at the ads.

It doesn't make much sense on the surface: When you're busy running down innocent citizens and trying to see through gobs of greasy red blood smeared across your windshield, you just don't have a lot of time to spend looking at billboards for Monster Lo-Carb or the next big thing from EA Sports. Yet according to a study conducted by American and European researchers, players of violent videogames actually exhibit better retention of in-game ads than people who play non-violent games.

Test subjects played one of two versions of a simple driving game called AdRacer, developed by André Melzer of the University of Luxembourg. In the non-violent version of the game, players would drive along a course, scoring points by hitting targets; in the violent version, subjects scored points by running down pedestrians, resulting in a blood-spattered windshield and, one would think, a far cooler gaming experience.

"Unobtrusive graphical ads" were displayed in the game as roadside billboards, while players' eye movements were tracked to determine what they were looking at. Players of the violent version of the game "showed fewer and shorter eye fixations on the billboard ads," according to the study abstract [http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1483463], yet demonstrated "superior brand retrieval" when compared to those who played the non-violent version.

The results run contrary to similar research conducted on television viewers, which came to the more expected conclusion that violence distracts viewers from advertising. "Hence, caution seems to be recommended in transferring standard results from the 'passive' TV medium to the interactive game medium," the study abstract warned.

Source: Technology Review [http://www.technologyreview.com/business/23336/]


Permalink

 

[Proteus214]

People tend to remember things from experiences they like. Gamers like violent games. Pretty simple actually.

 

[TheNumber1Zero]

-Gasp- people like violence?!I'm shocked

...

wait,no I'm not,but it's always nice when someone confirms what you think.

thank you

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

I think this makes sense.

In a passive medium like TV, violence will be the focus of attention.

In an active medium like games, the source of the violence will be the focus of attention, so you'll be paying more attention to your surroundings.

 

[whaleswiththumbs]

I think this is in part to trying to remember specific ancedotal moments in yourviolent game, if that didnt make sense:
People pay attention to where and what was there when something violent happens cause we are more likely to want to talk about it later.

 

[unangbangkay]

People tend to remember things from experiences they like. Gamers like violent games. Pretty simple actually.

Right, and like it or not, violence, or at least violent games, demand more attention from the player.

One might think that the player would be distracted from the ads, but the violence embeds the entire situation more fully in the mind, making it easier to recall all portions of the experience, including the ads that you may not have noticed at the time.

 

[uppitycracker]

I'd be willing to put money on the idea that this is a result of people in violent video games having a lot more attention to the small details, as well as their surroundings. Otherwise, they'll get destroyed. Puzzle games? People tend to focus more on the puzzle itself, and (depending on the type of puzzle game), less to the walls around it. Just a guess, but one I feel pretty confident about.


Or maybe violence just makes you smart. Hell, I think I might enjoy that theory a bit more.

 

[CustomMagnum]

Players of the violent version of the game "showed fewer and shorter eye fixations on the billboard ads," according to the study abstract [http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1483463], yet demonstrated "superior brand retrieval" when compared to those who played the non-violent version.

The fact that the players are looking at less ads overall just might have something to do with this. I mean, makes sense to me. Less ads seen = more likely to remember ads seen.

 

[Sniper430]

I actually thought of the whole concept of subliminal messaging when I read this, seeing an image faster results in better memory retention...

 

[Shycte]

I guess violence makes you more focused or something like that.

Hitting targets is like "Ya ya, whatever" While splatting someones brain all over the place really sucks you in...

Do I have issues?...

 

[Desert Tiger]

Politicians worldwide halt their policies on violent videogames and begin phonecalls to Rockstar to advertise their political campaigns.

 

[jamesworkshop]

Prototype must be marketing Gold

 

[XJ-0461]

I think this makes sense.

In a passive medium like TV, violence will be the focus of attention.

In an active medium like games, the source of the violence will be the focus of attention, so you'll be paying more attention to your surroundings.

When you put it that way, it does make sense. Guess I've got to agree with this study then.

 

[Aardvark]

That's rubbish, I've been playing Fight Night for years and haven't been affected in the least.

Now I must go and heat up my Burger King Whopper on my George Foreman grill.

 

[Generic_Dave]

Yeah, makes sense, when you're trying to kill something, it tends to move (the targets would not). So the subjects were not only driving the vehicle but also "aiming" it. When "aiming" we focus more intensely (for example, I can smoke and play most games during the non shooting / aimy bits, but for violence I have to stub it out).

Because I find when I hit something I'm not usually focused on the explosion (after the first or second bang, they're all the same) but on my next target, scanning the horizon, trying to see every box or wall that could hold my next bloody splatter, whereas on tv the explosion is the focus. And if the ads are there, I'll be more focused when I see them.

 

[Pendragon9]

I can see this research being applied into future games.

"Grand Theft Pepsi: Soda City."

It would be so violent sales of their soda would go up 100%.

 

[Sixties Spidey]

Will I be compelled to buy something after the guy I hit with my car propels and gets impaled by a gigantic Pepsi Bottle? NO.

Actually, Pretty hypocritical coming from the guy who bought Gamer Fuel when Halo 3 came out.

 

[Sylocat]

It actually works BECAUSE we're distracted from it, and don't notice it consciously. It's been proven many times that an ad we don't consciously notice is much more effective than one we think about.

 

[scotth266]

In an active medium like games, the source of the violence will be the focus of attention, so you'll be paying more attention to your surroundings.

This is all that really needs to be said on the matter. In a violent game world, you constantly have to be on the lookout for threats, and as such your general awareness level goes up.