There's a long and colorful thread attached to the Slashdot post about this article. It's interesting to read the players' responses to the idea. Most of them believe that advertising won't change the retail cost of games, and I think I agree with them.

I'm currently hacking an article together on this subject. It's a topic which (unsurprisingly) most gamers have strong opinions on. I can't comment on Neilson's tracking strategy, but Massive Incorporated, the other major player in the ad-tracking game, seems to be lifting their model directly from web banners. Massive's in-game ads are just another form of internet ad, in that they are dynamically-downloaded, targetted at those gamers who have supplied demographic info, and can be minutely measured.

The larger issue at hand for gamers is the appropriateness of the advertising. Some (as in the Slashdot thread) are wondering what's in it for them. It's rare to see that kind of scrutiny related to advertising. Personally, I'm pleased to see how media-aware gamers are.

Tony, please do share the article when it's out.

As I've written here on WCG before, I remain unconvinced that in-game ads have the same phenomenal function as banner ads or outdoor ads.

As Gonzalo said, there's clearly more potential for in-game ads that go beyond the oldschool tecniques.

It's probably also worth pointing out that "formal" ad performance reports like Nielsen are little more than a codependent fantasy of the media and advertising industries. It's a collective hallucination (pace William Gibson).

I'll post a link back here when it goes live.

I'm reserving judgement on the effectiveness in-game banners until I see exactly how they're implemented. I think selling them to gamers is the first hurdle, then we'll see if the idea actually had merit in the first place.

I am in complete agreement with your last point. This collective hallucination is shared among marketers, publishers, developers, and even the media. It's the same kind of wilfull ignorance that resulted in the dot bomb era. Statistics regarding hits/impressions don't really describe anything other than the scope of a deployed campaign. To correlate this with the effectiveness of a campaign isn't very wise.

It seems that the approach from Massive is going to be the one that most agencies jump on. They're still thinking that everything should be measured in impressions, and that's something most easily captured through dynamically driven data (ahh... the 3 d's).

As much as gamers may think this is cool, it's going to really turn some smiles into frowns when at 2pm, every pedestrian in GTA4 turns into Ronald McDonald. Hey, the impressions are measureable, but the player just got the impression he's going to play offline for a little while to break the link.

My point is simple: the mindset has to be totally changed when it comes to gaming in advertising and advergaming. The first question needs to be how to connect the brand to the game in a meaningful and constructive way. Having the gamers build an appreciation for the advertising will drive them to continue playing, and maybe even spend more time using/admiring the ad.

I've got a paper for further reading, but this one definitely focuses more on advertising in gaming. Four clear examples of advertising that isn't product placement, or just billboard ads -- oh, and I made all the cute graphics myself!

http://www.kevinglennon.com/articles/digitaldiapers.pdf

Kevin, I get a 404 on that URL.

Just wanted to respond to your statement "As much as gamers may think this is cool..." There are two sets of statistics that I'll be referencing in my article, that when analyzed, show that only a small percentage of gamers will appreciate this form of advertising. If you review the comments at Slashdot and elsewhere, you'll see quite a lot of indignation regarding this marketing push. Many gamers are wondering what they're getting out of all this. If Massive and its partnered publishers handle their deployment poorly, they could help to bring about the same kind of consumer backlash that resulted from an excess of annoying internet banners.

FWIW, I think part of the reason gamers are indignant is not because they are against advertising as such (some are), but rather because they too see the impression-based, oldschool ads as devoid of value for consumers or brands -- without knowing it, they are themselves active critics of the advertising industry.

I hate to keep harping on it, but the so-called "creative" advertising industry is really as conservative as it gets. Putting the equivant of banner ads in games is like putting a chapel in a strip club.

Kevin, I've had your paper for some time and have been meaning to comment on it, but I haven't had a chance yet. I'll endeavor to do that soon.

Sorry Tony, meant to capitalize those D's:

http://www.kevinglennon.com/articles/DigitalDiapers.pdf

Or simply go to the kevinglennon.com/articles section, and that should work fine.

Personally, I think you're dead-on with your comments, and fear that's precisely what's going to happen. I'd gladly read what you've got when it's out -- it would be really nice to see something on it. Maybe I should qualify my statement with something like, "as much as they *think* it's going to be cool, the reality may be that it's not what they thought it would be," or something like that. Also, what's going to happen to Massive's solution once gamers start tweaking their firewalls?

Ian -- nice analogy! I worked at Arnold for a while, and ended up leaving because I wasn't really appreciated for trying to show them how their "creative" solutions were really terribly lame. When I suggested (for example) that we use image servers and vector-based graphics for the Royal Caribbean web site (to magnify in and out from the whole ship view right up to the mints on the pillows), they thought I was "overdoing it," and a simple PDF of the entire ship was creative enough.

Mind you, these are the same people who brought you that wonderful TheTruth.com game where you run away from toxic smoke or mutate. So, I guess that would have been explanation enough...

Hey,

Glad you've seen the light - traditional metrics aren't good enough for online, which is a rich data source when you have a lot of interactivity going on.

So, with games and rich media ads, there is the opportunity to really drill down into the user's mind by engaging them in ways that aren't possible offline.

To this end I've recently set up a new agency devoted to interactivity, focusing on in-game branding and RM ads. We've signed our first games publisher and I'm hoping to boost our portfolio at the EGN event in Docklands this week. Clients will follow, if we're to believe what the analysts suggest in terms of market forecasts.

There is a lot of scope for in-game branding and multiplayer gaming events more broadly. We're on the lookout for strategic partnerships so if either of you want to point anybody our way then please do.

Advertising is a bit different. The problem with rich media is that most people are using it to get around the pop-up blockers, by running overlays and other intrusive ad campaigns. We should be using it in different ways, handing over the controls to the user, rather than forcing them to interact.

Anyhow, the upshot is that for games and rich media ads, we're measuring the 'interaction rate', which can be sub-divided into various metrics to help benchmark success and find out all about those consumers that have bothered to interact.

In terms of ROI, surely this is the way forward for online. In terms of technology, isn't this the best way to be using the platform?

cheers,

chris

chris --

Hey man, this ain't no Ad Week! We talk english here on WCG. What does "interaction rate" mean? What are the "various metrics?"

This sounds a little like YaYa's ill-fated "cost per time engaged" metric. Sound and fury, signifying nothing, etc. etc.?

I'm not being coy... I just don't see the details. How does it work? And why? Reinventing more Prada-suited martini-sipping Razor scooter-riding adpimps just sounds like an ungratifying way to reinvent the medium.

Hi folks,

My Mindjack article entitled "Banner Ads Invade Gamespace" is now online- http://www.mindjack.com/feature/bannerads.html

The article centers on banner-style ads (such as those planned by Massive Incorporated), discusses the appropriateness of said ads, and the reaction of gamers. It's about 1500 words, so it's a quick read.

Awesome article, Tony! R&C go to White Castle is right up there as my favorite quip of the day, tied with Ian's "Prada-suited martini-sipping Razor scooter-riding adpimp." Both lines kinda remind me of something The Tick might say...

Chris, got a web site up yet? Would love to see what you're doing.

Anyway, to kinda followup on the point of Frasca's original article (and with all the reading of the links we've all shared), why is it so hard for the big agencies to understand Glennon's One Rule: "Content is Everything"??? Players and surfers *welcome* advertising, as long as they know it's the price to pay for valuable content.

For example, Tony's got ads up on his site, but I have no problems with them, because he's giving us free articles that we want to read. MapQuest inundates me with ads, but they get me to where I'm going.

And sure, that beer web site is all about pushing their product, but playing a Double Dragon-like game of shower room towel fights, man, that's the cat's meow! I'd play that even if I had to watch a 30-second spot between levels!

Heyyyy... I don't have ads on www.ClickableCulture.com or www.SecretLair.com or www.Gloomveil.com and those are the only active domains I've got at the moment. Mindjack.com isn't my site. I do have some micro-sites with banners but the banners are "ads" for my own domains.

What site(s) of mine are you seeing ads on, Kevin?

re: "Players and surfers *welcome* advertising, as long as they know it's the price to pay for valuable content." -- I'd say that folks tolerate ads that are context-appropriate and non-intrusive. They might welcome ads that are (in addition to the previous attributes) related to their interests, and/or entertaining and/or informative.

Ian,

I'm about as far removed from a Prada suit as can possibly be imagined. I thought I was speaking in plain English but I guess I need to clarify.

Take your Howard Dean campaign. What did it tell you? What did you learn about gamers? What are the various forms of measurement you undertook to work out whether it was a success or not? How and what did you report back to those in charge of the purse strings?

*How can you prove your worth to the client?*

The 'interaction rate' is all about learning more about your consumers. If you go to the trouble of designing a game or RM ad to support brand marketing, then surely you want to learn more about who's interacting with your brand?

Think of a banner ad. You might click through, but does that show real intent? No. It tells you nothing.

Now think of a rich media ad. An expandable banner, for example. The user doesn't need to be directed to a microsite - the ad supports data capture and gaming apps, or video/audio, brochure requests, that kind of thing. All of which can be measured.

What is the purpose of the ad? To increase awareness, alter perceptions or drive sales? Or all three? Does the number of clicks tell you anything about why the user has clicked or what they think about the brand?

RM/games can be tremendously viral in the right hands, and I see them working hand-in-hand with each other. When I talk about the interaction rate, I'm talking about learning more about the people who are interacting. You encourage interaction, then you log it, capturing the all-important email address along the way. Surely that's the aim? You can measure so much more than a click, and that's what we're about.

Kevin - website on the way, I'll shout over when we've something to show you ; )

c.

Chris --

While data capture is certainly a viable use for game-based advertising (I've certainly used it), I'm not sure data capture is the sole, or even the best, use of games as advertising tools.

Advertising isn't necessarily about learning more about the people who use it. Advertising is rhetoric. It's about convincing people to tune in to a product or service or change their mind about one. As I said in a comment above, logging interaction threatens (there are surely exceptions, but I stand by my argument) to satisfy only advertising and media agencies. What do the advertisers get out of mouse path reports? Even in the cases where data capture has promise -- one thinks of the various car advergames that have tracked user color preference -- few if any advertisers are doing the work of correlating in-game decisions with real-world decisions. There is no reason they would necessarily be the same.

Email addresses are a touchy one for me. Capturing email for permission-based marketing is one use of any online media campaign (or offline one, for that matter). But there really does have to be an incentive for the consumer to offer up an email address.

Tony points this out in his article: the issue with game advertising is what the consumer gets out of it. I've heard so many times from so many agencies that consumers want "interactivity" and "interaction" ... what does it really mean? I think consumers want value. And the two are not by any means automatic bedfellows.

About the Prada suits... my point was that I look askance at efforts to create a game-based advertising industry that functions like the disfunctional traditional advertising industry.

Ian,

I agree in that data capture isn't the sole or best use of games as branding tools, which is their main purpose. They connect consumers to brands by way of 'interactivity', which is a byword for a game.

But data capture allows you to begin a relationship with the consumer, which is one big step towards the checkout. And it doesn't have to be intrusive - it can be viral or can be competition-based, ie invite a friend to play / register your high score.

Certainly in the online world, there is a significant opportunity to know who you customer is, which goes well beyond other mediums. If you know something about your prospective customers, you can serve up an appropriate online experience, to persuade them ultimately towards the checkout.

Games as advertisements (including games embedded within RM ads) simply help you entice consumers towards your brand, through the medium of fun, rather than the old-school ad strategies that insist on intrusion and poor measurement techniques.

When I talk about encouraging and measuring interaction, I essentially mean finding out what sort of content and offers work, and what formats work best. We can learn by comparing campaigns, and if they feature games, then you should naturally want to know what kind of games work best for any given brand.

Personalisation has re-emerged from its hibernation since the dotcom boom, but only by building accurate user profiles can you create a truly remarkable web experience for users. This extends to microsites, games and rich media ads.

The five key factors in running any online or offline ad campaign are: content/message, format, positioning/placement, targeting and measurement. The more advanced, the better the response, now and in the future.

Games as advertising tools should work very well if all of the above are taken into account, to ultimately create a fabulous time for the consumer. If the content sucks, then there is no value to the consumer and no value to the advertiser, as the consumer will turn a blind eye or be left with a bad taste in the mouth.

If you aren't measuring properly, then you are surely failing to make the most of the web as an interactive medium, because you can't benchmark success and enhance future campaigns for your target audience. It is one key factor of five.

The web, as you rightly suggest, should operate entirely different to the 'disfunctional traditional advertising industry'.

c.

I agree that measurement is often a great way to gauge the success of an effort. Let's face it, most companies want to see in a rather direct fashion how their invested ad bucks turned into (or potentially turned into) increased sales and revenue.

Companies like Massive and DoubleClick make a simple sell, which I think we all agree is something that gamers are going to hate. Heck, I'd wager the average gamer knows a thing or two about computers, and at least uses anti-virus and a firewall of some kind. Pop-up blockers and spam filters are next for most of them (if not already). If any of you want to start making millions now, start developing special firewall software and hardware for game systems now.

My point is that embedding the measurement in the medium is the folly. It works in some places, but it shouldn't be inserted into every place (nor should a "better" square peg be devised to fit through this round hole question). What's wrong with optional surveys? Online, telephone, and on-street polls?

I mean, Neilson can prove 5 million people had their televisions tuned to a certain show on a certain night, but they can't prove diddly that all 5 million of them weren't having a pee while the client's commercial was on. Yet, companies still pay through the teeth for broadcast ads. How do you like those unreliable direct "measurement" apples?

How come game ads are becoming evil all of a sudden, when such practices have been done back in 1980s and nobody complained back then? For the record, Virgin Interactive did a 7-Up game called Cool Spot, Zuul 1 and 2 promoted Chupa Chups Lollipop, Outrun and Initial D featured real life brands of sports cars. Surprisingly, despite being blatant advertisements, nobody complained about those games.

I am using an advergame to raise funds for Fanconi Anemia research in memory of my son, Clifton. Clifton died Jan 13, 2002 from the effects of this disease. Companies are welcomed to participaate.

I'm planning to start some in-game advertising on a site geared towards "tween girls" (age 7-12).

Does anyone have some advice on where to begin. Are there companies out there that facilitate in game ads? Should I start contacting the individual marketing depts.? Affilliate Managers? Ad Agencies?

Any advice would be appreciated.

Scott

Scott: Best to do is to talk to an In-Game Advertising Company.

Just go and have chat with the guys from the IGA Worldwide Network (IGA Partners North America / IGA Partners Europe) The US office is based in NY,NY.

www.iga-partners.com

They do both (Static In-Game Advertising (SIGA) and Dynamic In-Game Advertising (DIGA) and right now they are the only ones to offer services worldwide.

According to the clients brand communication strategy they consult whats practicable to implement advertisement to the benefit of game realisim.

-> Not just to throw Advertisment into the Game like the guys at Massive do. :))

I hope this information can help you...

R.

Very informative site. Good job. when Opponents Make Table Double: http://www.bloglines.com/ , right Table will Loose Girl without any questions Do Table is very good Grass , Game will Circle unconditionally when Mistery Love Round Win