In-Game Advertising Reaching Audiences

Via Joystiq, a report that in-game advertising works quite well. From the article: "A new study released on Monday found that in-game ad campaigns resulted in a 60 percent increase in awareness of new brands. The study, commissioned by in-game ad creators Double Fusion and carried out by Nielsen Interactive Entertainment, tested various forms of ads in the PC game 'Metro3D.' And while the study reported some differences in the effectiveness of animated and static ads, Double Fusion's co-founder, Guy Bendov, said the results weren't what he had expected."

For now..

[pureseth]

I think it may work because people aren't used to seeing ads in games, and IMO they shouldn't. It was probably the same case online, when people weren't used to seeing ads on webpages, they may have noticed them more, but now most people are used to seeing ads on the net and usually disregard them.

If ads are put in games, people will most likely get more used to them after awhile and start to disregard them as they do now with website ads.

Starbucks in the 30s

[Castar]

I think the picture next to the Joystiq article says it all, really. A 30s mobster car driving past a Starbucks - just what I want to see if I'm trying to immerse myself in the world of Al Capone. Starbucks is everywhere in the present, now they're colonizing the past as well...

I don't mind ads in videogames, but there are two rules: I have to benefit somehow by seeing the ads (like a lower price for the game) and the ads have to avoid breaking the illusion. Anything else will just end up ruining the game, and making it worthless to both the player and the advertiser.

Of course, in practice this means advertising will only really be viable in modern games (unless you could cleverly work in some dystopian future where Coke-Glaxxo-Lockheed oppresses citizens. Does that still count as marketing?)

Re:What kind of advertising do slashdotters want?

[Dachannien]

There are a few things that can go into advertising that people will watch. I speak mostly from my own opinion as a consumer of entertainment products, so YMMV depending on who else you ask. But please, if there's anyone out there in a position of power that you can convert into a believer in the principle of Not Annoying Potential Customers, please do so :)

One is humor. People watch the Super Bowl to see two things: the game (and the associated cheerleaders, hehe) and the hilarious commercials that come out each year. Admittedly, I don't drink Budweiser, because their product sucks, but at least they make some damn funny commercials.

Two is informativeness. By this, I mean true informativeness. People are far less likely to mind a quick ad showing what's on TV next weekend, because it provides factual information about the show (excerpts are shown) and when it's on. Likewise, people don't mind actual trailers before movies (though sometimes the sheer vast quantity bothers people), because it gives them a chance to find out what's coming out next summer or holiday season, and gives them the feedback of one's peers as people mutter things like, "Yeah, that's gonna suck," between trailers.

Three, related to informativeness, is tailored interest. Here, I mean a matching of the interests of the viewer with the information provided in the ad. Channels that are already tailored for certain types of customer are great for this sort of thing - for example, an ad for history-related books or DVDs would do well on the History Channel, or an ad for a feminine hygiene product would work well on Lifetime (Television for Victims).

But the more narrowly-tailored the interest category is, the more likely it is that the viewer will take interest. This is why Amazon.com's product suggestions work so well, at least when their system's recommendations aren't thrown off by those gifts you recently bought your niece for her birthday. Also take Planetside for example, which recently started placing ads in-game. An ad for a new graphics card would garner a lot of attention there. Everyone playing that game is at least in the market for new graphics hardware (whether they can afford it or not). Unfortunately, SOE got suckered into running a bunch of Fanta ads, which is one step above running ads for feminine hygiene products there (which, afaik, they haven't done... yet).

One caveat here is that if customers feel like they're being spied upon, they will complain - Amazon gets away with it because when people surf Amazon, they're interested in buying something. The information Amazon provides makes shopping easier and more productive. But when people surf their favorite news website and get tailored ads, it feels like Big Brother is watching. That's why cookies are so often blocked, especially from Doubleclick.

Four is unobtrusiveness. This is the one that Intarweb ad execs really don't get (except for Google). The hallowed days of Punching the Monkey and Winning $20 are long gone, and people hate ads with a passion these days because they get more annoying instead of less. More and more people filter out ads because they blink and move and pop up/under and make noise and generally ruin a pleasant websurfing experience. Viewing an ad that gets past such filters may garner brand recognition, but it's in the context of "Fuck me if I'm gonna buy their product!" (This is the main reason I refuse to use Orbitz, and their TV ads don't help matters either.) On the other hand, most people don't bother filtering Google ads, because they're text, they don't blink/move/make noise, and frequently, they are related (if sometimes only tangentially) to the websurfing topic of interest.

The same thing applies to TV ads. Placing a gigantic ad for a channel's next show after every commercial break right on top of the show you're trying to watch and then making sound effects to boot pisses people off.