Angry Birds Boss Credits Piracy For Popularity Boost 321
An anonymous reader writes "Mikael Hed is the CEO of Rovio Mobile, the company behind popular mobile puzzle game Angry Birds. At the Midem conference Monday, Hed had some interesting things to say about how piracy has affected the gaming industry, and Rovio's games in particular: '"We could learn a lot from the music industry, and the rather terrible ways the music industry has tried to combat piracy." Hed explained that Rovio sees it as "futile" to pursue pirates through the courts, except in cases where it feels the products they are selling are harmful to the Angry Birds brand, or ripping off its fans. When that's not the case, Rovio sees it as a way to attract more fans, even if it is not making money from the products. "Piracy may not be a bad thing: it can get us more business at the end of the day." ... "We took something from the music industry, which was to stop treating the customers as users, and start treating them as fans. We do that today: we talk about how many fans we have," he said. "If we lose that fanbase, our business is done, but if we can grow that fanbase, our business will grow."'"
Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ripping Off (Score:5, Insightful)
...Angry Birds brand, or ripping off its fans.
Because Rovio brought us the first of this wonderful concept of projectile-tower crushing. No ripping off there. Never been done. Glad people pay for it. **puts on old and bitter smug-cap, goes back to Crush the Castle 3**
Re:Piracy: Free Advertising (Score:5, Insightful)
It is.
Once you enter the professional world (e.g. get a job in that business) you become part of the decision process on which software the company should purchase. Since you will have already gathered experience in photoshop, the company might be more inclined to go with that instead of GIMP.
Simalarly, it is easier to find people with the relevant skills. E.g. if it becomes hard to find people with photoshop skills, the business which change their applications, so that it is easier to find people with the correct skillset.
So you see, it does benefit them in one way or another.
Re:Piracy: Free Advertising (Score:5, Insightful)
Home users are not Adobe's clientele: who would ever pay $2600 for a software suite? Well, if you work with graphics, you probably will. Mainly because their stuff is pretty good, but also because you're used to it. That piracy was ultimately good for them.
Re:He is right (Score:5, Insightful)
Photoshop anyone?
This 5x
Most people would easily get their problems solved with Gimp, and if there was a huge user base of simple users they might even make an easier "Lite" version out of it. Adobe knows, so they don't put meaningful copy protection in their applications. They know their target customers are corporations since normal people won't have 500-1000€ to throw into such an application, so they just try to ensure that people are accustomed to their products already before working anywhere. This way once they get a job they'll be asking for photoshop instead of permission to download Gimp.
I even see this at work. Somebody who's only need for editing graphics is resizing a logo from 250*120 pixels to 125*60 pixels will be running photoshop to do it...
If Beethoven is alive today ... (Score:5, Insightful)
... he would be filthy rich - and his offspring will be forever filthy rich as well, thanks to our "perpetual copyright laws"
Unfortunately, he ain't
That is why Beethoven died dirt poor
But on the other hand, the world is far more richer because no one could monopolize the wonderful music of Beethoven
Re:Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is exactly the situation the music industry was in. If they only had created an easy way to buy and instantly download songs for a dollar a piece, piracy and sites like napster would not have become so popular. Alas, they chose to rely on lawsuits instead, probably costing them billions in lost revenue, untlil Apple more or less forced them to join the iTunes store.
Probably (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:In before... (Score:5, Insightful)
In before someone justifies their piracy by saying they help with advertising.
Oh wait, only six posts as I type this and already too late.
I'm going to go ahead and abandon modding on this article, because I can't believe no one has called you on this crap.
Specifically, TFS and TFA both defend piracy by saying they help with advertising, specifically quoting people who are (massively successful) content creators, you know, the folks who are financially impacted by piracy...
Look, I can see both sides of the argument (well, in detail it's more than 2) about piracy, I can see how they both have valid points, and am unwilling to come down firmly on either side.
What I can't support is someone who is so much a zealot that they resort to this sort of attack by ignoring basic facts.
Re:Piracy: Free Advertising (Score:5, Insightful)
Today, I still pirate Photoshop.
This, clearly, is good for Adobe. (Unless, more likely, it's not...)
I live in freelance web development world where many people across the globe are included in making a website. The designer designs the site using Photoshop. This is later sent to HTML/CSS cutter who provides bare templates, which are worked into a CMS by programmers.
Often enough, the designer has a licensed copy of Photoshop. HTML/CSS cutter and most other people in the assembly line don't and they use pirated software if they need it.
If it were not possible to pirate Photoshop, project managers would demand all designs in a format which can be opened (without any issues) using free software. This way though, we are all locked into PSD's because we are used to it, so it easily maintains it's industry standard position.
For what's it worth, I've seen excellent designs using Inkscape and GIMP. As much as I would love to be able to move everybody in the process to open source software, it's not going to happen as long as Photoshop is "freely available".
Re:I stole a car the other day ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Could you please explain how you stole a car without the owner losing it?
You know, like the digital copies this article is about.
Re:Really? (Score:4, Insightful)
True.
And their business model isn't a perfect analogy with the music industry, so their comparison doesn't hold true.
Btw I know I'm playing devils advocate here.
But the music industry are in fact middlemen between consumers and the artists themselves, and their product (revenue) comes from the music itself (songs, on cd, downloaded, ..) but not tshirts, posters, concerts, .. as usually the artist benefits most of that.
Rovio can be compared to the artists (who also sell themselves). Their main product are downloads of their games. Anything else that is copied (tshirts, posters, toy dolls, ..) can indeed be seen as free publicity, which will help make their brand stronger, which in the end results in more sales of their core product: downloads of their games.
And those producers that pay for a license to make related products, are seen as additional income streams, but licensing the Angry Birds brand is not their core business.
If enough illegal dowloads of their full games become available, or other people will make clones of their games (think angry owls/bad birds/..) and this causes a significant drop in sales of their own games, they'll also have to react (by legal means) to survive as a company, as their main income stream is treatened.
If you want to compare to the music industry, then compare them to artists. Most (small) bands don't earn a lot from cd sales, getting known is better for them, even if it's by illegal downloads, as this will mean they'll become more popular, do more and bigger concerts, sells related things (posters, tshirts, ..) and so on, and these are things that increase their income.
Re:Tomorrow's Headline (Score:5, Insightful)
Once his company goes public, and the stock price takes a tiny little dip, suddenly at the next investors meeting it becomes "Piracy is the devil's works!"
Re:If Beethoven is alive today ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Piracy: Free Advertising (Score:5, Insightful)
It is.
Once you enter the professional world (e.g. get a job in that business) you become part of the decision process on which software the company should purchase. Since you will have already gathered experience in photoshop, the company might be more inclined to go with that instead of GIMP.
This argument might apply to software used in the industry like photoshop, but how will it apply to something like games, intended for personal use?
That's why I think the "piracy is good" argument makes no sense. Piracy is the act of using something without giving money for it. Let's not try to kid ourselves into thinking it's a virtue.
Personally, I think that the way to stop piracy is for industries to stop being greedy. It's just not reasonable to expect the massive prices that are demanded for every song, movie, game etc. etc. on the market. People consume a lot of media. The daily bombardments of advertising is to ensure that this happens. For people to be "in" on the scene, they need to consume this stuff. But who has the money to pay $80 per game? or $20 per "3D" movie ticket? Companies need to sell items cheap and make money on volume. And they can!
High prices or high volume, pick 1. If you charge a high price, expect to cater to a niche market and for the masses to pirate. If you want high volume, charge a low price.
Instead, these guys want to charge a high price and have volume to boot. Greedy bastards.
Grep this (Score:3, Insightful)
Music execs are finally getting wise to the benefits of try-before-you-buy. Artists certainly have been for a while.
What exactly is the difference between listening to a new album - or even watching full videos - on Youtube, and downloading them from peers to listen to before buying? They know it increases sales, yet insist on draconian measures to the contrary. I smell a rat.
I listen to a lot of stuff. When I find something that really excites me I want to buy it. I want to support the artist(s). It makes me feel good to give them direct feedback that what they've created is worthwhile and they should do more. It's as much a gift to me as to them. You know, like charity or volunteering, giving is the greatest gift, own reward, etc. Music that makes my heart sing is *really* worth something.
It doesn't matter if they're some kids from the ghetto, or dinosaur rockers who got it together to put out something that cooks like they used to, before they sold out to the cookie cutter pop machine. Even though I can listen to it already.
I'm sure the music industry gets this. It seems to me that these sopa/pipa/acta type laws are more about censorship and consolidation of power than lost sales.
--------
"Do what I say when I tell you to do it."
Re:Appstore economics. (Score:5, Insightful)
If your customers aren't buying your products, please stop whining about customer behaviour and change your products to suit the market.
If your business model doesn't make money in the market you've chosen, please stop whining about the market and change your business model.
So what Rovio is supporting is market conditions that favour their particular product, which is very different from market conditions that ensure a robust and healthy competitive environment, or that ensure innovation and development.
The market is fixed. Your business model and product is flexible (or should be). So change your product so it suits the market conditions.
Rovio understood that the market they chose to operate in has a large amount of piracy. Instead of trying to change the market to suit their products, they chose the eminently more profitable option of working out how they could make piracy work for them. As you've pointed out, one of the ways they did this was by launching merch to go with their game that allowed them to take advantage of the fanbase generated by pirate players. As another poster pointed out, the game they created is not unique and the Castle version doesn't have the merch potential, which is possibly why Angry Birds made a lot more money from the same game.
Pirating software is going to happen regardless of any action you take. It's a fact of life in the market. So you can choose to view pirated copies as lost sales and let your business plan get broken by it, or you can choose to view it as free marketing and incorporate it into your business plan.
Re:Appstore economics. (Score:5, Insightful)
If someone has jailbroken their phone and is capable of and interested in finding, downloading and installing a pirated app on their phone, they are lost revenue for us anyway.
Our only hope of revenue from these users is to provide them with good enough app so that they keep using it and might buy it (and advertise the app within their circle of friends, who might not be competent enough to pirate the app)
If it is easier to buy the app on appstore than to pirate it, then pirates are good for you
I can't say for sure that we wouldn't have made it without piracy, but currently we have 5 simple apps out and with total cost of 2000$ for launch advertising (and "free" work for 2-3 weeks at nights, after our daily jobs) per app, we gross around 6500$ every month
Since we seed our apps ourselves, we see that approximately 20% of installations are pirated (~2000 torrent downloads vs ~10000 sales via store every month) but we are sure that without the 20% "lost" sales, we wouldn't make the top charts of legal downloads... ever....
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:If Beethoven is alive today ... (Score:5, Insightful)
And while you are at it you should incorporate because Washington recognizes that the rights of individuals are subordinate to the rights of corporations. Don't go in groveling. If you go in as a corporation they are already trained to do whatever you ask.
Re:Microsoft has been doing it for years (Score:4, Insightful)
That is why copyright should be never used against the private use of a work. Also it should not invade the privacy of the homes of citizens. Sadly, it is doing both and the new harder laws to protect copyright will destroy our culture.
Re:Piracy: Free Advertising (Score:0, Insightful)
This is not an argument for piracy. It is an argument for giving away "student licence" editions for free.
As for piracy, I hope the police crack down on it heavily. It'd boost the use of free software, which has sufficiently good alternatives to most proprietary stuff these days.
Sore, proprietary has more polish, but polish alone is not worth the price. Not when base functionality is there for free. And in some cases, such as word processing, the free alternatives are better anyway.
Re:That's unpossible! (Score:5, Insightful)
And of course, with our luck it happens to be the one who produces shit as a product.
What precisely is wrong with Angry Birds as a game? (Other than the fact that it is popular and therefore non-1337, and is played by people who aren't "gamers" on machines that don't require $1000 graphics cards).
Re:Piracy: Free Advertising (Score:4, Insightful)
because no sane IT department allows anyone in the company to use software without a license (unless of course it doesn't need one)
Re:If Beethoven is alive today ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Add to this, the fact that the current installs of Angry Birds on many Android mobiles (can't speak for iOS) ask to be allowed to do everything but perform a DNA analysis on you. They want to have your phone traffic info, GPS info, network connection info.
And for what, using a free game? No, no, I'm sure they're using that information for good, just like Google does.....
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:If Beethoven is alive today ... (Score:5, Insightful)
If Beethoven were alive today, he'd be making tiny residuals while the recording industry made millions off of the rerelease of his works on BluRay.
Re:Or your PR dept. (Rovio is lying) (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you're saying more or less what the summary says:
See:
"Hed explained that Rovio sees it as "futile" to pursue pirates through the courts, except in cases where it feels the products they are selling are harmful to the Angry Birds brand, or ripping off its fans."
and
" When that's not the case, Rovio sees it as a way to attract more fans, even if it is not making money from the products. "Piracy may not be a bad thing: it can get us more business at the end of the day.""
Your point is obvious - piracy doesn't make you money. On the other hand, piracy can lead to a growing customer base. The point Hed is making is more that suing customers is more likely to lead to reducing your customer base rather than growing it. This is perhaps particularly applicable when it comes to small games like Angry Birds where there is money to be made off of merchandising.
In Rovio's case, as you seem to inadvertently point out, Rovio makes money both on the sale of the game and on the generated advertising revenue. If people pirate the game, they still make the advertising revenue.
Wrapped up in this is the idea that Rovio's business model doesn't just depend on game sales, but also on advertising revenue and merchandising. This should be obvious as Angry Birds is free on Android anyway.
I think what they recognize is that for their particular product, there is a large portion of users who would not pay for the game. The choice for them is play the game for free or don't play it at all - they might as well have these users playing the game and generating hype than going and playing some other game and making it popular instead.
Re:If Beethoven is alive today ... (Score:4, Insightful)
You could say the same for Rubens Oh wait, not only was he filthy rich, he also put his name on the work of his students, thus pirating his own students.
That's not pirating, that's plagarism. Plagiarism helps nobody but the plagiarist. Piracy helps the artist. Roger McGuinn's career died when the labels decided he was too old for rock and roll, and it was resurected with Napster, who he said brought his music to a whole new generation. Speaking of McGuinn and The Byrds, the lyrics to "Turn, Turn, Turn" are in the public domain [kingjbible.com] -- they come straight from the King James bible.
Cory Doctorow came to the same conclusion as Mikael Hed a long time ago. As he says, nobody ever went broke from piracy, but many artists have starved from obscurity (Van Gogh comes to mind). He credits the fact that he publishes under a GPL license, gives his books away as ebooks on boingboing, and encourages sharing for his status as a New York Times best seller.
I credit the free public libraries for the fact that I have a couple dozen Asimov titles on my bookshelf; were I not to have been able to read him for free, I'd never have bought any of his books.
There are plenty of musicians today that are not rich. Some just like music more then they like money, just like some would never work for a specific company, no matter how much they like coding.
I know quite a few musicians, and none of them are rich. Most do it as a second job simply because, as you say, they love music and love playing. None of them would touch an RIAA contract with a ten foot pole.
Re:Or your PR dept. (Rovio is lying) (Score:3, Insightful)
strange how that's working out for them