by Taylan Kadayifcioglu on 22 April, 2009 - 01:39
Here is an article about video games companies thinking on innovation. Let me copy the part I found thought provoking:
Wedbush Morgan analyst Michael Patcher was quoted as saying "Few companies perform well when they are focused on so many new games…We haven't seen Activision introduce that many new brands over the last few years."
What caught my attention was the word "brand." Personally I shy away from thinking every title as a separate brand, simply because most titles lose relevance after a certain (and often short) period of time. Semantically you can argue that a title does mean a brand. And I encourage that argument, because for once, arguing semantics might get us somewhere.
For a title to become a brand;
The second point is the driving force behind franchises. A franchise semantically and functionally represents a brand because it has the quality of having a brand equity. It has a functionality (for the marketer) that carries over from one title to the next. Building a game franchise is essentially the practice of building up brand equity. In that respect, it is easy to understand the preference on franchises over original IPs, because marketing for the former means a greater ROI, whereas the latter might just sink to the bottom with your advertising dollars in its belly.
Survival of the fittest title
Publishers are being increasingly criticised for not backing up their new IPs adequately. Mirror's Edge and Dead Space are the latest examples. This lack of marketing support even seems to be somewhat deliberate. It is a survival of the fittest strategy where new IPs are left to fend for themselves in the market, with minimal support. If the title somehow manages to sell well despite the cruel parentage of the publisher, it is deemed worthy of being a franchise. Then you start to see full page print ads and even TV ads. If not, they say it was never meant to be.
Survival of the fittest concept works very efficiently in nature and evolution. It does not seem to work that well, however, when the new IP in question needs millios of dollars to develop, only to be set up to fail by its own publisher. It is simply too late a stage to use as a filtering mechanism, and it is a Bad Idea for New Product Development(tm).
Alternative ways to build brand equity
How do you build equity without having to pump three or four games into a franchise then? The answer may lie in utilizing media other than the video games medium itself.
The best example I can think of is the game from Penny Arcade, titled Rain-slick Precipice of Darkness. It was hardly a franchise when the first episode came out, yet it did have an identity and equity of its own already, thanks to the Penny Arcade webcomic. Actually the same duo has also done work for video game marketing campaigns, such as illustrations and mini-comics for Prince of Persia and Fallout. The difference, though, is that Penny Arcade comics have represented what lies at the heart and soul of their own game. Their illustrations for other games, though, are simply the requisite humour section of a game website.
So the question is: How can you convey what your game stands for, without having the final product in your hand?
The answer might include:
I am sure there are more ways that I am missing right now. Any thoughts?
Original Post: http://thesellinggame.blogspot.com/2009/03/building-brand-equity-for-your-game.html
This blog reflects the personal opinions of individual contributors and does not represent the views of Futurelab, Futurelab's clients, or the contributors' respective employers or clients.
Add your comment