Opinion
Catching The Bug
Viral marketing might be all the rage, but, asks Thom Dinsdale, do the creators of such subtle campaigns always consider what gamers need?
That fear of irrelevance means everyone is constantly asking, "What's next?" And it's often at the expense of the equally pertinent question, "What works?" Innovation is driven by experimentation, granted, but fame is not an exact surrogate for success. Nowhere is this more true that in the world of "viral marketing".
On paper, the game industry is perfect for virals. Games have a well networked, highly net-savvy audience which consumes considerable amounts of content online. Further, they're celebrated by an expansive network of blogs and publishers which, mostly, are more than happy to distribute that content
to their own audiences. This is fertile ground for spreading stuff. This hypothesis has proven to work time and time again, and the story is always the same: video is released here, ends up on a large blog here, then finds itself everywhere the next day.
The very idea of a 'viral' is quite arresting. For the public at large it's fascinating that a video, a piece of content, can spread very widely very rapidly, driven solely by recommendation between peers. It demonstrates in the most pure of ways the power of the internet and social currency. For marketers, advertisers and other content producers, it's fascinating because these recommendations (and so impressions, the number of eyeballs reached) cost nothing. They see it as 'free' media. Which, broadly speaking, it is. Why spend several grand on a TV spot when you can hit the same number of people apparently for free?
But while the only direct cost incurred is that of producing the content (which can range wildly depending on whether you're just sending a teaser email or dropping things into volcanoes) the associated risks are much greater. The success of these projects (in the pure sense, at least; there is an unpure sense which I'll come to in a minute) is a black box from which no light can escape. It is a crap-shoot, hinging entirely on subjective variables, primarily quality of the content. If you're relying on owned assets such as a blog, Facebook or Twitter to release the content then you're also relying on the right people seeing it at the right time in order to share it at that critical volume required to make it go "viral".
The dirty secret of many of the most successful virals is that they are in fact driven by significant media spend. The idea of the naturally exploding viral, doing so on its own merits alone, is something of a mirage. From Old Spice in the U.S. to T-Mobile in the UK, marketers are spending money on having the videos seeded through to networks of bloggers by specialist agencies. The widespread awareness of the previous examples was also amplified by the halo of a considerable TV presence.
The most successful viral videos hit views in the tens of millions. While 'tens of millions' sounds pretty exciting, this is the highest echelon of success reserved for that special, lucky, rich few. The cruel Darwinian truth is that you will receive far, far less. Though when you consider that American adults spend roughly 200 billion hours a year watching TV, even that 'tens of millions' of views will get lost pretty quickly.
Brands buying media for advertising campaigns ensure targeted sets of consumers are exposed to a certain number of ads over a certain period in order to influence behaviour. With a viral video, you're relying on one or two exposures to have the effect of, say, a month's campaign. And how targeted is the audience? That's another question.
However, on viral marketing's side is the fact that when individuals engage with content recommended by friends, they do it of their own volition and so are going to have a much more involved, receptive relationship with it. Interrupting ads that blurt out of the tube every night tend to fall on deaf, desensitized ears. The difference this makes is yet to be qualified, however.
The game industry has a history of modest yet imaginative and successful viral campaigns. The campaign which culminated with the announcement of Portal 2 was a stroke of subtle genius in which Valve activated only a small, technically minded core of its audience - through its own game, no less, rather than any advertising format - to solve a mystery while the rest of us watched on through the media.
This industry depends on intrigue, and that is something carefully orchestrated viral campaigns have always delivered in spades. Every cryptic comment or microsite sets fans ablaze with interest. This is a symptom of the long development and product cycles for games and consoles, leaving prolonged vacuums of information which can only be filled with speculation. A perfect example of this in action was the two student-made adverts for the non-existent PlayStation 4, purported as leaked trailers ahead of E3 2010, they generated a flurry of speculation and coverage before being shot down by SCE as fakes.
It's inspiring stuff for game developers and marketers looking for interesting ways to get people excited about their product. The alternate view, however, is a little less sexy. Virals have never been proven, unambiguously, to drive sales. This is because consumers always need to be more than aware of a product before they commit to it. These needs differ from product category to product category and gamers, too, have their own set of needs that marketing in turn has to fulfill.
Last week Interplay continued its teaser campaign for Fallout Online, executed through their email network. They follow the typical teaser format, but as Destructoid's Matthew Razak thoughtfully points out: "I tell you what, Interplay. You give us an actual trailer with gameplay or even a few real screenshots and maybe a launch date for that beta you've been having people register for, and then I'll start getting interested in your viral marketing."
Behind Razak's snark is a key point. Viral marketing may be sexy to creative marketers and when it works, it really works. However, does that actually help people get excited about your product, rather than just your marketing? Advertising awards and egos aside, if you're confident you've got a good product that people will enjoy, even love, then the first question that needs to be asked is, "What do these people need in order to make that decision?" rather than, "What would we like to show them?"