Slashdot Mirror
Study Indicates In-Game Ads Actually Work
The Next Generation site is running a piece discussing new findings about in-game advertising. The results of collaboration between an ad firm and a research company show that ads in games are actually having an effect on players. Double Fusion's involvement in the study throws the results into question. Take these statistics with a grain of salt: "75% of gamers engage with at least one ad per minute across most, but not all, game types; 81% of gamers engage at least every other minute. Less-cluttered ads are three times as effective at garnering gamer notice than ads that are either cluttered or within cluttered environments. While both contribute positively to ad engagement, placement of the ad in the primary camera plane (eye-level) is more important than large size ads. Not all ads are created equal - dynamic billboards, around-game interstitials, sponsorships, and interactive product placements all offer different levels of user engagement and pervasiveness in the game" Eidos certainly thinks so; Kotaku notes that they've signed up with the same company featured in this study.
The study doesn't say what games they've played, only that it included racing and sports games, the genres most likely to include ads. FPS, action, RTS or RPG games generally don't have ads, and if they do, they'll be either subtle (A can of branded soda on a table) or rare (Billboards).
That being said, I wonder how effective these ads actually are. Billboards on the road might work, but when you're driving at over 200 kph, you have significantly less time to check the scenery.
And it goes on.
So my question: How does this justify calling them "effective"?
I realize that marketing thinks that no PR is bad PR, but in the real world, I'm not convinced. That gamer might be "engaging" with that particular ad by firing rockets at it, "teabagging" it, or otherwise using it to vent their rage at that particular product, or at the very idea of sticking an ad in the middle of a game.
But seriously, I want everyone to go back and think about those "Punch the monkey and win!" web ads from the 90's. Do you even remember what it was an ad for? What about the popups for... some Internet camera? It's certainly not going to make me go out of my way to buy the product. It MAY make me subconsciously more likely to notice the product. But if it ever gets conscious -- if I ever see a physical product, for example, and remember it having something to do with "punch the monkey" -- I'll probably punch the product. Maybe physically -- right there on the supermarket shelf.
In other words -- I strongly suspect the lighter ads are much more likely to be things we'd want to buy. If you create a giant, animated, flashing billboard and stick it in the middle of a medieval dungeon, then no, that's where I take the game back to the store, claim it "wouldn't work on my computer", and ask for my money back.
In another study, parents are more likely to "engage" with children who say "Are we there yet?" every five seconds than children who shut the fuck up and look out the window.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
...lower the prices of games? With new games costing $90-$110 here in Australia I'd love to see that pushed down, and I'll accept in-game ads to do it.
The cynic in me says it won't happen though, and none of teh savings will be passed on to consumers.
Of course an ad agency is going to get a study that says their ads work, even if they had to pay for a dozen first that said they don't.
All I really care about is the pervasiveness of ads in games, and from that standpoint the veracity of these numbers is much less important than what the people putting them in games think. And I'm not convinced that even if a dozen studies came out saying in-game ads don't work that they'd actually stop. There's a lot of vested interest in putting ads in games, and while they will surely embrace this study, they'd probably be highly skeptical of a study that said the opposite. How many studies have shown that people tend to completely ignore web-based ads, not even registering their existence a lot of the time? And are there less web-based ads? No, because the reality is that they probably do work overall, and certainly the people putting ads on websites aren't going to take the risk of stopping.
Which I guess makes my only point "more ads are coming regardless of what studies say".
The enemies of Democracy are
When I play games, I notice the ads. How can you not? When my secret agent runs head first into a Comcast van, how does one not notice?
So yes, I have no doubt that 81% of players or whatever notice their insipid ads. The question is, do gamers care, and are they more likely to purchase an advertiser's service due to the ad? There is such a thing as bad publicity.
Personally I've never made a buying decision off an ad in a game. In fact, they annoy me, and when I see the product/brand in real life I am reminded of that annoyance. I would say I'm *less* likely to choose a product over its competitor because of the annoyance it has caused me while I'm trying to relax.
Secondly, are in-game ads really worth it for game developers? My ire towards in-game ads are less directed at the advertisers than the game companies responsible for producing the mess in the first place. My opinion of EA and Ubisoft is decreasing very rapidly due to their rampant participation in this money grab. I am less likely to purchase their games, and in fact I have stopped purchasing EA games completely as a matter of principle. How much are advertisers giving them, and does it balance out with loss of customers like myself?
Sure, they used eye tracking software to note that the players actually looked at the ads, but they didn't use microphones to record the players cursing at the ads as they looked at them. If an ad clashes with the scenery, it's going to draw my eye. That doesn't mean I am thinking positively about the ad or its content, and it certainly doesn't mean I'm going to buy any of their crap.
They should compare these ads to just flashing random brightly colored crap on the screen, and see which one gets more "engagement".
I blocked the ads in 2142 at the firewall before I even finished installing the game. I'm sorry but you're not advertising in a game I bought, on which you maintain a stranglehold with ranked servers, EA.
Yes, I am a smart ass; it's better than the alternative.
people are greeedy money grubbing asshole shit eaters, fuck people
Been playing BF2142 since January - remember the controversy with the in-game billboards for this one? Honestly, in this game, since the IGA started, I think I've noticed the ads twice. Just too much going on for me to take note of the ad. Maybe it'll work subconsciously or something. Maybe it says something about the game - I'm paying enough attention to what my squad is doing, trying to work as a team - I think the game does work well as far as encouraging teamwork - so well I don't have time to read the ads.
Well, this survey is good for something.
If 81% of all players see ads every other minute, 19% of all players are campers!
Sure, players "engage" with ads all the time while playing the game. But does that actually translate to sales?
Because when I picture myself "engaging" with advertisements in my video games, I picture myself with a BFG, the ad and the advertiser, and that scenario only ends with a lot of green if the advertiser is some kind of green-blooded freak.
So I don't know about you, but it doesn't seem very damn logical to shove ads down my throat. Unless you want me to show you my idea of how best to "engage" with them...
Eidos certainly thinks so; Kotaku notes that they've signed up with the same company featured in this study
Doesn't look much like a scientific objective perspective. But anyway I never heard anyone talk about commercials that didn't affect people. The annoying ads might as well sell beter.
Sure, in-game advertisements can be annoying, but as the price of game development grows and the game-playing audience expands, the practice just makes more and more sense for everybody involved
Come on, as if the games business is not profitable enough? This is not a decent customer oriented way to sell games. It is just yet another way to make more money. And like all ads they start small, and while becoming more profitable they will become more dominant and make the game experience suffer. If these games were available as free (as in free beer) adware maybe it would it would be justified. I hate to pay money for a game with ads, that's my small voice about these practices. I am interested in different opinions from other gamers.
I frequently wish I could start my day with Alarm soap, drinking a nice refreshing Splode soda, and relax and watch a new episode of the hottest new reality series Tiny House.
"The Next Generation site is running a piece discussing new findings about in-game advertising. The results of collaboration between an ad firm and a research company show that ads in games are actually having an effect on players. "
Just wait till they put "penis enlargement" ads into games.
>See advert in game
>Take notice of product
>Remember the basic principle of if the advert gets me to buy the product I'm validating the technique and therefore causing more ads in the future
>Makes note to avoid in any reasonable way buying that product
I know my thought process isn't usual, but if more people thought like me and tried to actively avoid products that were advertised in places they didn't like to see adverts, then the adverts would start to disappear or lessen. Apparently trying to work the system in your favour doesn't occur to normal people, which is ashame- although many people do like useful adverts or don't mind them and it may just be my pet peeve but I'm not alone.
They mention 75% "engage" in-game advertisements, but dont define what engage is. If I'm playing a baseball game and hit a ball to the wall, I may be "engaging" the advertisement on the wall but I'm watching the ball. In racing games I "engage" billboards as a way of knowing where I am on the track (2 more turns and I finish the lap, etc). Maybe I am atypical but my memory of the advertisement is usualy more trained to its big square and blue than what it actaully says. How effective they are is questionable at best, advertising that I "notice" to the point of remembering the product usually affects me negatively, I will generally go out of my way to avoid it. That said, real billboard and signs in racing and sports games can add to the realisim, id much rather see a powerade ad than a Slurm soda one (unless im playing Blurnsball) I find fake ads more distracting than real ones.
All the games with ads should be modded to allow graffiti. Cover them up.
Here's another thought. Let's see if Adbusters can get some ads in these games...
In other news, no Pointy Haired Bosses actually believe that anyone is actually viewing any in game ads 'cuz there's no Alexa plug-in on any consoles
The Digital Sorceress
... or cost $10 max. Don't piss me off by putting ads in a game that I paid $40-$50 for. Any in-game ad in an expensive game will make me want to avoid the product they're advertising.
---------
There is inferior bacteria on the interior of your posterior.
How about using the Stanley Hammer of Doom to crush your enemies? Don't forget the Craftsman crossbow, or the Maglight Torch of Visibility. You wouldn't think of going into battle without your Tommy Hilfinger battle armor, would you? If only I could find some Aquafina to get my health points up...
"I like systems, their application excepted", George Sand (French)
The problem is, it's like spam.
In other words, you don't matter, because even if your attitude was the usual one, they probably need less than 1% of the people looking at these ads to respond in order to justify what it's costing them.
Now, what does work is, boycotting the game. Here, if they sell 20% less copies, or 50% less copies, even if the other 50% are buying Coke/Pepsi/BonziBuddy/Viagra/whatever like mad, the game company itself might decide to stop selling ads -- whereas even if your method worked, it would probably just result in some other advertiser moving in.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
"Foxtrot niner to base, missiles locked on target"
"Base to foxtrot niner, roger that, you are cleared to engage"
"Foxtrot niner, missiles away"
"Don't piss me off by putting ads in a game that I paid $40-$50 for."
What makes you think people are paying for the game?
In that context ads seem quite fair.
I read Cmdr Taco's rant an hour before lunch today and all I could think about was wanting to eat tacos. He should get an endorsement deal with Taco Bell. The other ads on slashdot don't really hit home. I've never clicked on them, but if there was an add for savings from taco bell or some kind of food, I'd be much more likely to. Think about it, all nerds have to eat. And just about all nerds want to eat quickly to resume what with the coding and such. He could even endorse a line of Taco accessories. Think of a taco stand that would hold the taco for you allowing you to continue surfing the web, playing games, while enjoying a wonderful seasoned taco. It should be adjustable for burritos, and have wireless connectivity to award karma points and /or increase mod point probability for use. While I'm at it, it should also reward Bill, Shooter of Bull a penny per use (and / or free taco depending on the current hunger/bank account ratio) for devising the plan.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
I'm amazed at all of the posts suggesting that ads don't work. An advertisement is successful even if it only makes you ever so slightly more familiar with a product. You don't even have to read it, and whether you want to or not your brain is going to remember something seemingly insignificant about the ad like color or general shape. And the next time around your brain will remember a tiny bit more, and so on. Then you'll see the product somewhere else in the 'real' world and your brain is gonna make the connection whether you like it or not. Its so damn close to brainwashing that it scares me. My solution for fighting the system is to stay drunk most of the time. Those PEPSI ads won't get me.
What exactly constitutes exposure to advertising? Let's take any EA game plastered with marketing crap. Even menu screens are promoting one product for another. Let's take one of the FIFA games. I decide I want to customize my players so I spend a few minutes equipping my players with some sneakers. Those sneakers happen to be Adidas or Nike sneakers. Does this count as exposure? Suppose I'm camping a spot in an FPS and there just so happens to be a billboard facing my direction. Does that count as exposure?
The point is that the marketing company could care less. What they want are metrics that look good. They don't care how effective the marketing actually is, nor is there any real way of knowing. But on paper it looks good and so developers fall for it. Not that they care, because it's extra advertising income for them.
I find this particularly troubling. Does this mean we're going to get less realistic environments? We can't have overly detailed environments if there's a risk of advertising blending into the background. I predict, however, we're going to end up with the gaming equivalent of pop up banners. Advertisers will just have these big crap banners floating around in mid air. And I expect the quality of these ads to be utter crap. In all the years of advertising on the web 95% of it still looks like garbage. We're going to be stuck with LowerMyBills banners in our games.
I also think it's naive to think that the cost of our games will drop once advertising is introduced. Developers and publishers aren't looking to introduce advertising in order to make the same amount of money they make now. This will be like cable and satellite television. You'll pay as much, if not more than you pay now AND you get the added bonus of advertising. Advertising will only become more intrusive and unlike browsers there will be no way to block any of it. And lets not forget that our games are going to be sanitized and inoffensive, in order to appease advertisers. And games will be compromised in order to appeal to desired demographics.
Because every game featuring ads will be pirated!
Since you publisher-fellows have obviously chosen to make your revenue via an alternative method, I'm sure you won't mind that I refuse to pay for your games that have ads in them.
Thanks! They really do work!
An interesting twist is that Transformers has in-game ads by Helio. Now, they're static ads - in fact, in the copyright page, they list Helio as a trademark.
The uselessness of it is that if you're not in the US, wtf is Helio? I can't buy a Helio phone here in Canada, and I'm sure, neither can anyone else outside of the US. Sure the largest market will understand it, but it sure will date itself quick when the phones they advertise is gone. The only reason I know who Helio is was from the million posts on sites like Gizmodo. So no matter how much "eye time" Helio gets, it's for naught...
If you honestly hate in-game advertising so much that you stop buying games with it, then the big publishers will just make more games that people who don't hate ads like (Bejeweled-7 and The Sims 19).
I don't know much about marketing, but I wonder if this is the reason why 99% of all broadcast TV sucks (too hard to advertise to people who like smart TV).
Spell cheek you've failed me four the last thyme!
block madserver.net and *.madserver.net and poof, no more ads
I thought the whole point of any part of a company is to make money. That's the whole "bottom line" argument, the excuse people like to drag out whenever they want to justify corporations doing truly evil things -- "because it makes money, and a corporation has to make money."
I guess I just don't get how making someone aware of your brand or product makes you any money at all, unless someone buys it. And didn't we learn that lesson from popup ads? Pissing your customers off is generally not a good way to make them want to buy your product, or even give the ad a moment of your attention.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Yet another study, funded by an ADVERTISING company saying that adverts work. They trot one out every 3 months or so. Its bullshit. And the facts remain gamers do not want ads. I will not buy any game with ads in, and skipped on BF 2142 as a result. When will the guys in suits get this into their thick skulls?
DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
It's been discussed here that people hate in-game ads and how much, and how those numbers just reflect awareness but not how much said ads are intrusive. That's actually very critical.
An intrusive ad is a negative experience. Now, with more and more brands trying to sell with the "feel good" message instead of trying to convince you they're the better product (i.e. the "value" you get from us is based on you being cooler and better, or just that we make you feel better than the competition), it is outright mandatory that you "feel good" about the ads too, or the experience is a negative one. If bubble coke is trying to advertise with obnoxious, flashing billboards in a medieval setting, this experience is ruined. That's not cool, that's not fitting, and the ad will give me a negative experience that reflects on the product advertised. The product is not cool, the product is not making me feel good.
OTOH, if the ad fits the game experience, the product can actually become a feel good product. My pet example, BF2142. Coke Zero is advertised on the billboards there. And that fits quite well. Coke Zero is a "new" product, put into a futuristic setting, it becomes the soda of the future. It's not intrusive, but it gets noticed. Actually, by the way it's placed, it becomes sort of an easter egg (ok, not really a hard to find one, but the game isn't plastered with ad billboards), so seeing them gives you actually a memorable experience. People notice those billboards and they actually add to the experience, fitting the environment seamlessly.
That's IMO a good example of product placement in games. This way, ads can become part of a game, as long as it's not overdone. When every kind of beverage in a medieval setting has some kind of brand on it, it gets silly. But with a bit of creativity (hey, that's what marketing is about!), and with a touch of humor, this can be done. In a medieval setting, gnomes (who're infamous for tinkering) could come up with a Dell computer (gnome style, of course, where DELL could become an acronym for something) that lets you judge your enemy. Or some shrewed wizard does the trick.
As long as you don't overdo it, it ads a humorous touch to the game and won't reduce the experience for the player. It might add to his experience, actually.
What's a surefire way to destroy any "feel good" effect is ads that neither fit the setting nor add to the experience. What has to be avoided at all costs are intrusive, uninspired ads that remind people of pesky popups they have to get rid of. Subtle ads can actually have a better effect.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I agree that most advertisers have been pushing the lifestyle message. However, I completely disagree that they're trying to convey a "feel good" message. Most aren't trying to make us feel good, they're trying to make us feel inadequate so that we rush out to buy their products. And most advertising isn't anything but obnoxious insistent. Marketing people are constantly trying to devise ways to cram more advertising down our throats, what makes you think it would be any different in games?
What these companies are waiting for is a critical mass of consumers willing to at least tolerate advertising in games. Once that happens then we're really going to see a flood of shit. And rest assured it isn't going to consist of anything subtle, inoffensive and in keeping with the theme of the game. Advertisers aren't exactly known for subtlety.
You mention that BF2142 is an example of advertising applied tastefully. Explain to me how advertising somehow fits in a world that's ravaged by war and an ice age. The few remaining superpowers are battling over what few resources are left but Jeep has decided there was a big enough market to advertise for an SUV, and then place billboards on the battlefield no less. I guess they're nothing if not persistent. Then there are the billboards for movies like Ghost Rider. The game is based over 130 years in the future and they're still anticipating the release of this movie. And apparently DVDs, Bluray and UMDs are still being used. In an energy-starved, war-torn and frozen future.
So much for advertising fitting with the theme of the game.
Yeah, they actually work great.... at annoying me
Tough cookie that game, but games in the future have one advantage over games in the past: The ad you want to place could have been there before and the media used to present them are now, in a world where resources are scarce, reused. I.e., how about creating a shelter from an old ad billboard? If you have a catchy ad jingle, some old tape you find could have the information you use right after a few seconds of the jingle that was taped as well when the information was taped.
There could be a derelict movie theatre where the movie you want to advertise ran until the end of the world came onto us, with the movie ad posters still in the display cases. With real items you want to advertise, they could lie around in the world, that SUV could be just standing there, crashed into the wall (of course you will not find the driver's corpse, the SUV protected him and he got away, but had to leave his gun behind).
It can be done, given a bit of creativity.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
My first exposure to in-game advertising was WipEout XL / 2097 on the PS1. The game had ads for Red Bull alongside the track.
Did it work? Hell yes. I mail ordered some Red Bull before it was commonly available in the USA, because I was intrigued to find out what it was, and the game was so cool.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
In game ads are as effective as billboard ads that you drive by on the streets.... which is not very on the surface. But anyone in marketing knows that product/brand recognition makes a difference. How often do you consider looking at/buying a product you've never heard of? Not as much as a product/brand you remember seeing before.
...paid you for that teabagging comment, didn't they? I think I'll go have a mug of hot tasty Lipton's tea now.
Remember back when people used to provide "cracked" copies of Kazaa with the spyware removed and the IP addresses of their ad servers blocked? I expect the warez groups will start doing that sort of thing too. As well as a no-CD patch, there will be a no-ads patch.
Ads in games worked for about five minutes when it all first started. The first Tony Hawk's game had a descent soundtrack, with interesting and less well known bands that suited the game. The last FIFA/Need For Speed games had a load of manufactured crap you wouldn't listen to twice. I suppose that's the way it works though - as soon as big money players get interested the quality goes down the pan.
More money = lower quality? An argument for music piracy if ever there was one.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Seriously, Don't take anything I say seriously.