One of the more famous examples of a company using a game as a marketing technique was Burger King. They built three games for the Xbox and Xbox360 and sold them for $4 a pop.

Of the reviews I’ve read, most do not speak highly of these games. But, at the same time, very few speak ultra-negatively either. One review at gamespot.com summed up Sneak King with - “Sneak King isn’t a good game, but it’s so crazy and so cheap that it still manages to be weirdly compelling.”

Match that with the fact that during the 5 week promotional period, they sold more than 2.4 million units.  And as of June 2007 (the latest numbers I have), it was tied with the third best selling Xbox title of all time. 

Its estimated media impression was equivalent to thirteen Super Bowls and helped drive record traffic and sales.  Hence, not surprisingly, Burger King considered this a success. (Numbers and success analysis courtesy Coloribus.com)

We can learn from this…that reaching the upper echelons of perfection is not so much the goal as producing something of interest to your customers. The low cost of entry (particularly compared with the normal cost of a game $30-$50) and the novelty of stuffing hamburgers into the mouths of unsuspecting citizens (the premise of Sneak King) added to the luster and success of the games.

I surprisingly had a hard time finding failures. You might think this bodes well for video games as a marketing technique, but I wonder if most of the failures have been so small that the media took no notice of them.

One failure I found was Viagra’s “Viva Cruiser” Game.  But, this seemed more due to a lack of explaining the side-effects of the drug rather than a problem with the game.

So, what can we learn from this? Video games can be a very lucrative tool for customer engagement.  And, they are a largely untapped market as I could find very few examples to include here. But, even if you do everything right, somethings such as legal worries or other unforeseen problems can sink the ship. Tread carefully.

Video games are the new Cadillac of mass marketing.  I’m not really sure what that means either, but video games can be a great way of promoting your brand and creating a devoted following. They can also be a disastrous waste of time, money, and customer goodwill.

This four part series will discuss To Play or Not to Play i.e. whether you should embark on this perilous yet rewarding journey (Part 1); those who have gone before i.e. companies who have succeeded and failed at this endeavor (Part 2); What do I do now? …or the types of decisions you need to make on how your game is going to look, feel, play, operate, and perform (Part 3).  And finally, The pitfalls (Part 4)…or the things to look out for along the way.

So let’s get down to it: is this a good idea?  Here are seven things to consider:

1. Know your audience.

Rolex should probably not make a video game.  Why?  Because their target demographics are generally not the type that would be interested in games.  Worse yet, a Rolex game would probably be a catastrophe as it would juvenilize their brand - making it irrelevant to the high-end customers they cater to.

So, make sure that your audience is one that would be interested in a game.  At the same time, do some research before assuming that your audience wouldn’t be interested.  The Entertainment Software Association in their 2008 Essential Facts About the Computer and Video Game Industry states that “women 18 or older represent a significantly greater portion of the game playing population (33%) than boys age 17 or younger (18%).”

2. Know your product.

Not every product should have a video game based around it.  Mortuary services seems to me a rather bad idea for a game.  Cotton swabs too seem like a bad idea.  But, if you can build a character or story around the cotton swabs, then it might be the perfect way to add depth and interest to a dull product. (No offense to any cotton swab makers who might be reading.)

3. It’s expensive.

Even with advent of Flash, Silverlight, and other technologies that vastly cut costs on design and development, it’s still no cheap beast to tame.  With artwork, programming, and interactive design, even the smallest of games will take time and money to produce whether you do it in-house or have an agency do it.  That being said if customers enjoy the game, it’ll be worth it.

4. Don’t expect direct revenue.

Directly selling the game is generally a bad idea.  Although, if you go so far as to create a console game, there’s probably room for a low-cost price tag to help reclaim some costs.  The best idea is to give this game away to your customers and perhaps, more importantly, to your potential customers.  This push of authenticity and good will can pay dividends for years to come.

5. It will be fun.

The whole point of this is to inject fun and entertainment into your brand/company.  If you don’t have fun making it, no one will enjoy playing it.

6. Thinly veiled marketing sucks.

Don’t make a game so you can stuff your product/service down your customers’ throat.  You seem manipulative and customers feels used.  No one wins.

7. They’re already interacting with you.

If customers take time to play your game you’re – by the nature of gaming - interacting with them.  Slap on a forum or game player blog and you’ve got a community of engaged people who are loyal to your brand.

***Warning*** Do not just tack on any portion of this experience.  Everything must be intelligently measured and decided on before you take any steps toward adding features.  Blundering through a campaign adding every Web 2.0 buzz word you can think of only makes you look bad.  Promise quality and deliver quality – just like you do with your products and services.

So, you’re cautiously optimistic about creating a video game.  Good.  Next time, we’ll discuss the trials, travails, and triumphs of marketing games in Those Who Have Gone Before.

As the financial crisis in this country and abroad begins to dip its shifty fingers into our wallets, I wondered what you were doing both personally and professionally to cut costs in this economic downturn?

Cutting out (or down on) Starbucks?

Walking or taking public transportation to work?

Cutting marketing budgets?

Cutting other budgets?

Is there anything you’ve changed?

Anything that you won’t change?

Maybe you plan to buy fewer gifts for the holidays?

Or skimp on eating out at restaurants?

Let’s help each other get through this time –  which I believe can only be adequately described as “sucky”.  Leave your pennywise answers in the comments.

So, on Sunday, my wife and I watched the season premier of America’s Funniest Home Videos…yes, the early 90’s Bob Saget started show based on cute children, talented pets, and men getting hit in the crotch.

It’s still on, and in its 19th season no less, who knew? So, after we reveled in the darker side of humanity and the pain of others, I started thinking about how America’s Funniest Home Videos (or AFV as it’s now officially abbreviated) was the YouTube of its day.

It (far ahead of its time) used the wisdom of the crowd to produce a show popular enough to last 19 seasons and be on its third host. Most TV shows nowadays get canceled after an episode or three let alone several hosts. (That is unless you’re Family Feud. Anything that can survive Louie Anderson must be something special.)

So, what am I blabbering about? Why should you care? Because we all should have seen YouTube coming. We all should have been able to stand upon the shoulders of giants like Bob Saget and create that next big thing. Certainly there had to be a confluence of technology and business savvy to make it work.  But, 16 years before YouTube was founded, Vin Di Bona (AFV’s Producer) saw something that became the basis of Web 2.0.

The only way you’re going to stay ahead of the game in this business is to constantly innovate. To constantly ask yourself, “What next?” and to keep pushing for new ways to interact with your customers and constituents. By the time you’re done reading this blog and blogs like us, the current industry fad will be over and you’ll be behind the curve. So push forward, beyond the bounds of what you see, and strike deep into the heartland of that yet undiscovered country that is the next big thing… your big thing.

Microsoft, in what appears to be a desperate attempt to gain search share, has announced a new program called SearchPerks. What is SearchPerks? It is similar to your credit cards rewards program except instead of earning points based on how much you spend, you earn “tickets” based on how many search queries you perform. You can then redeem your “tickets” for prizes once the promotion ends.

In order to take part in the promotion you must sign up by December 31, 2008. You will then have to download a small program that tracks your usage and use Internet Explorer 6.0 or later (in fact you must use IE 6.0 or later to even view the site where you sign up). Microsoft limits the number of tickets you can earn per day to 25. You must also “participate in the program until its completion” in order to be eligible for any prizes. It’s not apparent what that means, but I would guess it requires you to either perform a minimum number of searches per month, week or day.

If you sign up today, you’ll be able to accumulate 5,400 points which does not appear to be enough to get the top prize (an xbox controller). Maybe you can earn bonus points during the promotion to reach the top prize, but regardless of how you get the points, it’s a pretty pathetic top prize.

So if you’re interested in getting some prizes for performing searches then check out SearchPerks, but make sure you read the fine print so that you can make sure that at the end of the promotion you’re still eligable to receive your prizes.

With Barack Obama and John McCain now in full battle mode, I thought it would appropriate to take a look at some online metrics and make some comparisons to how each is using the internet to help their campaign. In the lead up to the election, I will post my findings and observations.

Some topic areas that I will likely include are:

• Search volume relating to each candidate in key “battle ground” states
• How they are using search
• Analysis of their Websites
• Analysis of their involvement with social media
• Other areas that seem appropriate as we move close to the election

One quick observation is how they have each reacted to hurricane Gustav. The republican convention scaled back the schedule of events and speakers on the day the hurricane hit. Instead, they focused on its potential impact and the states that could be affected. McCain’s team also made sure to give it prominent placement on their homepage and highlight speeches that were given by Cindy McCain and Laura Bush.

Not to be outdone, the Obama team has put up a splash page that has temporarily replaced their homepage. It calls for individuals to make a donation to those affected by Gustav.

So, even in times of tragedy the candidates are jockeying to show American citizens that they are in tune with the needs of those that have been affected and are working to help provide relief. And, this is just the beginning of what is sure to be a nasty battle in the coming months.

So, I went to a wedding this past weekend. It was a lot of fun to see an old friend get married. The ceremony was beautiful and the reception a blast. They even had an open candy bar, yes CANDY bar. It was the coolest thing I’d ever seen. All kinds of candy, all available for you to place in a tiny white paper bag. I was giddy as a bear devouring hohos. My wife patiently patted my arm and said, “If we ever get married again, we can have a candy bar.” So, I sat back, chomped on a yogurt-covered pretzel, and dreamed of the day I’d marry my wife for the second time.

While sugar plums danced in my head, I happened to notice the dance floor. Now, I’ve got a little bit of rhythm, but watching me dance is like watching a bear devour a box of hohos: kind of odd, a little unsettling, and completely unnatural. I have, therefore, avoided dance floors much like a camper would avoid a bear eating hohos…(Could a box of hohos really satisfy a bear? Or, would he be extra hungry for meat afterward?)

But, there were a few kids there who were just having a good time dancing their hearts out. To be honest, they weren’t very good, but they didn’t care. They turned and twisted and to quote that great philosopher, Will Smith, “got jiggywidit.”

This made me think of two things:

First, of a passage in a book by Gordon MacKenzie called Orbiting the Giant Hairball: A Corporate Fool’s Guide to Surviving with Grace where he talks about doing presentations in schools. During these presentations, he would always ask how many of the students were artists. At the first grade level, almost every kid waved their hand high in the air. By the second grade, about two-thirds still waved their hands proudly and so on. By the sixth grade, peer pressure and the desperate need for acceptance caused only a kid or two to timidly move their hand to eye level.

Secondly, it made me think of a post on Seth Godin’s blog about how marketers are in the business of destroying happiness. In order to market a product or service to someone who is quite happy with the status quo, we need to destroy that status quo – so that they feel a need to buy the product we’re selling. We provide the cure-all for the problems they didn’t know they had.

And, I couldn’t help but wonder if our consumer-based culture is one of the factors in transforming the dancing kids & the artists into people who see themselves as bears eating hohos.

Is there a better way? I think so. I hope so. But, I don’t have any firm answers.

What do you think?

My wife and I have been watching the Olympics whenever we could over the past two weeks.  We’d watched almost any sport that was on and usually enjoyed it.  But on Saturday, NBC did something I couldn’t believe.  They aired about two hours and ten minutes straight of the most boring TV I have ever sat through (and why I did, I’m not totally sure).  They aired every minute of the men’s marathon run.

Now, I have nothing but respect for anyone who can run 26.2 miles straight.  I’d be hard pressed to run 26.2 feet – let alone recreate Pheidippides’ historic run.   But, that doesn’t mean that I’d like to spend 2 hours watching someone else do it.  I’d have been fine with watching the first ten minutes, cutting back to it every twenty minutes, and then watching the end. 

But seriously, why would you televise the entire race?  Show me something, anything else!  Watching linoleum curl would have been more interesting (if nothing else for that cool/geeky science aspect).  Plus, commentators run out of interesting things to say in an exciting sport so you can only imagine what they came up with during this riveting spectacle.  “Look they’re at a water station.”  “It really cools them down when they pour it on their heads.”  “Yeah, they sure like water, Bob.” or “These runners are really… running…”  I was on the edge of my seat.

So, why would NBC in its infinite wisdom show such fascinating TV during prime time? (Granted it was on Saturday, which is not a historically high-rated TV night).  I can only come up with two reasons:

1. They thought live-and-boring would trump taped-and-interesting or…

2. They didn’t think it through.  In either case, I think number 2 applies.

So, the moral of this story?  When you spend billions (or just hundreds) of dollars on a marketing campaign, think through how the audience will see it/hear it/understand it.  Throwing  money at anything only makes you poor.  Make sure your campaign is thoroughly thought through (say that three times fast). 

Try to look at it from the perspective of your target audience.  If I was X target audience demographic, how would I interact with Y marketing materials whether it’s a print piece, a Web piece, or a TV/Radio piece.  Don’t assume they’ll jump through whatever hoops you’ve laid out. 

Think about how you would react to the same sort of materials if you were in someone else’s target demographic.  If you take the time to think through every aspect of the life cycle of your campaign, you’ll see better responses, happier customers, and possibly a blacker bottom line.

Remember slow and steady (and thought through) wins the marathon (sorry, I just had to).

Kellogg’s is bringing back Hydrox cookies, at least temporarily. Did anyone really miss them? The cookie, introduced in 1908 and discontinued in 2003, is celebrating its 100th Anniversary. I guess Kellogg’s thought this would be a great opportunity to bring them back for some additional beatings by Oreos.

Hydrox Cookie

So why now? Was it the huge outpouring of protest ( if 1000 petition signatures and 1300 phone calls constitutes a protest)? Or, perhaps Kellogg’s saw the opportunity to generate some press – which it has. I still question the reasoning behind bringing back a brand that has failed miserably. It just seems futile. Sales numbers from 1998 really say it all — $374 million for Oreos; $16 million for Hydrox.

I am a huge fan of cookies, especially the dunkable, chocolate variety, but I was never drawn to Hydrox. I don’t think I’ve ever eaten a Hydrox and don’t think I would if offered. I certainly wouldn’t give them to my kids. Why?

The name! It just sounds artificial and chemically. Rule of thumb, if your cookie rhymes with a major brand of bleach, you might want to think about another name. They knew they had a branding issue and even changed the name to Droxies in 1999. Good try Kellogg’s, but changing the name of a product is really the kiss of death. I can’t think of one that has survived it. Can you?

Kellogg’s does a lot of things right – Cheeze-Its and anything touched by Elfin magic for example – but I wish they would just throw in the towel on the Hydrox brand for good. I don’t even like seeing them near my Oreos on the shelf.

So, I got to thinking this week about what going “viral” really means…

Viral – adj. from the English virus meaning of or like a virus.

(I know, I’m a human lexicon. You should see me play Scrabul- errr… WordScraper.) But, being the product of pop-culture that I am, when I think of viruses – I always think of Agent Smith’s classic speech to Neo in The Matrix: “…[humans are] not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You move to an area, and you multiply, and multiply, until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. A virus.”

Viruses consume everything they can on their mission to spread as far and as fast as possible. They move so fast because they’re on a limited time frame. They are the original twenty-four hour bug. So, they spread as far and as fast as they can because they know they will die out shortly. Their purpose seems only to spread, disrupt, destroy, and in the process survive. (Viruses will even infect other viruses.)

Are viral marketing campaigns much different? Their purpose is generally to “infect” as many users as possible to spread the brand/product as quickly and as far as possible. Most viral marketing campaigns also seek to deceive or at least trick the user into thinking this viral marketing campaign is something other than a marketing campaign.

If it’s well done, it can be an engrossing, award winning experience. But, most viral marketing campaigns, like pyramid schemes, fall far short of their promised revenue for the client and can sometimes cost millions in backlash. Viral marketing campaigns in general, particularly the bad and/or thinly veiled ones, are a detriment to the landscape. They add nothing to a conversation except a deceitful attempt by a marketer to con the consumer out of a buck.

On the other flagellum, there are bacteria. Some bacteria cause sickness, disease, and death. But, if you’ve ever seen a woman over-sharing her digestive problems on TV, you probably know that there are some good bacteria out there too. They help us with digestion and a wide variety of other things. Yet, they can also spread quickly.

We should add something to the conversation online rather than sneakily weaseling our way into marketing something. We should create campaigns that are funny, heartwarming, or weird simply for the sake of the consumer and not to exploit them.

Arguably, there must be some business model behind why and how we do this so that we can at least break even. But, if we care more for our customers than their pocket books, we will have created long-term customers. And to take the analogy farther than it probably should go, the bacteria will live forever in their gut rather than quickly dying out after controlling the whole body.

Let us then devise bacterial marketing campaigns that interest, engross, and help the average person. Let us not just chase the almighty dollar, but let us build the community and, by extension, all of mankind through our marketing. Let us be at the forefront of a new marketing strategy that invites customers into a better way of living rather than forcing a product down their throat.

If nothing else I think we’ll all sleep better at night.