[arg_discuss] [pm] Commercial vs. Grassroots, Player or PM?

[Andrea Phillips]

On Mar 31, 2006, at 10:33 PM, Brooke Thompson wrote:

> I agree that it's splitting hairs, to a degree. But, I think it's an
> important distinction when one considers the ARGs used in educational
> settings (I know of several used to support school curriculum) and  
> corporate
> training. Those are not about selling or marketing, however they  
> are about
> building awareness. There's a game that I'm aware of that's in very  
> early
> development stages that will work on social awareness of a local  
> public
> policy. Is it selling? Marketing?
>
> So, splitting hairs? Perhaps. More accurately defining? I think so.
>
> ARGs do not have to have to be run along side a product or serving  
> as a
> promotional tool and, as someone actively working in another  
> environment, I
> suppose that I'm a bit sensitive to people limiting discussion to  
> that.

Well, you're right that some categories of ARG for, say, corporate  
training or other educational uses do have a goal besides selling; I  
don't tend to think about this potentially broad category of games,  
probably because I hear next to nothing about 'em, more's the pity. I  
could still get into some semantics about selling an idea vs. selling  
a product, but that would just be goofy. :)

Nonetheless, I do hate to see a definition where the team for  
something like Art of the Heist (hi, guys!) could say with a straight  
face that their end goal is to build buzz, and not in any way at all  
to sell cars, because the purpose of the one is still to lead right  
toward the other, sooner or later.

Do we need to break it into three categories, now? Grassroots games,  
commercial games, and non-profit/educational/public interest games?  
(Does it hurt more than it helps to do that kind of defining?)

--
Andrea Phillips
http://www.perplexcity.com
http://www.deusexmachinatio.com