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

[despain at quantumcontent.com]

Andrea Phillips said:
> It just means it's *clever* marketing. At the end of the day, the
> point is still to get more viewers/move more product/what have
> you, even if there's no part that tells you "Buy a Whizmo Lite
> today!"
>
> I think a lot of pro designers would protest heartily about this,
> because I gravely doubt it's what anyone has in mind while actually
> designing a game; but it's still there, and the players know it.

Speaking of generalizations... heh. I think of pro ARG games more like
television shows (movies, too in some cases, but in a different way).
The people making television shows don't really think of them in terms
of moving the products advertised between acts. But ultimately, that's
how the actors and writers and directors get paid.

Audience members are aware that's how it works. They're not oblivious
to  product placement, either. But they accept it as part of the price
they  pay to be entertained.

If we can't get players to pay for "tickets" like at a movie theater
(ie. subscriptions) or DVD's (game cards or t-shirts?) then we have to
pay our bills with advertising.

Granted, ARGs are still finding their way through this - and some do
come off more like really cool commercials, but how many people watch
the superbowl for the commercials? Marketing is considered acceptable
entertainment in other arenas. I don't think we need to be ashamed of
it facilitating ARGs.

Wendy Despain
quantumcontent.com