[arg_discuss] is ARG just a marketing technique to the press?

[Kristian Leth DR]

The question is whether the terms we discuss "success" by are faulty. Maybe an economic model shouldn't be measured by other standards lifted from unrealistic scenarios. Let me give a relevant and real analogy:

The established music business is in trouble these days. They're trying to get back to a situation that was never viable (and only existed for about 40 years) without being able to reassess their situation with the perspective of living in a digital 2008.

The truth about the music business is that we're not going to see major labels being able to dominate like they did again, and a successful band is not going sell the same insane amount of records - except for special cases - as they have been up until now. 

Now, the music industry is still complaining that this new development is "unfair", when they should be focusing on the fact that the music business is changing, becoming more community-driven, more grassroots-oriented and more anarchistic.

And this is where the analogy ties into ARGs: Everybody is - rightly - pointing out that it's hard to charge individually in a genre that is - so far - collective/anarchistic in its nature. So instead of trying to invent "the individual angle" we should maybe look at this again, scale down the expectations and stop looking to our neighbors in console gaming. 

(The music industry is (again?) becoming a fantastic playing field, driven by music to a larger extent than in the 90s for instance. Costumers are becoming more immune to marketing ploys and factorymade groups. Maybe that's a good reference for us?)

What are the upsides to ARGs being collective, hyped, anti-establishment and not suitable for classic marketing channels? What are the possiblities within those boundaries?


-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kristian Leth

ARG Producer
dr-fiktion
danmarks radio
segment 1
dr-byen 
emil holms kanal 20
0999 kbh c
mobil: 26749544
arbejde: 35208488
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
Fra: arg_discuss-bounces at igda.org [mailto:arg_discuss-bounces at igda.org] På vegne af Ian Millington
Sendt: 27. december 2007 16:36
Til: Discussion list of the IGDA ARG SIG
Emne: ***POSSIBLE SPAM*** Re: [arg_discuss] is ARG just a marketing technique to the press?

Great discussion.

I guess like many other readers I read Brian's mail and thought - yeah
how unfair, isn't it obvious that  this is the start of something
significant?.

But is it unfair? Can you think of another creative discipline that:

a) Is appreciated widely (including by the media) in its own right.
b) has no proven business model for direct monetization.

Nearest I came up with was graphic design, but even then I wouldn't
say it was widely appreciated in its own right (and certainly wasn't
appreciated in its own right for half a century, despite considerably
greater ubiquity than ARGs).

For ARGs (b) is still the 800lb gorilla in the corner of the living
room. As someone who is not interested in advergaming, but has
(unsuccessfully) tried to get commercial ARG material funded, I know
from bitter experience that ARGs are perceived as marketing gimmicks
by the mainstream games industry as well as the media. The chalk
outline of Majestic is till tiptoed around with an air of disdain.

I have a depressing sense that unless we crack b - work out how to
reliably monetise our effort successfully for its own sake - that ARGs
might be destined to languish in the 'marketing gimmick and academic
curiosity' for a long time.

Ian.



On 27/12/2007, Brian Clark <bclark at gmdstudios.com> wrote:

> >1) The no-longer appropriate bundling of marketing and non-art.

>

> I'm working on a piece regarding this, but sadly the answer I offer up isn't

> a simple one as it requires providing an alternate framework for creating

> sets from this work. In many ways, the complete misreading of "Blair Witch"

> cause-and-effect lead marketers to mistake one (fan building) for the other

> (marketing) -- even though those were two different phases, even for "Blair

> Witch". There are other historical examples in play, but since Mike is here

> and the BW case study is well (mis)known it is as good of a shortcut of that

> bigger idea as I can offer up yet.

>

> Fan building and marketing can co-exist, but don't necessarily share the

> same value structures. Fandom, though, can't be "faked" -- its appearance by

> definition implies success in forming a connection between a creator and an

> experiential participant. The disconnect between the implied goals of fan

> creation and "mere marketing" are what we're seeing and what we're thinking.

>

>

> People want some kind of taxonomy to feel safe with the world though, and

> none of the taxonomies put forward articulate the question of intent.

> Fortunately, it shouldn't have to; it only has to show a diversity of

> intent, like any media or artform needs to. What craft it is applied to

> (entertainment, news, advertising) is almost beside the point.

>

>

>

>

>

> _______________________________________________

> ARG_Discuss mailing list

> ARG_Discuss at igda.org

> http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/arg_discuss

>

_______________________________________________
ARG_Discuss mailing list
ARG_Discuss at igda.org
http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/arg_discuss