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

[Michael Monello]

There have been ARGs (or ARG like projects) that were not marketing  
campaigns but instead capitalized on one piece of media to generate  
revenue. I would suggest Blair Witch, Freakylinks, Nothing So Strange,  
and Cathy's Book as projects that were truly cross-media rather than  
marketing campaigns for a films, books or tv shows. Despite how mass  
media may have characterized some of them, they were all developed to  
be cross media narratives, not marketing campaigns supporting a  
property.

Since so many marketing ARGs have been for entertainment properties  
it's hard to make a distinction, but I believe there is one to be  
made, as in the above examples the creators of the ARG also were  
creators and owners of the exploitable properties.

Obviously there's a risk involved in this model -- some of these were  
more successful financially than others, but they are all in their own  
way tackling the economic issue.

Best,

Michael Monello
Partner, Campfire
62 White Street, 3W
New York, NY 10013
212-612-9600
http://www.campfirenyc.com



On Jan 10, 2008, at 8:46 AM, Kristian Leth DR wrote:


> Hi Brian,

>

>

> "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?"

>

> You wrote:

> I'm not sure I completely buy how you got to this analogy, Kristian.

> Comparing ARGing to the "music industry" or the "game industry" is  

> really

> requires that we think there is an "ARG industry" (there isn't) and  

> that it

> has established structures that can be disintermediated (there  

> aren't.)

>

> I say:

> I'm not comparing the two as "industries", I'm trying to make the  

> point that trying to fit a square peg into a round hole can be very  

> bothersome, and might not be the only way forward.

>

> You wrote:

> Anything that aggregates attention has the potential to leverage that

> attention towards marketing something. Heck, they put advertisements  

> on

> zambonis at hockey matches, because they tend to collect attention  

> from

> people in the crowds (but the zamboni isn't on the ice to produce a

> marketing effect, it is there to smooth the ice!)

>

> I say:

> I actually think that the marketing ARGs have so far been the most  

> intruiging and enjoyable, and if you can do something as cool as The  

> Beast, ilovebees or Art Of The Heist then I envy you. But parts of  

> this discussion is "how can we change this genre into a commercially  

> viable one (like the _other_ game forms) without changing what's  

> integral to ARGs?" And while that's an interesting discussion, I  

> think maybe the economic model has to grow - on its own - around a  

> genre that believes in itself and operates on its own terms. And  

> we're nowhere near that yet. (And that's where the music analogy  

> comes into the picture.)

>

> Because this thing has grown out of the most unlikely places. ARGs  

> have found their form through a mix of marketing ploys and grass- 

> roots endeavors, and I think that that's pretty special. My point is  

> probably that I think the focus in this genre for the immediate  

> future is exploring, expanding and having fun with the genre, out of  

> love for it. The money isn't going to magically appear in loads,  

> when somebody figures out "How To Do It".

>

> For god's sake, those of us who can make money out of it should KEEP  

> DOING IT (and share the info!). But if that's the only reason we're  

> here, then we're probably on our way to doing something that we know  

> will put food on our tables. Let's keep it adventurous yet.

>

> The Romantic

> Kristian

> _______________________________________________

> ARG_Discuss mailing list

> ARG_Discuss at igda.org

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