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

[Dan Hon]

So, it's hard to get people to invest in IP ownership. You end up  
persuading investors that they want to be investing in what they see  
as straight content or, worse, a hits-based business (how do we know  
you're going to be the next Spielberg?)

And to stave off any debate on that throwaway last parenthesis,  
investors want Spielbergs for their return. They're not interested in  
the lower end.

My default position is that good, quality IP costs (and yes, it's  
getting cheaper, but it's always going to cost *something*) and that  
until you've got a track record, people won't just give you money to  
develop that IP.

PXC was, publicly, an IP play.

Lastly: if you believe that good, quality IP (that you can then take  
and exploit across a universe) is what's needed, then you also need to  
realise that creating it isn't easy at all, because if it were, we'd  
all be stinking rich.

Dan

On 10 Jan 2008, at 16:50, Michael Monello wrote:


> How could I forget Perplex City -- doh!

>

> Year Zero, yeah, probably that as well, since the overall vision and  

> ownership was with Trent Reznor.

>

> Probably the strongest economic model for ARG's is IP ownership,  

> which comes down to story and characters and building a large  

> fanbase. That way you can economically exploit pieces of your  

> universe across many channels, and the more successful the ARG is at  

> developing audience, the greater your economic potential is as more  

> possibilities open up. With Blair we had several books, a TV  

> special, a soundtrack album, a 6-book comic series, 3 PC games,  

> posters, calendars, Exploratory CD-Rom, trading cards, etc. Oh, and  

> of course the movie.

>

> 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 10:21 AM, Dan Hon wrote:

>

>> I'd add Year Zero, too. At least, if we take as read the public  

>> story of Trent funding the project.

>>

>> And I note that there'll be a Cathy's Book sequel coming out soon,  

>> too!

>>

>> Oh, and Perplex City. Ish.

>>

>> On 10 Jan 2008, at 15:12, Michael Monello wrote:

>>

>>> 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

>>>

>>> _______________________________________________

>>> 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

>

> _______________________________________________

> ARG_Discuss mailing list

> ARG_Discuss at igda.org

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