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

[Michael Monello]

You don't need investors to create great IP, and raising money at that  
stage is bad business, in my mind.

Take a great idea, execute it independently, but have a long term  
plan. Build an audience, show that people are interested, and then  
raise the money to take it to the next level. That gives you as the  
content creator and IP owner more leverage and allows you to retain  
more control and ownership.

It's the difference between spending years doing lunches in Hollywood  
and grabbing some video cameras and shooting an indie feature.

It's not easy, but it certainly isn't beyond the reach of anyone  
reading this email to develop an amazing ARG and build it out.

Here's something:

Campfire, and to my knowledge (correct me if I'm wrong, Brian) GMD,  
are completely self-financed companies. Bootstrapped from the ground  
up by sweat, creativity and personal risk, and now both companies are  
in a position to do more -- bigger budgets, more resources, etc.

I'm sure there are many, many more out there, I just don't know the  
behind the scenes stories.

But there is a difference between an "IP Play" and building a company  
that does this out of passion yet with an eye on sustainability. The  
former is difficult, the latter well within reach of everyone, and the  
brilliant thing is if you do it well, you end up with a true IP Play  
and in a much better position!

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 12:01 PM, Dan Hon wrote:


> 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

>

> _______________________________________________

> ARG_Discuss mailing list

> ARG_Discuss at igda.org

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