Gamasutra: The Art & Business of Making Gamesspacer
View All     RSS
August 27, 2014
arrowPress Releases
August 27, 2014
PR Newswire
View All
View All     Submit Event





If you enjoy reading this site, you might also want to check out these UBM Tech sites:


 
What the Hell is It That You Actually Do Anyway, Mr. Marketing Guy?
by Justin Fischer on 05/16/14 02:11:00 pm   Expert Blogs   Featured Blogs

The following blog post, unless otherwise noted, was written by a member of Gamasutra’s community.
The thoughts and opinions expressed are those of the writer and not Gamasutra or its parent company.

 

sleazyguy

Ahhhh, marketing. Few professions are as maligned as marketing. When I say the word "marketing", no doubt your mind is flooded with images of sleezy skags in suits talking about how transmedia synergies are really hot with the teen male demo. Nobody could say it better than Bill Hicks:

But here's the question: what IS marketing? Do you know? Do you really know? I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that if you absolutely, fundamentally hate marketing folks without reservation, you probably don't actually know what marketing is. Or, rather, what it's supposed to be. I'm a student at a graduate school that made its reputation on marketing, and I didn't actually know what marketing was supposed to be until I took a marketing class. Marketing isn't just advertising. It isn't just focus groups and lowest common denominator bullshit.

Here's how marketing is supposed to work, using an example Guy Kawasaki makes in every lecture of his I've watched on YouTube:

Screen Shot 2014-05-16 at 11.03.57 AM-"You're stupid" is Kawasaki's summary, not mine. 

To put it in terms of marketing:

Screen Shot 2014-05-16 at 11.07.50 AM-My summary.

Here's what marketing is supposed to be: marketing is the profession of creating value for your customers, your collaborators, and your company.  In other words, how do we make something that people want to buy, that our collaborators want to help us sell, and that turns a profit. That's it. That's what marketing is. Design an exciting, valuable product, from cradle to grave. Now, seriously, is that really that evil? Not if you accept that the games industry is a business and it needs to be profitable to be sustainable. And marketing is just the process of making products profitable.

Now lets talk about what marketing - or rather good marketing - isn't.

Good Marketing Isn't Making the Same Product as Everyone Else Because it's The New Hotness

One of the most basic lessons you learn in business school, a lesson that gets drilled into your head throughout your core classes, is that making the same thing your competitor is making means you have to compete on surplus. The difference between the average per-unit cost it takes to produce a product (C) and the per-unit price you charge for it (P) is the "producer surplus". The difference between the price and what the product is worth to the consumer, his maximum willingness to pay (B), is called the "consumer surplus". If you're making the same product as your competitor, the customer now has two equivalent products to pick from, reducing his B for each. To get the sale, you have to provide more surplus and capture less for yourself, which means either a lower price than the competition (which tends to provoke a price war) or more value (and a higher average cost) for the same price. Either reduces the surplus you are able to capture. In the video games industry, this phenomenon manifests as feature arms-races between similar products, resulting in things like seemingly superfluous game modes, content for the sake of content, Hollywood actors, or a general lack of focus in a game's design.

Screen Shot 2014-05-16 at 11.32.53 AM*Image taken from Besanko, David, Economics of Strategy, 6th Edition (Page 299).

For my fellow developers, this phenomenon has a more sinister consequence: crunch. If you're making a shooter, and you want to compete in a market crowded with shooters, you need the most badass feature set and the most immaculate level of polish. And you don't want to add development time - that would just jack up your average cost and make it harder to turn a profit. So...guess who's sleeping at the office from now until we go gold?*

The games industry is notorious for the fast-follow: "Hey, those guys made stupid money with Brotherhood of Valor Battle Duty Craft. Gimme one of them!" Yeah, they made money because they found a market need that no one was serving. Now they're serving it. If you want a piece of that action, you need to steal it away from them, so get ready to blow the ass out of your budget with some combination of feature creep, celebrity actors, media blowout events, and paying websites to rebrand their homepages.

However, if you have a marketing department that thinks strategically, and that takes your competitors and the overall industry context into account when creating value for your customers, collaborators and companyº, you can come up with products that avoid that trap.

Good Marketing Isn't Targeting a Product at Everyone

There's a great quote by Bill Cosby: "I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everyone." You know where I heard that quote? In my marketing class. It was even in my friggin text book, for pete's sake.

Making a mass-market, lowest common denominator product is not what a good marketing department is supposed to do.  A good marketing department is supposed to avoid the death by a thousand cuts trap of saying "Yeah but if we just jammed this one additional feature in, we could capture market segment X".

A good marketing department is supposed to divide a market up into logical segments and then:

A) figure what need(s) those segments have and then find/develop products that solve those needs.

OR...

B) take an existing product and match it with or adapt it to a segment's needs.

The marketing department is then supposed to look at that market, decide how much revenue potential it has, and use that number to set a budget for the product so that it can be profitable. That's how you make a product that creates value for the customer (it's worth the price), creates value to your collaborators (their margins will be large enough to make collaboration worthwhile) and creates value for your company (you make money). That's how seemingly niche games like Dark Souls and Payday 2 can be well regarded and profitable while more mass-market games like Resident Evil 6 can fail to do either.

A focused product can provide a lot of value to a target segment because it can be better refined to suit that segment's needs. To the members of your target segment, if your product actually solves their need(s), they will have a higher maximum willingness to pay, allowing you to charge more (claim more producer surplus) while still providing consumer surplus. This is called a margin strategy. Not everyone in the segment will buy it, and not everyone outside the segment will ignore it, but having a core audience in mind informs the entire product life cycle, from design, to advertising strategy, to distribution, giving you a better shot of a solid margin without your customers feeling like they got the shaft. They got a product that was designed for them, after all.

An unfocused product might be more broadly appealing (ie, a broader swath of people might be interested), but it will be less appealing to individual market segments than products tailored to those segments. Those individual segments will have a reduced maximum willingness to pay for the product, your margins will dissolve, and your only hope to make a profit is on volume (this is called a share strategy). And if your product is targeting more markets, then it's inviting more competition, notably from products tailored to those markets. Your product will also likely be more expensive: your lack of focus means you won't be able make cost reducing trade-offs†. And your product itself will have less focus and refinement in it's design and delivery: it will be generic and will be delivered to the market in a generic fashion.

As the saying goes, you can't please everyone all the time.

Good Marketing Isn't Making Business Decisions Purely Based on Focus Groups 

Focus groups are valuable data points. It's a useful exercise to actually talk to your customers and see what their needs and interests are. But that process is not a substitute for actively making a decision.  Steve Jobs famously - and rather arrogantly - stated that Apple ran no focus groups before launching the iPad because "It's not the consumer's job to know what they want." What Jobs didn't say is that he had plenty of smart marketing people looking at consumer habits and identifying a need for quality tablet computer. But he was almost certainly correct in that if he had brought a bunch of consumers in a room, they would have said they wanted a faster/lighter/cheaper/better laptop or a faster/lighter/cheaper/better iPhone. It is highly unlikely that any of them would have said "I like my iPhone, but can you biggify it?"

Here's how focus groups can actually be useful:

A) Get feedback on an existing product to find areas for improvement.

...OR...

B) Put your product in front of your target market segment and to see if they actually seem to want it.

...OR...

C) Get a sense for what a target segment's unmet needs and then figure out how you can create a product that serves those needs better than the competition.

Focus groups will not drive innovation, although they can provide feedback about it. Holding focus groups will not relieve you of the need to have a forward-thinking vision if you want to make something awesome. Focus group members will not tell you the next great product you should make. How could they? You haven't made it yet and they're not fortune tellers. Trying get new product ideas by just asking people what they want is essentially asking them to do your job for you for the cost of some doughnuts and a Diet Coke. And that's just lazy.

A Note on Consumer vs. Producer Surplus

All this talk about consumer and producer surplus might trigger a sensation of skin crawling in some of you. I can understand the sentiment, but take a step back and let's talk about what those terms mean. Think of two games, one you purchased at launch for full price because you were really excited about it, and one you purchased only after the price had dropped to a level commensurate with your interest. Now, assuming that the game you purchased at launch lived up to your excitement, did you feel ripped off or gouged because you paid more money? Or did you feel like you got your money's worth and you were satisfied with your purchase?

That's what a good marketing department is supposed to provide: a good deal for everyone. The producer is able to charge a higher premium and you still feel like you got value in excess of what you paid. It's not about gouging the customer. It's about making a better deal for everyone involved. If I can make a game that gets you excited and then delivers on that promise, am I a cut-throat business man or a good developer who knows his audience? If you are willing to pay more for my game than someone else's, are you a victim or a satisfied customer?

If that didn't convince you, rip a hit off this pipe: if I can make a game so exciting that you're willing to pay full price (not buy it after a price drop, not buy it used, not rent it, not borrow it from a friend) and enough other players also feel the same way that I can make a solid profit, things like DRM, online passes and their ilk become a lot less necessary. Those ham-fisted poxes didn't emerge because companies are greedy. Some amount of shrink is expected in any industry. They emerged because companies saw a threat to profitability and lacked the marketing creativity to provide a mutually beneficial solution.

And again, let's remember: this is a business. The business needs to generate enough money in order for us to actually have professional game developers. Business is not inherently evil nor is the desire for profit. Problems develop when marketing departments (and product developers in general) get lazy and stop thinking about what products would be uniquely exciting, or how to generate better, unique value for everyone involved. Especially you.

Justin Fischer is a Senior Producer in the industry and an MBA candidate at the Kellogg School of Management in Chicago. You can follow him on Twitter at @gamergoeslegit
 
In addition, he is the co-founder of Clockwork Otter, a team of industry veterans creating tools for Unity 3D. Follow them at @_clockworkotter
 
*Obviously, there are other sources of crunch, managerial incompetence and decision bottlenecking being two significant ones that come to mind.
ºLooking at your customer, company, collaborators, competitors, and context is called the "5-C's Framework"; Chernov, Alexander, Strategic Marketing Management, 7th Edition (page 11)
†For more on the concept of trade-offs and efficiency, check out my other post Competitive Advantage and the Productivity Frontier, Or Why Dark Souls is the Ikea of Game Development

Related Jobs

Amazon Game Studios
Amazon Game Studios — Irvine, California, United States
[08.27.14]

Art Director-Double Helix
Yoh
Yoh — Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
[08.27.14]

Rendering Engineer Job
Yoh
Yoh — Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
[08.27.14]

Multiplayer Designer Job
Blizzard Entertainment
Blizzard Entertainment — Irvine, California, United States
[08.27.14]

SENIOR SOFTWARE ENGINEER, GRAPHICS






Comments


TC Weidner
profile image
marketing in theory is fine, marketing in practice isnt. Thats why Hicks is so funny, cause he is right

As you said marketing should be about creating and offering a product that solves a need or problem, or to find an existing product which can be found to do so.

Problem is marketing these days is more about creating a fake or false problem first, then offering some solution.

Selling face cream? sells OK, but if you can make all girls feel ugly, well then it sells like hotcakes...

Eric Finlay
profile image
Aren't consumers partially to blame for marketers having the power they do?

Justin Fischer
profile image
Not sure what you mean here, but, in general, I find blaming consumers is not a productive exercise. Blame implies they had some obligation or otherwise should have acted differently. You can blame a person, or a distinct group of people, for his/her/their behavior. But consumers as a collective concept just do what they perceive to be in their best interests for whatever reason. If consumer behavior has empowered marketing departments, that's just because marketing departments were able provide a product/service/solution that best met their interests. Not saying that makes marketing departments right or beyond reproach, just that consumers aren't to blame.

Justin Fischer
profile image
I completely agree. In my first marketing class, my professor asked what I thought marketing was, and I replied bullshit based on some of the marketing departments I've worked with.

There are examples of good/great marketing, but they are few and far between. Apple is great at it. Dollar Shave Club is great at it. But too often it's either manufacture a need or shove a product down consumer's throats with an advertising blitz.

But when marketing is done well, it is an impressive thing to see.

John Trauger
profile image
...so shoehorning Legolas into Desolation of Smaug *was* bad marketing...

When I worked for Sierra On-Line in the 90s, Marketing set game budgets. Management demanded 4x ROI, so however many unis Marketing thought a project would sell, the proceeds were figured, divided by 4, and that was the game's budget.

It was every bit as bad as it sounds.

Where does marketing end and Design begin? Do we make the game we honestly want to make and have a passion for, or the game Marketing wants to make?

John Trauger
profile image
Ideally, those two dovetail into the same thing. But we do not always inhabit an ideal world.

Justin Fischer
profile image
That does sound awful. There's a famous quote I love and I try to keep in mind in work and in life: foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. Having a x4 ROI as a benchmark of success is one thing (though I would argue absurdly ambitious) but using it as a heuristic for setting budgets is madness.

I've worked with a great marketer who took our idea and helped us identify features that would help make it more competitive. He actually came to our office and went through our feature list with us and was a true collaborator. I've had another that just said make a clone of this game but with our IP and then ignored us until the last few weeks, at which point he attempted to shoehorn all sorts of collateral nonsense in.

I think we should absolutely make the games we want to make, but I also think it's marketing's job to help nurture that idea, and help focus it, and help identify a budget that allows for a reasonable ROI. A good marketing department should serve as a collaborator. If your tech director speaks to technical stability, and your art director speaks to the visual coherence, your marketer should be responsible for the overall strategy of the project: target consumers, value proposition for that target, communication strategy, etc.

But totally, easier said then done. It's way too easy for marketing to run rough shod over the development team. Like all things in business, the optimal road is the most uncertain and the most difficult. Far easier to stick with the things that work then blaze a trail. If it was easy, every marketing department would be great.

jaime kuroiwa
profile image
Thanks for saying this, John, because this was/is my main peeve about the industry.

I've always thought that Marketing should be the horse to a cart, but it doesn't seem to work that way anymore. I think times were better when games were some nebulous form of entertainment, and Marketing existed just to sell "it."

Justin Fischer
profile image
I'd argue that neither the horse nor cart is right. Marketing shoving products down PD's throat tends to result in bland products. Having PD just hand a game to marketing to sell means that marketing is really just ad sales and PR.

To me, GOOD marketing should function in a collaborative role, and represent the business interests of the project. I don't think it's unhealthy to have that voice in the mix of creative, technical, and visual stakeholders, as long as that voice isn't able to stampede over everyone else. Unfortunately that stampeding is too often what happens in the games industry, and those who do the stampeding tend to too easily boil down games to bullet points, creative comps, and fast-follows.

John Gordon
profile image
Just want to say I love this post. This may be the best thing I've ever read on Gamasutra. Bravo!

Justin Fischer
profile image
Thanks!


none
 
Comment: