Study: Ads in sports games don't work
By now everyone knows that in-game advertising is the hottest thing since sliced bread. But in all the frenzy to cover every available digital surface with product placement, few people have stopped to ask whether in-game ads actually work. British consulting company Bunnyfoot took on just that issue recently, using eye-tracking software and surveys of gamers to gauge how well ad banners in sports games connected with the player.
Their findings are less than encouraging for in-game advertisers. Despite overwhelming brand placement throughout the games under consideration, Bunnyfoot's study showed "a lack of engagement between video game players and in-game advertising." The firm's Sponsor Fixation Index registered some small results with games like NBA Live and Smackdown Vs. Raw but ad-laden Project Gotham Racing 3 elicited what Bunnyfoot called "no consumer engagement at all." Ouch!
In-game ads obviously have the potential to be extremely successful, but only if they're done right. Just slapping a billboard in the background might not register a blip among gamers who are used to filtering out advertising in everyday life. On the other end, you don't want to make the ads so overwhelming that they interfere with the game experience. And remember what Morgan says: if you're gonna make money on ads, give the gamers a break and lower the price, huh?
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Erik Novak @ Dec 21st 2006 2:37PM
This knockout brought to you by Burger King!
I don't know...it's hard to measure the effect of branding, isn't it? I'll never forget Burger King and Dodge because of Fight Night Round 3.
StoneGold @ Dec 21st 2006 2:51PM
1: That's a different kind of advertising though. That's integrating the product into the game itself. It's the game advertising equivalent to popup ads that are being ignored.
Jose @ Dec 21st 2006 3:02PM
I know, when I'm playing a FPS like DoD: Source, and I see someone's spray, I usually stop and stare for a bit. Usually, if it has just barely gone up, there will be a small crowd gathered around it, analyzing. Usually it's porn, but even when it's not, it still gets a reaction.
If we're talking about discounts, why not have individuals use it as their sprays, and give them the discount directly. It's direct participation, and when I kill you, instead of posting of me hitting a bong with my best friend in a walk-in closet, it'll be Common in a Gap sweater.
jc @ Dec 21st 2006 3:02PM
I vow to go out of my way to NOT buy products that are advertised in videogames... or even games that are plagued with ads.
OtakuCODE @ Dec 21st 2006 3:18PM
The only way a study of this type could be in ANY way valid would be if the rates of 'consumer engagement' are compared with that of other forms of advertising. So they can find out that only .001% of gamers driving by a Nike ad on a track actually 'see' the ad in any meaningful way. That number is completely meaningless. How many real life drivers see the bilboard? How many real like television watchers pay attention to the commercial?
What this consulting company has done is said "When ads are put in a game, they don't get as much attention as the game". That makes as much sense as complaining that there is more show than commercials on during an episode of a television show (although ABC is looking to remedy that imbalance with Lost). Or arguing that there should be more pages of ads than of content in magazines. Or that you're advertising on a bilboard is not effective unless people pay more attention to it than the road and wreck.
Advertising is not precise. It is messy and blunt. Advertising does not hold a person down and convince or coerce them into purchasing your product. As an advertiser you may want to tell people that's what it does, but it isn't. Advertising informs, piques curiosity, increases brand recognition, and things like that. If 3 months after you play a game with an ad in it someome says "I've been thinking about getting an X" and you say "Hmm... I don't know where I know it from, but I think Company Y makes those", then the ad has done its job.
This is why direct study of advertising is useless. This is also why websites who advertise with others and only pay based on click-throughs or on actual purchases are out-and-out FRAUD.
Camperton @ Dec 21st 2006 3:28PM
I think the general consensus is product placement is off putting, be it in movies, tv or games.
Quando @ Dec 21st 2006 3:34PM
i dread the day they figure out how to get under my skull without me noticing it and make me buy tampax instead of my regular maxi pads with wings.
Wait, thats a great idea for a game!
Erik @ Dec 21st 2006 3:40PM
Joystiq should forward this information to its banner advertisers.
White Rose Duelist @ Dec 21st 2006 3:58PM
I want to see the FPS where you can use a pain reliever as ammunition. If someone gets a headshot with it, the last thing you hear as you die is:
Head On - apply directly to the forehead...
Head On - apply directly to the forehead...
Head On - apply directly to the forehead...
drew @ Dec 21st 2006 4:08PM
do yourselves a favor and read "no logo" by naomi klein. it'll change the way you look at this branding of your fun. wasn't a lot of the fun of old games because they were a departure from reality? just imagine asteroids with a big logo for an airline on the ship. yuck.
DrXym @ Dec 21st 2006 4:09PM
The only way I see advertising working and being tolerated is if
a) the price of games is SUBSTANTIALLY lower. I doubt this will happen, but it would be a way to offset some of the hate
b) you get paid in some way for looking at it. i.e. you as a consumer get points or in-game credits to use for downloadables for deigning to view their ads
c) there is an easy way to disable it, because let's be honest most people wouldn't even bother. Stick it in the options menu somewhere and the 20% of people who hate ads would disable it but the remainder would leave it enabled.
d) the advertising is sensibly built into the game. Sports games could incorporate corporate sponsorship as a play element. Imagine if you had to secure sponsors for your team and that snagging someone like Nike allowed you to buy better equipment and extra bonuses or whatever. It might actually work and be non-heinous way to make people *want* to get advertising.
I think companies are making an awful mistake to just shove advertising in consumer's faces. Companies such as EA produce such shoddy ad-infested games with micropayments that their sales are going to hurt a lot if they don't ease up.
Aden Nak @ Dec 21st 2006 4:34PM
And this is a surprise? Video game players have finely honed their skills at completely ignoring embedded ads through years and years of practice on the internet. It's practically an impulse at this point. I know I've been at work, and someone will walk over and ask about an ad that's flashing and jumping and sometimes even jiggling on my screen, and it will take that inquiry for me to even realize I was filtering the ad out.
So why are advertisers so shocked to find that we're even better at doing it when we have a constant, brain-snagging coordinated focus to hold our attention? It was always a pretty bad idea, and if adopted it could have meant the death of many great genres (how does one work a Nike ad into a mideval RPG for example?). Bad idea, bad execution, bad returns. Now leave our damn bloody games alone and go back to saturating the rest of the landscape with your marketing trash.
Boing @ Dec 21st 2006 4:59PM
I agree with an earlier poster, I just flat out won't purchase a game that forces me to view advertising. Sure, I may be tricked into purchasing a game that I didn't know contained advertising, but I can guarantee that it would be the last game I'd purchase from that publisher.
Advertisers just don't get it. Ads PISS US OFF. If we're forced to view something that we don't want to see most people will either figure out a way around it (Ad-Block) or they'll get resentful and go out of their way to NOT purchase the product shoved in our faces. I mean after all, how many of you have actually purchased something eaw advertised in SPAM that they were sent?
glitched @ Dec 21st 2006 5:02PM
for me personally The only memorable videogame "ad" that I remember is the BP adds in the early gran turismos. Back then BP wasnt in the US.
ill trooper @ Dec 21st 2006 5:15PM
Ha. Ha. Ha.
Sink this lame trend.
NeverSage @ Dec 21st 2006 6:22PM
My friend had Wipeout back in the day for the PS1. There's a
bunch of
advertising in there for Redbull. He hadn't heard of Redbull at the
time, thinking it was a made up product (enhances reaction time,
etc). But once he found out it was a real drink, he bacame a Redbull
junky, and still is to this day.
mo @ Dec 21st 2006 7:35PM
lololololololo @9
every one read #9
lolololololol
Burnt Meatloaf @ Dec 22nd 2006 6:00AM
I would prefer not to have lower game prices if I have to see ads, becuase:
1) I don't want to see ads.
2) Cheaper games with ads don't give me my money's worth.
3) Prices go up, anyway. Remember when there were no mid-show ads on cable?
Ciaran Gallagher @ Dec 22nd 2006 7:20AM
It's obvious people are going to be more interested in playing the games than looking at virtual billboards! If we barely look at them in real life why would we look at them in a game.
Why don't they put them in the loading screens, normally I switch to TV during loading screens, but with ads, you've actually got something that might be interesting on your screen during loading!