This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

What do you wish more people understood?

edited August 2013 in Everything Else
It would be awesome if more people understood the importance of marketing - especially with the influx of people self-publishing their work through croudfunding (Kickstarter, Indiegogo, etc.) Lately, I've been getting into arguments with folks about the OUYA, and why it's failing. From day one, I've been trying to point out how they attempted to compete in the mainstream console market, yet they've completely failed to even try marketing to anyone but their own backers. Still, though, the majority of folks (on both sides of the pro/anti OUYA argument) seem to think that the console is supposed to sell itself.

What topic or idea do you want more people to understand?
«13

Comments

  • OUYA failed because it's nothing BUT marketing. It sells the "dream" of an open console, but the reality is that this hardware was guaranteed to fail no matter how or to whom it was sold.
  • It would have failed either way, but the OUYA would have (at least) sold better if they actually had a proper marketing plan. Instead, they put the console in stores without realizing that nobody except their backers knows or even cares what the OUYA is. The average person in a brick-and-mortar store already knows which console they're gonna get, the OUYA never stood a chance without the marketing team generating any sort of awareness.
  • The level of awareness required to even give this thing a chance would have cost more than the entire KS budget of the OUYA combined. They'd need TV and radio ads to target non-Internet people. Even then, it's too expensive for those people to look twice.
  • Me!
    image

    Also, hip hop. When I tell people that I'm a rapper it usually ends the conversation. Most people where I live knows much about or cares to learn about the genre. When somebody does have something to say it's usually something like "Yeah, I listen to deep, meaningful stuff... You know, like Kid Cudi."
  • What a yield sign means.
  • I wish more people understood the difference between shitty blog posts and primary reporting. I've gone on my soapbox about this a few times, mostly on Twitter, and this one annoying dude sent me this link yesterday, explaining how I should be so proud of him that he's doing primary reporting for tabletop gaming.

    The post is shit and makes me want to cry. I could say a million things about it, but the saddest part is that he things getting a quote from a press release makes this post better in some form. At least take step 1: ask the subject of your story an interesting question that will elicit an answer containing info not easily found 100 other places.
  • Have you ever tried to explain how the current CPM model is shit to an online producer and how they defend their position since they make money off of it.

    In the age where AdBlock is king they would rather tell their fans to disable it for their videos instead of getting off their ass and change their business model to compensate for the fact that this technology will continue to get better.
  • Have you ever tried to explain how the current CPM model is shit to an online producer and how they defend their position since they make money off of it.

    In the age where AdBlock is king they would rather tell their fans to disable it for their videos instead of getting off their ass and change their business model to compensate for the fact that this technology will continue to get better.
    The person with the web site selling ads is not the person who needs fixing. They are raking it in for nothing. The person who needs fixing is the person paying money for these worthless ads. The fundamental problem is that people who buy ads really don't give a fuck if they work or not. The ads merely existing please the bosses.

    For example, outside my window in Times Square is a gigantic billboard for BNP Paribas bank. It cost a lot of money to put that advertisement there. Do you think that billboard has gotten even one customer for BNP Paribas? I bet it has not. It's actually kind of hard to see from the street, only up in these office buildings can it be seen. Primarily, the Barclays building. The ad is just a fuck you to Barclays. The ad isn't for customers, it's for the executives of BNP Paribas.

    Likewise, there is an even bigger billboard for the new beats headphones. This can be seen from the street. It actually can't be missed. Do you think this ad will influence the purchase of even one new set of headphones? Maybe if a kid who already wants beats sees it, they will pester their parents at that moment. If the kid is spoiled, maybe they'll get it. Even so, the ad will have almost no effect on sales, but costs a fuckton of money to put up. So why put it?

    One person who works at Beats has a job of buying ads. That's their only job. That person's job is not evaluated based on whether sales go up or down. The sales department is evaluated on those metrics. The ad buyer is evaluated on a completely subjective basis. They show their boss "look at the super amazing ad we put up in Times Square! Aren't we awesom?" The bosses like the ad. They are impressed and feel important to have such prominent good-looking billboards. They give no thoughts about whether the cost of the billboard makes up for itself with increased sales.

    Advertising can't be fixed until the people buying ads actually give a fuck if the ads work or not. Everyone selling ads of any kind will gladly continue sell a useless product for tons of money, and who can blame them?
  • RymRym
    edited August 2013
    I've read several studies showing that car sales track per-model advertising rates almost directly.

    Coke and Pepsi each lose market share if they don't maintain ad parity.

    Retail banks get most of their new business from branch locations that are themselves actually unprofitable. The stores are just ads for the banks.

    Ads work on stupid people.
    Post edited by Rym on
  • edited August 2013
    Public radio needs support from its listeners in order to remain ad-free. Donate, dammit.
    Post edited by Victor Frost on
  • Public radio needs support from its listeners in order to remain ad-free. Donate, dammit.
    Also why everyone needs to STOP LISTENING TO ANYTHING ON THE CLEAR (CHANNEL) NETWORK.
  • edited August 2013
    Ads work really on anyone. Ads these days are not necessarily "Go out and buy this service right away" It's a month later going, I need a car and the first thing that comes to your mind is a Toyota because of some ad that you subconsciously took in. It's called Brand awareness. Doesn't matter if you have an awesome product if people don't know you exist. I've never even heard of BNP Paribas but now that you mentioned their times Square ad, now they are a bank I am aware of. You just helped them.

    Funny enough complaining about an ad actually helps the people advertising :-p
    Post edited by Cremlian on
  • How to program.

    Seriously, people, what I do isn't magic. It's not hard. It's not even particularly INTERESTING at this level.
  • Ads work on stupid people.
    Sad, but true. As far as I'm personally concerned, ads only serve a purpose of letting me know a certain product exists if I somehow hadn't come across it otherwise (news sites, word of mouth, etc.). For example, let's assume I'm in the market for a new car. I happen to come across an ad for a new model of car that I was previously unfamiliar with that appears to have the features I want in a car. I don't regularly read car sites, so I'm not always up on the latest cars that come out, etc. Of course, once I know said model of car exists, I research the hell out of it (Consumer Reports, various car-specific web sites, etc.) and compare it to similar models of car before I determine if I actually want to purchase that advertised car or not. The ad may make me consider purchasing said car by demonstrating it exists as a product, but it doesn't make me actually purchase it. If I hadn't known said car existed in the first place, I certainly would've never purchased it.

    Of course, this example is a bit artificial as if I was in the market for a new car, I'd be researching like crazy anyway and I probably would've come across the hypothetical advertised car while doing my research even if I had never heard of that particular model before. I was just trying to come up with some sort of example where ads are semi-useful for reasonably intelligent people who aren't suckered into buying something only because they saw it advertised.
  • For someone like me, it doesn't actually help them.

    I do raw research from scratch every time I buy anything. I assume anything I knew about previously is obsolete. In fact, I try to think of what I might have seen advertised in the past, and consider that a negative (rather than a positive) for that particular brand/product.

    I assume that if you have to advertise aggressively enough that I saw your ad and remembered it, your product probably sucks.
  • I've read several studies showing that car sales track per-model advertising rates almost directly.

    Coke and Pepsi each lose market share if they don't maintain ad parity.

    Retail banks get most of their new business from branch locations that are themselves actually unprofitable. The stores are just ads for the banks.

    Ads work on stupid people.
    A very specific kind of ad works in very specific circumstances. If we were able to determine which ads work and which don't, and only keep the ones that directly resulted in increased sales, the amount of advertising would be quite tolerable.
  • Computer mice. I'm so tired of people clicking too many times, or NEVER using the right/middle buttons. Also tired of seeing people with ridiculous multi button mice that cost a small fortune, and only ever using the left click button. WHY?
  • For someone like me, it doesn't actually help them.

    I do raw research from scratch every time I buy anything. I assume anything I knew about previously is obsolete. In fact, I try to think of what I might have seen advertised in the past, and consider that a negative (rather than a positive) for that particular brand/product.

    I assume that if you have to advertise aggressively enough that I saw your ad and remembered it, your product probably sucks.
    To be more precise, I'm more or less the same way. I may go in with some preconceived notions as to what I want (i.e., I've had good success with this brand of product in the past), but I still start from scratch when I research stuff. The car example I gave previously was artificial, as I stated, because of my own researching tendencies which are quite similar to yours.

    I suppose ads do serve a purpose of letting me know about time-limited stuff I may not otherwise stumble across. For example, if I see a commercial for a special sale at a local store, or perhaps some sort of fair or other random event. However, they really don't serve too much of a purpose to me other than that.
  • The most-quoted phrase in marketing is that half of all money spent on advertising is wasted. The problem is that nobody knows which half.
  • I do raw research from scratch every time I buy anything.
    That must be a lot of time spent researching toilet paper.
  • Confidence intervals.
  • Confidence intervals.
    I'll second that with 95% confidence.
  • Confidence intervals.
  • There would be a lot less stupid shit on the internet if people understood how game development cycles worked.
  • edited August 2013
    There would be a lot less stupid shit on the internet if people understood how game development cycles worked.
    This. I am tired of arguing with people about what companies can and can't do. Things that they think are possible are not, and things they think are "crazy ideas" would be really simple to implement.

    Also, all of the things in that introvert video.
    Post edited by Axel on
  • There would be a lot less stupid shit on the internet if people understood how game development cycles worked.
    I smell a panel/lecture for your team to do at various conventions.
  • That the "haves" and "have nots" will be very different with resource scarcity and a corporate co-opted government.
  • edited August 2013
    There would be a lot less stupid shit on the internet if people understood how game development cycles worked.
    I smell a panel/lecture for your team to do at various conventions.
    THIS... is a great idea.

    I think the biggest one is the dynamic of "polished/expansive/complex, pick one". Like, it's just the reality of making software that picking any two will put the third pretty much out of reach, especially if your game has any kind of competitive balance whatsoever.
    Post edited by open_sketchbook on
Sign In or Register to comment.