Hype Can Be a Bad Thing

Via the MIT AdLab, Forbes is carrying their own article about advertising in online gaming. From the article:

Lost in the talk this week of the new videogames from Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo is that these consoles will provide an ideal platform for advertisers.

Realism is key to many games, and real life is a place where ads and commercial products crop up all the time.

I wonder if that demographic they keep citing and which by now some of us probably have memorized (“18 to 34 year old males with disposable incomes who are increasingly less likely to watch TV”) puts off some corporations – especially those who are neither in the electronics industry nor aware of the particular advantages available to them in this new arena. More importantly, when are they going to start asking where the women are? It’s not like there are no females in games or virtual worlds. I mean, one look at the crap on TV and they can’t believe women are sitting there watching that stuff.

Advertising and Videogame Spectators

Simply put: advertisers are already planning to target their ads at videogame tournament spectators. From Yahoo News/Reuters:

Peter Moore, the Microsoft vice president in charge of advertising for the Xbox business, described a scenario where a virtual race hosted by a corporate sponsor, with thousands of gamers competing for a grand prize while their buddies and competitors watch online.

Read all about it here.

Did P&G Rewrite History Here?

In the late 90’s I was working at a well-known and very well-respected company. It was the kind of company that attracted impressive individuals from other, well-known and well-respected companies. One such person came from Procter & Gamble to take over as the (lone) VP of Marketing.

The first thing this newcomer did was schedule every member of every product development team for training; every project manager, every marketer, every project engineer, every industrial designer spent two solid days learning this new development tool. What kind of training you ask? Well, the kind of training that supposedly appeared at P&G a couple years later in 2000, as suggested in the Newsweek article, “Going Home With the Customers” (Link). From the article:

Claudia Kotchka, a 27-year P&G veteran, as the company’s first vice president for design innovation and strategy. And one of Kotchka’s first acts was to embed top designers in brand teams to help rethink not just the superficials – graphics, packaging, product design – but, more importantly, how consumers experience products.

Kotchka now teams with such outside design firms as Palo Alto, Calif.-based IDEO. Their m.o.? Don’t interview consumers – go home with them. Observe, for example, how they use diapers.

(Note for later reference that Tide is listed as an example of a product lacking innovation.)

I’m not saying Kotchka didn’t spearhead this. For all I know she was working with or for the person my former employer hired and moved up the ladder in her place; or, more likely, was her superior and was the reason for the defection. But from what I recall, we were being trained (in 1998) to do what P&G was supposedly already doing!

Further, we were told it was this consumer observation practice that led to P&G’s Tide detergent bottles being modified in order to prevent liquid from running down the sides of the bottle after consumers used the provided measuring cap (discovered, my “encounter” training class was informed, when a team member noticed a consumer had “permanently” placed a towel down near the clothes washer so she could set a drippy bottle somewhere and not make a mess).

We called it “Home Encounters” or something like that, and it was both great training and a wonderful development tool. But if what they’re reporting on wasn’t in successful use at P&G before 2000, I’d really like to know what they’re doing.

Nike iD A Zombie?

Nike iD image

A few years back I gave a presentation to the marketing group at the company for which I worked. The presentation was effectively about what I’m blogging here: the return of product development to a more “craft” age – courtesy of emerging technologies that allow us to create more complex, ornamental, personal products. One of the examples I used for that talk was Nike’s “design your own” website. It was a great idea and I was surprised that none of the marketing folks were aware of it (or the other similar “customization” efforts going on at the time). Then again, I suspect you had to be paying close attention since I don’t recall any Nike advertising for their little project.

Fast forward to Nike’s resurrected (?) customization effort called “Nike iD” (which makes me wonder if some concept work I saw on the Core77 forums last year, done by a Nike director, is related). Anyway, courtesy of the intriguing AdverLab blog, comes a nice link to an article on Clickz.com which includes this interesting quote:

Nike’s iD division, which lets shoe buyers customize their own footwear according to color and design, is reportedly becoming a more important part of the shoe maker’s overall strategy.

Any wonder why Nike rules?

(addendum – check out the Nike site at: nikeid.nike.com . There’s more than footwear to customize. )

Massively Intrusive?

Okay. So. Online videogames will have embedded advertising that not only customizes itself for the player, but keeps track of the player’s “eyes” (i.e. it senses when the avatar’s eye vector points at the ad in question and records a hit, time on “target”, whatever). Now comes word via Wired online of “Project Apollo”, a real-life ad tracking system. Hey, it might be a good thing. If the makers of, for example, Gas-ex ramp up sales in some city, one has to assume the audio is recording something important, and by extension that data might impact a “most livable city” standing. That follows. I mean, I have a right to odorless neighbors, don’t I?

Is this Life immitates Game?