"Only the King can turn an everyday act into an art form and now players can step into the King’s royal shoes and use cunning stealth to sneak up behind unsuspecting people and bestow them with a delicious meal."
[ QUOTE ]
So you mean they actually expect me to pay them for their advertisements? Why don't I just pay them to kick me in the balls while I'm at it?
[/ QUOTE ]
How is this different from playing a game based on any licensed material? Would you not play a game based on a movie or comic book just because it's also a form of advertising?
Anyway, it's not like buying the game means you have to buy a Double Whopper meal as well - advertising only works if you let it.
First of all, I generally don't like licensed games. Even so, the difference is that licensed games aren't trying to sell me a product; the licensed material itself (be it Batman, Ninja Turtles, or whatever) is the product.
Second, I don't think you understand how marketing works. Seeing an advertisement doesn't suddenly make you want to go out and buy a double whopper meal; it's not as if it brainwashes you. What it does do is establish brand name / product recognition, which is worth a lot of money to corporations because that's what generates sales (why do you think they're willing to fork over millions for a 30-second spot during the Super Bowl?). Paying them for this crap would be essentially the same as paying a spammer to send you email.
I work in marketing, so let's assume I know how marketing works
Advertising is only beneficial to a company if it gets positive results. An ad campaign that doesn't result in increased profit or market presence is not an effective ad campaign. In the case of the Burger King games... well, you already know what Burger King is, right? You already recognize the products, you've eaten there, etc etc. So Burger King is not doing anything to alter their market position with respect to you.
In my experience, that's not the goal of a marketing campaign - it's just not that literal. More likely, what a company with an established brand tries to do is create some sort of response in the potential buyer (not subliminal, but not consciously, either) to improve perception. In this case, I'd say that Burger King is trying to appear more fun than their competitors, to change the attitudes of younger burger buyers into feeling that Burger King is more appealing than the alternatives. No American kid playing video games is unaware of what Burger King is, but their perceptions are malleable and every established company wants to appear a certain way to their target audience.
The spammer analogy is not appropriate. I get nothing from spam but a moment's irritation. A video game, that's something different. I for one would have no issue looking past the Burger King paintjob if the underlying game was fun to play. I like games, and will play games that are fun regardless of the marketing tie-in. One of the games I've most enjoyed recently is Battle for Middle-Earth II. That game is clearly meant to capitalize on the success of the recent films, and so maybe you'd say that Gandalf and friends are the product rather than the actual game. I don't feel like I bought a Tolkien product, I just bought a good game that I enjoy playing with my friends - I get value from it regardless of the licensing. I paid $50 and got a fun experience, which doesn't compare to spam email.
*edit*
To follow this a bit, the character of the King must test well, or he wouldn't be in a video game. I'll even admit that I find the self-mocking style amusing, and get a laugh that Burger King has such an irreverent marketing style with those oddball commercials. Independent of the food, my general impression is that McDonalds is conservative whereas Burger King is experimental and creative (typical market leader/underdog roles). People respond to the King positively in that regard, which is why we're having this discussion. He isn't using mind-control to sell Whoppers, but he is changing the public's perception of Burger King in the direction they want - if he wasn't, they'd be on to something else by now.
[ QUOTE ]
One of the games I've most enjoyed recently is Battle for Middle-Earth II. That game is clearly meant to capitalize on the success of the recent films, and so maybe you'd say that Gandalf and friends are the product rather than the actual game. I don't feel like I bought a Tolkien product, I just bought a good game that I enjoy playing with my friends - I get value from it regardless of the licensing.
[/ QUOTE ]
Don't you see how that's almost the exact opposite of the BK example? The Battle for Middle-Earth II is using an established IP to sell you a game, not selling you a game to better establish a product / name brand.
I think they are completely different; I thought you were objecting to licensed material across the board, so I picked another license that's a counter-example.
Personally, I think things like the BK game are not very effective, and they'd do better spending their marketing dollars on media outlets that reach more people. But, in the end, any change in perception by the market is only effective if it sells more product. This doesn't change the fact that a good game is a good game, regardless of the merket tie-in. If id came out with a badass new FPS that featured Ronald McDonald fragging the shit out of Grimace and the Hamburgler, I think very few people would refuse to play it on ideological grounds. Yeah, some would scream that id are whores and sellouts, that no one should support such obvious product placement, but if the game was awesome and tons of people played it online... well, it's whether or not you have fun that matters, isn't it?
I understand why BK is paying to develop the King games, but that doesn't preclude my playing them if they happen to be good games. It won't get me buying more Whoppers, though.
I'll be getting them for sure, Pocketbike Racer and Big Bumpin' look like some great Mario Kart style games for the 360. I'd really prefer to buy them off of live arcade though, I don't feel like buying some greasy burgers that will give me the runs just for the games.
While I rarely find myself in a Burger King (as in mayyybe once a year) I don't know if I'll go out of my way simply for these games, although I think they will be fun, like that Chex FPS that came in the cereal boxes so many years ago...
Keyser you pay for advertising all the time anyways, anything you purchase pays for advertising that product, and damn near every product has a logo on it. Why is playing a Burger King game different from eating a Burger King Whopper, you pay for a product that has their name on it. McDonalds has been making happy meals featuring their mascots for decades...those slimey bastards!
I guess you can argue that when I buy a product I am indirectly contributing to the advertising fund for that product, but I'm not paying for the advertisment itself. When I buy something, some amount of profit goes to the corporation, and they're free to do whatever they wish with that profit (they can spend 100% of it on marketing, for all I care). My problem isn't that advertising exists, my problem is that they're trying to sell me an advertisment disguised as a form of entertainment (the entertainment value of these games is questionable to begin with).
I'm not saying Burger King shouldn't be allowed to do this, all I'm saying is that I'd just as soon pay them to kick me in the balls as I would pay them for these "games."
Also, as a side note, most of the clothing I own doesn't have logos displayed prominantly. None of the shirts I own have logos anywhere other than the tag... except the shirt I'm wearing now, which is a Zach Galifianakis shirt that I bought at one of his shows.
[ QUOTE ]
You go to lengths to avoid buying clothes with visible branding, and write hate-letters to the local BurgerKing; well that is the sort of behaviour that makes you an extremist, and unlikely to find many sympathetic ears on a public forum.
[/ QUOTE ]
What?
A: Where did Key say he hated Burger King specifically?
B: How does choosing not to spend money for product ads (my point.. they should pay me if they want their clothing logo all over) is "extreme"? Its quite simple. Its called Goodwill or Buffalo Exchange a nice pair of shears.
Stop speaking on assumptions.
Anyhoo.. Its direct marketing here. I have no real problems. It is what it is, and doesn't hide itself.
Though I find this confusing Verm.
[ QUOTE ]
(not subliminal, but not consciously, either)
[/ QUOTE ]
Im unaware of a third state. Can you explain further?
I'm fine with paying $4 for this. I know that I'm getting a sponsored game right from the start. It's much better than paying $50-$60 and finding ads in the game.
Besides, I love the idea of scaring the crap out of people as The King. I only hope there are some great responses from the unsuspecting
Though I find this confusing Verm.
[ QUOTE ]
(not subliminal, but not consciously, either)
[/ QUOTE ]
Im unaware of a third state. Can you explain further?
[/ QUOTE ]
"Consciously" wasn't a real good word to use, I should have said something like "explicitly." Advertising works generally by persuading you, but without calling attention to the fact that it's trying to influence your perceptions. That's at a conscious level, but not overt.
I just re-read oXY's post... are you saying that you'd actually go to the trouble of cutting product labels off of your clothing? If so, god damn that's weird.
1. Touche! I misread your as you misread Keys.
2. And don't you forget it!
Verm. More like bluejeans when I remember thats mostly more for my 'vegan' thang than anything else. Most t shirts are nothing but ads, so no I dont cut up tshirts. I find myself buying more dress clothing these days.
Edit: Weird is what makes the world go round my boy!
For the record, I eat at Burger King all the time (more often than I should), and I don't "go to great lengths" to "avoid" clothes with visible branding. Finding plain colored shirts isn't hard at all, and it's just a personal preference. I think logos and graphics are tacky, the same way I don't like striped shirts... it has nothing to do with being "extreme."
This marketing strategy reminds me of something GM did a couple years ago to promote their ugly ass Pontiac GTO. They produced a shitty made-for-tv movie staring Dennis Hopper (it was basically a 'Fast and the Furious' ripoff... as if that movie wasn't bad enough). I watched bits and pieces of it out of a morbid curiosity, but there's no way in hell I'd actually pay to see it. Why? Because I'm not stupid enough to pay for a 90 minute commercial. It's the same with this Burger King thing, but instead of paying for a 90 minute commercial, you're paying for an interactive commercial. The only reason this will (probably) be more successful for Burger King than it was for GM, is because videogames are a newer and more novel medium than film, so people will buy into it because of the novelty.
oXY: Well, that's alright, I suppose. I had visions of you going around with all identifying marks sheered off your clothing. Strange indeed
Keyser: I agree with you about the Pontiac GTO thing, it was terrible. But on the other hand... what did you think of the BMW Films series with Clive Owen? Those ads ranged from pretty good to fucking awesome, and I'd have no problem paying for a full-length movie handled along that premise (it'd be a better version of The Transporter, in all likelihood). It's just as blatant advertising as with the GTO, but as with games (for me, at least), the quality of the entertainment trumps the motivation for developing it.
I remember people making a big deal over the BMW shorts, but I'm not sure if I ever actually watched them myself (I think I tried, but I had dial-up at the time). The thing with the BMW shorts is that BMW wasn't trying to sell them. They were much more expensive to produce than a regular commercial, but it was a worthwhile investment for BMW because people actually wanted to watch them, instead of it being an inconvenience during a show. If BMW actually tried to sell those shorts, though, I don't think I'd be interested in paying for them.
I wonder how many people realized that all the vehicles in the Matrix were GM only vehicles.... prior to it being mentioned in the additional content. I was at GM during that time and it was a great deal for them. They were just about to introduce the CTS and the studio bought up all their 'mule' vehicles, which GM typically has to pay to dismantle.... For those not in the know, mule vehicles are the ones used during the abuse of development.
Anyways, I don't have any issues with company sponsorship in movies when it's done correctly. When it gets so obvious that my wife says to me, "I wonder how much ____ had to pay for that?", then they've done it wrong. It shouldn't distract me from the movie.
And for the record, the GTO is cancelled now. Their sales dropped too much on them... wonder why. Maybe because they made it look just like the Grand Prix and then did nothing with it to make it any cooler other than pack in a bitchin engine.
I see this as an extension of the toys they give out with their menus for kids. Physical discs reach more people than internet downloads and I guess they don't want these to be used like AOL coasters (and maybe MS wanted a buck a piece as well). They cost 4 bucks, that's almost free for a game. I'd expect parents to buy these a lot, children always want stuff that looks interesting to them and a 4$ game certainly is among the cheapest ways to shut the kid up.
So BK gets a company to make a few games for them to give out for cheap. What fits BK better, a game about the King or a game about some random bloke trying to save the world?
advertising is a funny thing, and this discussion is pretty funny. Personally i think burger king is just trying to get people to like the brand. no matter what they are gonna sell a shitload of burgers, but i think their ads are more so that they have a good public image. they are too fucking popular and well known now to try and get you to eat there. They are already getting enough buisness
Replies
LMFAO! Did Dane Cook come up with this one?
So you mean they actually expect me to pay them for their advertisements? Why don't I just pay them to kick me in the balls while I'm at it?
[/ QUOTE ]
How is this different from playing a game based on any licensed material? Would you not play a game based on a movie or comic book just because it's also a form of advertising?
Anyway, it's not like buying the game means you have to buy a Double Whopper meal as well - advertising only works if you let it.
Second, I don't think you understand how marketing works. Seeing an advertisement doesn't suddenly make you want to go out and buy a double whopper meal; it's not as if it brainwashes you. What it does do is establish brand name / product recognition, which is worth a lot of money to corporations because that's what generates sales (why do you think they're willing to fork over millions for a 30-second spot during the Super Bowl?). Paying them for this crap would be essentially the same as paying a spammer to send you email.
Advertising is only beneficial to a company if it gets positive results. An ad campaign that doesn't result in increased profit or market presence is not an effective ad campaign. In the case of the Burger King games... well, you already know what Burger King is, right? You already recognize the products, you've eaten there, etc etc. So Burger King is not doing anything to alter their market position with respect to you.
In my experience, that's not the goal of a marketing campaign - it's just not that literal. More likely, what a company with an established brand tries to do is create some sort of response in the potential buyer (not subliminal, but not consciously, either) to improve perception. In this case, I'd say that Burger King is trying to appear more fun than their competitors, to change the attitudes of younger burger buyers into feeling that Burger King is more appealing than the alternatives. No American kid playing video games is unaware of what Burger King is, but their perceptions are malleable and every established company wants to appear a certain way to their target audience.
The spammer analogy is not appropriate. I get nothing from spam but a moment's irritation. A video game, that's something different. I for one would have no issue looking past the Burger King paintjob if the underlying game was fun to play. I like games, and will play games that are fun regardless of the marketing tie-in. One of the games I've most enjoyed recently is Battle for Middle-Earth II. That game is clearly meant to capitalize on the success of the recent films, and so maybe you'd say that Gandalf and friends are the product rather than the actual game. I don't feel like I bought a Tolkien product, I just bought a good game that I enjoy playing with my friends - I get value from it regardless of the licensing. I paid $50 and got a fun experience, which doesn't compare to spam email.
*edit*
To follow this a bit, the character of the King must test well, or he wouldn't be in a video game. I'll even admit that I find the self-mocking style amusing, and get a laugh that Burger King has such an irreverent marketing style with those oddball commercials. Independent of the food, my general impression is that McDonalds is conservative whereas Burger King is experimental and creative (typical market leader/underdog roles). People respond to the King positively in that regard, which is why we're having this discussion. He isn't using mind-control to sell Whoppers, but he is changing the public's perception of Burger King in the direction they want - if he wasn't, they'd be on to something else by now.
One of the games I've most enjoyed recently is Battle for Middle-Earth II. That game is clearly meant to capitalize on the success of the recent films, and so maybe you'd say that Gandalf and friends are the product rather than the actual game. I don't feel like I bought a Tolkien product, I just bought a good game that I enjoy playing with my friends - I get value from it regardless of the licensing.
[/ QUOTE ]
Don't you see how that's almost the exact opposite of the BK example? The Battle for Middle-Earth II is using an established IP to sell you a game, not selling you a game to better establish a product / name brand.
Personally, I think things like the BK game are not very effective, and they'd do better spending their marketing dollars on media outlets that reach more people. But, in the end, any change in perception by the market is only effective if it sells more product. This doesn't change the fact that a good game is a good game, regardless of the merket tie-in. If id came out with a badass new FPS that featured Ronald McDonald fragging the shit out of Grimace and the Hamburgler, I think very few people would refuse to play it on ideological grounds. Yeah, some would scream that id are whores and sellouts, that no one should support such obvious product placement, but if the game was awesome and tons of people played it online... well, it's whether or not you have fun that matters, isn't it?
I understand why BK is paying to develop the King games, but that doesn't preclude my playing them if they happen to be good games. It won't get me buying more Whoppers, though.
Keyser you pay for advertising all the time anyways, anything you purchase pays for advertising that product, and damn near every product has a logo on it. Why is playing a Burger King game different from eating a Burger King Whopper, you pay for a product that has their name on it. McDonalds has been making happy meals featuring their mascots for decades...those slimey bastards!
I'm not saying Burger King shouldn't be allowed to do this, all I'm saying is that I'd just as soon pay them to kick me in the balls as I would pay them for these "games."
Also, as a side note, most of the clothing I own doesn't have logos displayed prominantly. None of the shirts I own have logos anywhere other than the tag... except the shirt I'm wearing now, which is a Zach Galifianakis shirt that I bought at one of his shows.
You go to lengths to avoid buying clothes with visible branding, and write hate-letters to the local BurgerKing; well that is the sort of behaviour that makes you an extremist, and unlikely to find many sympathetic ears on a public forum.
[/ QUOTE ]
What?
A: Where did Key say he hated Burger King specifically?
B: How does choosing not to spend money for product ads (my point.. they should pay me if they want their clothing logo all over) is "extreme"? Its quite simple. Its called Goodwill or Buffalo Exchange a nice pair of shears.
Stop speaking on assumptions.
Anyhoo.. Its direct marketing here. I have no real problems. It is what it is, and doesn't hide itself.
Though I find this confusing Verm.
[ QUOTE ]
(not subliminal, but not consciously, either)
[/ QUOTE ]
Im unaware of a third state. Can you explain further?
Besides, I love the idea of scaring the crap out of people as The King. I only hope there are some great responses from the unsuspecting
Though I find this confusing Verm.
[ QUOTE ]
(not subliminal, but not consciously, either)
[/ QUOTE ]
Im unaware of a third state. Can you explain further?
[/ QUOTE ]
"Consciously" wasn't a real good word to use, I should have said something like "explicitly." Advertising works generally by persuading you, but without calling attention to the fact that it's trying to influence your perceptions. That's at a conscious level, but not overt.
2. And don't you forget it!
Verm. More like bluejeans when I remember thats mostly more for my 'vegan' thang than anything else. Most t shirts are nothing but ads, so no I dont cut up tshirts. I find myself buying more dress clothing these days.
Edit: Weird is what makes the world go round my boy!
This marketing strategy reminds me of something GM did a couple years ago to promote their ugly ass Pontiac GTO. They produced a shitty made-for-tv movie staring Dennis Hopper (it was basically a 'Fast and the Furious' ripoff... as if that movie wasn't bad enough). I watched bits and pieces of it out of a morbid curiosity, but there's no way in hell I'd actually pay to see it. Why? Because I'm not stupid enough to pay for a 90 minute commercial. It's the same with this Burger King thing, but instead of paying for a 90 minute commercial, you're paying for an interactive commercial. The only reason this will (probably) be more successful for Burger King than it was for GM, is because videogames are a newer and more novel medium than film, so people will buy into it because of the novelty.
Keyser: I agree with you about the Pontiac GTO thing, it was terrible. But on the other hand... what did you think of the BMW Films series with Clive Owen? Those ads ranged from pretty good to fucking awesome, and I'd have no problem paying for a full-length movie handled along that premise (it'd be a better version of The Transporter, in all likelihood). It's just as blatant advertising as with the GTO, but as with games (for me, at least), the quality of the entertainment trumps the motivation for developing it.
LOL, I love that little mad emoticon... so awesome.
Anyways, I don't have any issues with company sponsorship in movies when it's done correctly. When it gets so obvious that my wife says to me, "I wonder how much ____ had to pay for that?", then they've done it wrong. It shouldn't distract me from the movie.
And for the record, the GTO is cancelled now. Their sales dropped too much on them... wonder why. Maybe because they made it look just like the Grand Prix and then did nothing with it to make it any cooler other than pack in a bitchin engine.
So BK gets a company to make a few games for them to give out for cheap. What fits BK better, a game about the King or a game about some random bloke trying to save the world?
Now if only every ad-laden game cost only 4$...