A Brand-Centric Business Model for Mobile Advergaming
Welcome to Gauravonomics Blog! Subscribe to my feed now and you'll never miss a single post!
Quick Summary: Read about a new brand-centric business model for mobile advergaming.
At yesterday’s Mobile Monday Mumbai session, as I watched Jump Games CEO Salil Bhargava present a case for mobile advergaming, I kept asking myself why it didn’t (yet) make sense for Indian marketers.
Later, as Salil was joined by Anant Rangaswami from Campaign India magazine and Nidhi Taparia from Tata Indicom for a panel discussion moderated by VeerChand Bothra from Netcore Solutions, I actually asked them –
So, why exactly should mobile advergaming become an essential part of my media plan?
As I expected, the discussion quickly turned to how marketers expect too much from digital media.
However, since I think of myself as a digital media evangelist — I want mobile/ online advertising to work — I told myself to not think about all the reasons mobile advergaming won’t work for me and instead think about the set of conditions under which it would work for me.
The basic problem with the present developer-centric (or operator-centric, but certainly not brand-centric) business model for mobile advergaming is that all the risks are borne by the brand. The developer gets a development fees and the operator gets a hosting fee — but nobody gives the brand a commitment on downloads and plays.
I would love to do an advergame (or ten) if the developer and the operator are willing to share the risk of “what if nobody downloads/ plays the game?” with me. The developer develops a new game for me, the operator hosts it and promotes it aggressively and I only pay on the basis of downloads and plays. If nobody downloads/ plays the game, I don’t lose out — and why should I? — but if 500000 users download the game, I’m happy to pay up and the developer and the operator make a killing. This is basically a cost-per-action (CPA) model for advergames — it has worked elsewhere and there’s no reason it won’t work for advergames.
So, are there any takers for my brand-centric business model for mobile advergaming?
nahiaali, 
Blue 8:54 pm on November 27, 2007 Permalink |
This may be a lengthy comment, but since I am a veteran and consummate gamer, as it were, this touches on a subject very dear to my heart. ^__^
This is the catch I see with the “brand-centric” chart.
If you let your users download for free (and then pay for multiple plays), if the game is any good people will figure out how to get around the “paying” part. Someone will hack it and then share the info online, etc.
I’ve never heard the word “advergaming” before, but I can guess what it means. ^__^ (It’s a word that only stays on one side of the desk, right? No one goes out to the public and says “play our new advergame?”)
So I checked out Jump Games and looked into their advergames.
Let’s see.
“Bingo! Chips Factory
Go Bingo! A Mobile advergame developed for ITC to advertise their new smackalicious product line of Bingo! Chips.”
No gamer is going to pay money to play Bingo! Chips Factory. (On the plus side, no one is going to try to hack Bingo! Chips Factory either.) And if you want money, you’re going to have to crack the gamer market.
The way I see it — and I’m not a marketing person — you’d have to make a deal with the phone company to have Bingo! Chips Factory installed on the phone (and free, like Tetris), and work out the money deal that way. If a person is comparing two phones and one has a bunch of games, even if they’re advergames, the game phone will win — or at least it would for me.
So then it becomes about mobile sales instead of about game downloads or pay-per-click sales.
Or you figure out a way to include product placement in another, cooler mobile game. Bipasha Bapu jet-skiing? I’d play that. She could snarf down some Bingo! Chips in a cut-scene after I won a level.
And I’d pay to download it one time, but I wouldn’t pay-per-game. If it were really cool I’d find a way around paying, and if it were lame I just wouldn’t bother paying (or playing) at all.
Sorry if this seems patronizing or full of stuff you already know. Again, I’m not a marketer, just a gamer. ^__^
Gaurav 10:06 am on November 28, 2007 Permalink |
@Blue: Have I told you yet that I blog to receive comments like this?
I’m told that mobile gaming (in India) attracts a different — less geeky — audience from PC/ console games. Therefore, the hack issue is the issue for PC/ console games, but a non-issue for mobile games. But, I’m not an expert on this either.
Also, the download charges for mobile games in India are in the range of $1 to $4 and — if the pay per play model works out — the per play charge will probably be less than 10 cents — small enough to make it a non issue if the game is borderline addictive.
The key, of course, is to develop a game that is (1) simple (2) addictive (3) aligned with the brand core. Without that, everything else falls apart.
Advergames as a differentiator for mobile phones/ mobile operators? Well, it reminds me of the Twitter as a differentiator for mobile phones/ mobile operators idea, but I don’t see any mobile operators trying it out anytime soon.
Blue 11:44 am on November 28, 2007 Permalink |
Gasp! Did you just imply I was geeky?! ^__^
So per-play is less than Rs. 10? How often does the player have to pay? Every time the player begins the game (and then has an unlimited number of “turns” until he/she stops the game), or every time the player loses a turn?
For me that would be a prohibiting factor, but again that’s for me alone. I know that there are people who have no problem dropping cash on things like that. I mean, sure, that was the entire principle of the old-school video arcade and plenty of people dumped money into those things.
The most successful model I’ve seen in terms of getting people to pay (by which I mean “it got me to pay”) isn’t the “pay-per-turn” kind of thing, but the “pay to unlock.” Give the gamers enough game to get hooked and then make them pay to access special features, levels, etc.
My telling you this is probably like the pot asking the kettle “have you ever thought of trying to sell people on “premium” or “exclusive” content?” ^__^ So I won’t elaborate.
But your original question was about how to share the risk with the game developer. Perhaps in a scenario like this the developer is building new “premium” material over a period of time; that is to say, if you both start out with the base game and a few premium components, then if the premium stuff sells you can pay the developer for more premium components which can then be sold to the gamer.
There. I have solved all of your problems. ^__^