Clay T. Shaver Article "The Ball Is Loose"

[wwharton]

Quote: Originally Posted by Clay_OS

I think you're lumping my article for 5W-G with the VC/EA guerillas. That's not the intention. My piece was written from a person who lives two lives besides that of a father and husband.... those are the roles of Senior Marketing Manager AND Gamer/Gaming Writer. I can't help but see things through the eyes of someone who pays his mortgage through his work in marketing. I've seen bold move work and I've seen them crumble. I've seen ads that anger me because I didn't think of it first and I see ads that make me scratch my head on how they got the client to sign-off (see this year's Snickers' ad). I'm not talking about history. I'm not talking about VC's track record in marketing. I'm talking making a ballsy decision to not play it safe. And, while I agree that there is a fine line between crazy and stupid, you never know which side of the line the idea falls on if you don't take the chance. What's the cliche`??? You miss 100% of the shots that you don't take?

Wanted to quote you b/c my argument to you is different than to quietcool.

Basically you have 2 thoughts. I think the confusion is they are being discussed as one. Your first thought is VC needs to not play it safe with marketing this year. They need to really make a buzz and take a risk.

I agree, and I think everyone does actually.

The second is your example of this type of risk taking... having an ad at the superbowl.

I agree that they need to be thinking on that scale. The problem is actually going with this suggestion would be suicide for many reasons covered here. Basically, on the right level of thinking. They didn't miss an opportunity or blow it by not getting an ad. In actuality they just haven't shown whether or not they're going to go all out just yet... and I don't think it should've started yet.

[aholbert32]

Quote: Originally Posted by quietcool72

Well said Graphik. I think that's the thing people are worried about, and we hope 2K would not do for this title (i.e. the same old stuff). Okay- so they passed on the Super Bowl. It would have been expensive, I understand. But the draft advertising isn't (by comparison). Back when I was a freshman in college- when Madden 92 came out (unlicensed, no NFLPA)- and EA (who was relatively small at the time) was pushing it with lots of two page mag ads showing dirt/mud on the field, football cleats, and playbooks, with lines quoting Madden saying "Some guys like hitting, some guys like domes, Some guys aren't mudders...that's in the game." Some of the screens showed stills from the game, others showed the game screen of the famous ambulance coming to pick up an injured player, etc. And EA wasn't doing the yearly game thing much at that time- that was their first attempt. They pushed it everywhere. Needless to say, it went crazy. Gotta push it and push it hard. That's how EA became EA.

Different situation.....There wasnt another viable NFLPA licensed game in 91.

[jdros13]

Quote: Originally Posted by Clay_OS

I think you're lumping my article for 5W-G with the VC/EA guerillas. That's not the intention. My piece was written from a person who lives two lives besides that of a father and husband.... those are the roles of Senior Marketing Manager AND Gamer/Gaming Writer. I can't help but see things through the eyes of someone who pays his mortgage through his work in marketing. I've seen bold move work and I've seen them crumble. I've seen ads that anger me because I didn't think of it first and I see ads that make me scratch my head on how they got the client to sign-off (see this year's Snickers' ad). I'm not talking about history. I'm not talking about VC's track record in marketing. I'm talking making a ballsy decision to not play it safe. And, while I agree that there is a fine line between crazy and stupid, you never know which side of the line the idea falls on if you don't take the chance. What's the cliche`??? You miss 100% of the shots that you don't take?

Clay, I appreciate you coming in here an joining the discussion...it's great to get the perspective of the author.

As a Sr. Marketing Manager, if you went to whoever had the final veto power and said that you wanted to spend 50+% of your marketing budget on one 30 second ad, I would expect the first words out of his/her mouth would be "Wow, that is a bold move. What is our projected return on investment?" The answer certainly wouldn't be "Don't know, but it's a great way to say FU to that other company we compete with."

I'm certainly not saying that a Super Bowl ad wouldn't have been great, and I definitely would have appreciated it...but if you can't get tangible results out of it, it moves from "bold, risky" to "borderline suicidal." That is something that this franchise (Football 2k) probably can't afford.

[Shaver]

I guess I just feel this first statement has to be a big one. I agree, it's a huge move and the type of thing that people lose their job over. However, I think a bug move should be made as a statement to the NFL (as well as the gaming public). Kind of a "Hey NFL... before you extend that exclusive... we're serious about this whole football thing."

Again, easy for me to type. Not my job. Not my company. Just my opinion.

[Shaver]

Quote: Originally Posted by jdros13

Clay, I appreciate you coming in here an joining the discussion...it's great to get the perspective of the author. As a Sr. Marketing Manager, if you went to whoever had the final veto power and said that you wanted to spend 50+% of your marketing budget on one 30 second ad, I would expect the first words out of his/her mouth would be "Wow, that is a bold move. What is our projected return on investment?" The answer certainly wouldn't be "Don't know, but it's a great way to say FU to that other company we compete with." I'm certainly not saying that a Super Bowl ad wouldn't have been great, and I definitely would have appreciated it...but if you can't get tangible results out of it, it moves from "bold, risky" to "borderline suicidal." That is something that this franchise (Football 2k) probably can't afford.

Unfortunately I don't think there's a canned answer for "what's my ROI?" Each situation is so very different. In the case of 2K, I think it's does equate to bottomline sales. I think the buzz factor is huge. Remember, it would be groundbreaking for a videogame to advertise on the Super Bowl. And, as I mentioned above, I think it establishes (or reaffirms) you as a company that's legitimately wants to compete in this genre. To the fans... to the media... to the NFL... and to the competition.

[jdros13]

Quote: Originally Posted by Clay_OS

Unfortunately I don't think there's a canned answer for "what's my ROI?" Each situation is so very different. In the case of 2K, I think it's does equate to bottomline sales. I think the buzz factor is huge. Remember, it would be groundbreaking for a videogame to advertise on the Super Bowl. And, as I mentioned above, I think it establishes (or reaffirms) you as a company that's legitimately wants to compete in this genre. To the fans... to the media... to the NFL... and to the competition.

Agree...but I think the buzz will probably be more sustaining (as well as cheaper) the closer we get to an actual release. IMO that is when Take Two will get the best ROI on your advertising dollars. Of course that isn't my decision to make either.

Again, I know this is tough being the author, and I'm glad you seem to be taking this as "spirited discussion" rather than "personal attack".

[Pared]

Quote: Originally Posted by aholbert32

Clay, I understand. I just know I wouldnt risk my job over this game. I'd play it safe. You dont have to knock it out the park this year. Sell a decent amount of games, build on your cult following, bring the shareholders a small profit and build on it next year. Let your game and word of mouth work for you.

This is where you're going to have two sides of the coin on this debate:

On one hand, you have those who feel 2k should make a big splash (Clay) with this first game. They should go "balls to the wall" and really raise the finger to EA with this release. Personally, that's borderline suicide. Listen... I WANT this game. Most likely if you're reading this, YOU WANT this game. But your little cousin? Your sister's boyfriend? That mom looking for a gift for Jimmy's birthday? They're not going to know anything other than Madden... and all that money spent to make a splash wouldn't matter.

On the other hand, there's the conservative approach (Aaron), who feel 2k just needs to show that someone CAN sell an unlicensed football game to the public while turning a profit. This, IMO, is more important. As much as I'd love for 2k to just flip off EA in every little aspect they could, if it means not having 2k9 and so forth, then I wouldn't want it. This is going to happen by ensuring the title will bring in money and not be a "wash." The way they are going to do that is by minimizing costs as much as possible. Don't expect too much advertising of this game folks, whether we want it or not.

As a gamer, I would like to be able to see what this company can do in the next-gen football arena. As a fan, I'd love to raise the two middle fingers to the giant that is EA along with others and say "We don't need to take the crap you offer; there is an alternative." But not matter which way you feel, there isn't a way that's guaranteeing a positive outcome. I guess if you like the game you have to support it via word of mouth as much as possible... You'd be amazed how important that can be...

[Graphik]

Quote: Originally Posted by Clay_OS

Unfortunately I don't think there's a canned answer for "what's my ROI?" Each situation is so very different. In the case of 2K, I think it's does equate to bottomline sales. I think the buzz factor is huge. Remember, it would be groundbreaking for a videogame to advertise on the Super Bowl. And, as I mentioned above, I think it establishes (or reaffirms) you as a company that's legitimately wants to compete in this genre. To the fans... to the media... to the NFL... and to the competition.

To compete for what? Sales? If that was the case, they would just wait till the NFL-EA deal is over and take it for themselves. As much as people grill EA for simply looking out for money and its bottom line, what you're requesting 2K to do is potentially waste money on a game that quite simply wont compete this year or the next. I believe the only reason 2K has decided to make a football game is because they know as well as most of us here know, that EAs version of football is mediocore at best. If Madden was actually a great game, I highly doubt 2K would of budged 2K5 would of been the last memory of the series. Since they know they can capture an audience who wants their appetite wet for something that actually resembles football, there is no better time than now to come out with a game. I'm sure they already know their game wont even be able to compete with the mega-lemming series that is Madden football.

All I think they want to do is build up some sort of brand awareness for when the deal expires, if they do happen to get the NFL license, they wont have to jump through hoops and pour tons of money into(which the money would of been used in the deal) into promoting their version of NFL football. If you ask me, APF is simply being made for us hardcore nuts and nothing more. Sure, they can attempt to capture the casuals but one can make the argument that the casuals wont play anything without an NFL license. Which has been discussed already. If EA thought they would lose some of their fanbase to a unlicensed game, they would of never pursued the NFL license, now would they?