"Ethics" in PR?

#1 I remember reading an intersting article about the Movie industry and the marketing material that we see for them.

To sum up the article quickly, it said that the producer and director have very little input on how his/her film is marketed. The marketing is done by an in-house group from the studio, they make the trailers and marketing material to suit the audiance or type of people they feel will be interested in the product.

This is why you have trailers which explain the whole movie, do a poor job of explaining the movie, or do not even relate to what happens in the movie itself.

I would assume that this is very similar in the games industry as well. Some so-called marketing guru from the publisher thinks up an add campaign and goes about making it happen. It's just too bad that IMO these marketing people have no idea what the game is about or how to generate interst for it.

Like in the movie industry, sales of a product in the game industry are based on the hype put behind it years before its release. A good, or bad, campaign can make or break a title before the product is even reviewed.

For example look at Diakatana, for years it was promoted and hyped up. When it took so long for them to deliver the game, we as the consumers expected and wanted more and more out of this game. This got so bad that at the point it was delivered, Diaktana needed to be the *BEST* game ever made for people not to trash it. It wasnt, and now we all point our fingers and use it as an example.

Some people say that any publicity is good publicity. Sometimes its best to be remembered at all then religated to be forgotten in history.

Logan

#2 Well the publishers job is to publish the game...they want the game to sell so they will market it.

But there are a lot of examples of games that recieved little advertisement and have not only been good, but won awards.

The most recent one I can think of is Sacrifice. Up to the point of making the game hardly anyone had ever heard of it, yet it won RTS of the year(albiet it was maybe the worst years in gaming) by numerous magazines etc...

There are a lot more examples, I just can't seem to think of any right now, lol.

But it just proves that marketing/hyping your game won't nessarily make it sell. I would sya that you need a great game for it to sell, but there are a lot more examples of hyped games which weren't very good that have sold more then there are non hyped games that were good that haven't.

So maybe all these games that didn't recieve much attention when developing, yet get a lot of attention because of the quality of the game is just a trend that we will see more and more of; which I hope.

I personally think its more exciting to play a game you hardly heard of or know and have it turn out great, then seeing it everywhere, and most times, getting sick of it before its even out.

Also, it puts all games on a level playing field. You don't need a million doller marketing campaign for your game for it to sell. So once your game comes out, if it is good it will recieve the attention it deserves with little money put into marketing so it isn't so much in the hands of the large corperations.

#3 In as much as I would like to agree that marketing isn't everything, I'm sure that with a game that took as ridiculously long to create as Daikatana did, it would need a massive marketing campaign behind it to even make back the investment put forth by Eidos/Ion Storm.

And, yes, Soldier of Fortune (which is to me representative of the stock mindless shooter genre; no more, no less) got its fair share of free press from that whole British Columbia thing, but -whether or not it started with the company- is it all that different from the amazingly overdue Duke Nukem Forever? Like so many things (like SoF in British Columbia), its very lack of existence creates free press, and so we still remember that it's out there.

And I think the root cause of all of this is because the hardcore gamers know their developers like movie fans know directors, writers and producers. We wondered, "What's Romero doing next?" after he left id to create Daikatana (great career move, John), or, "I liked Duke3D, when's Duke 4 coming?"

It's our fault, folks. We ask, they tell. The marketing department sees a developing or developed fan base for a game, and they exploit it. Were it not for our curiosity, Tiberian Sun ads might not have been run in PC Gamer for a year prior to its release. Were it not for the fact that the game didn't measure up to the expectations we lavished upon its development time, Daikatana might have sold better.

It's the same as television. It's not the media that's evil. They just cater to us.

#4 Morbid fascination. I believe it is more that than catering to us. Or, perhaps its the whole "this is illegal/immoral in the real world--look at what I get away with!"

Sadly, we do tend to be drawn to violence and such. Myself, I've vowed to make our game a clear-cut Good v. Evil, and not grotesque--possibly not even killing humans.

Why do they put horrible stories at the beginning of the news, and save the nice stuff for the end? To leave us with a good feeling? Or to try to catch our attention? I imagine what it caters to is our natural response--flight or fight. Either way our bodies are pumped up with the very addicting adrenalyn. If you've ever worked out on a regular basis you will know what I mean--you can get physically adicted to it.

Heck, we even take peaceful games and turn them violent (the many faces of Tetris?).

My question is (to answer a ? with a ?), what is more important? Helping people become better (ie: rising above)? Or filling our pockets with cash? We could become drug dealers and filthy rich (presuming we didnt get caught), but is that right?

Oh, I know--some people will say, "but its just a game--it doesn't affect anyone." And yet, there must (I hope!) be a reason for all the recent school killings.

I realize this answers more than just the original question, but I have struggled with it all. Our game started with a "Do you know if you are good or evil?" kind of thought process. Perhaps we shouldn't confuse things more than they already are.

#5 I would caution people on the "over promoting" or creating false reports of their games.

When a game is over-promoted or the flase reports are exposed (the recent gaffes by Sony come to mind) people will remember that and when/if you come out with a sequel to your game, people will remember that the game was nowhere near what it was promoted to be.

People will wait for it to show up in the bargain bin.

I would also caution, that when you tell a lie and get away with it, it makes the next lie easier. Pretty soon you have so many lies out there you will get caught and people will not want to deal with you.

#6 I remember when Carmageddon was released in Australia.
I was working at a software today store and remeber seeing the article about this nasty game on the news the night before. When I arrived at work the next day, there were quite a few boxes of carmageddon arriving at our door.
we only had around 20 copies.
When the doors went up, we were hammerd by a hoard of people after 'that game where you run people over'
we sold all 20 copies that morning and continued to sell 'that game where you run people over'

Nearly all the people that bought the game from me, were middle aged males with nothing better to do. hardly any of them had actually heard of the game before they bagged the crap out of it on the news.
But it surely did sell those boxes.

#7 Word of mouth is also a powerful media agent. It's just a bit slower. Remember Tribes 1? That was a sleeper hit. I saw a ton of people get into it when someone showed it at LAN parties.

As far as gaming PR goes, I think game development companies need to stay in better contact with whomever is doing their PR, in-house or contracted.

PR ethics is a tricky subject. It's a regulary debated topic in the movie industry because it depends on a person's own moral code and/or conscience. That's a large reason why PR legislation is so hard to get through.

My personal view is that a game company shoud be allowed to hype a game all they want as long as they do not lie or drop featured, well, features of the game. Its kinda frusturating when you wait for a feature and then it retails without it. Oh, another thing. NO FALSE RELEASE DATES!!! That was my biggest pet peeve before Tribes2 came out. That is just the biggest bummer, even more than missing features.

My $0.02

#8 David:

Quote:My personal view is that a game company shoud be allowed to hype a game all they want as long as they do not lie or drop featured, well, features of the game. Its kinda frusturating when you wait for a feature and then it retails without it. Oh, another thing. NO FALSE RELEASE DATES!!! That was my biggest pet peeve before Tribes2 came out. That is just the biggest bummer, even more than missing features.

As a programmer who has had the misfortune of having worked on projects that have had features go missing, and release dates slip by, I'd like to point out something about the nature of the industry. This may not be the case with Tribes 2, but on some of the products I've worked on, marketing has had box designs and release dates set for products before they are even 50% of the way into development. In fact, release dates have often been set before production even began, without consulting anyone that has to design and make the product. With conditions like that in corporate game development, it's no wonder that games get shipped with missing features, with bugs, and late to top it all off. I sure wish the situation was different. But if the situation was different, I wouldn't be here starting up a company of my own to do things the right way. :)

Steve

#9 Remember all the hype about the PS2 being a "supercomputer" and Iraq trying to import a bunch of them to do missle targeting systems?

Some of the biggest crap PR ever, trumped up by Sony to increase the hype....Especially bad since the PS2 is a lousy general purpose computer (from the standpoint of its chip/memory/bus design..not just the fact that it has no keyboard/mouse, and such).

#10 To answer Matthew's initial question, yes, using PR stunts is ethical. Some may be distasteful, like the recent attempt by a U.K. company to put game ads on tombstones, but as long as you're not outright lying (as the SoF situation sounds dangerously close to having done) or breaking the law, it just depends on how your audience will respond (as the Daikatana discussion shows).

I think of it as "media hacking": you intelligently use the media's built-in capacity as a PR machine to your own use. The "veil of secrecy" trick you mentioned W.A.T.E.R. using sounds brilliant.

As independent game designers, how else can we compete against the big studios and publishers?

DM

#11

Quote:Eric Forhan:Sadly, we do tend to be drawn to violence and such. Myself, I've vowed to make our game a clear-cut Good v. Evil, and not grotesque--possibly not even killing humans.

Eric, you may be surprised by this but I found that paragraph quite offensive.

In my experience, 'good vs. evil' can only mean two things: dumbed down, or propaganda. I assume that "dumbed down" is the appropriate meaning here. "Good vs. Evil" simply does not exist in reality; even the most reprehensible murderers and child abusers have sympathetic aspects to their character. No group of people could ever come as close to pure evil as those people, though groups can do terrible things*. With the amount of popular entertainment that takes the "good vs. evil" shortcut, I expect that there is a segment of our society that believes that others can truely be evil and are thus likely to believe that the governments' "enemy of the month (tm)", or "those damned Jews**", or "that guy who slept with my wife" are evil. Now, clearly it is morally acceptable to do voilence upon pure evil. Obviously something that is pure evil is not deserving of Basic Human Rights.

You also mentioned that you dislike violence, but you then immediately make it clear that you are making a game with violence against "evil" that does not contain 'extremely graphic violence'. I say that non graphic violence is even worse than graphic violence in that it makes violence more palatable and easy to accept. It is a very small step from candy violence to real violence when emotions are running high. I think that any child could tell you that animated violence against evil looking creatures is the same as video of a cop shooting a liquor store robber.

Do I believe that entertainment causes violence? There is an element of truth to that; a few people will make the mistake of thinking that violence is acceptable (perhaps cool), that there will be no consequences, or even that violence is the only response in some situations. If you want to help these people who neglect to think for themselves, you must discourage violence.

If you really want to discourage violence, it's easy. Show sympathetic aspects to your "bad guys". Show reasons why the "good guys" were forced to do violence upon the "bad guys". Show the unpleasant, graphic details of violence. And damn it, show the consequences of violence: show the friends of the 'victim' being angry and upset; show the "good guys" being hurt in the fight and not recovering right away; show the "good guys" having remorse, and their friends being angry or disappointed at them. In short, show violence in context instead of candy violence. This is even more important for childrens' entertainment, as children are busy learning how do deal with the world.

If you don't do this, then do not claim that your game is morally superior to others; it is not, and your superior stance on the issue is offensive. Am I going to do these things myself? Perhaps not, I have other goals.

*Mob psychology is very dangerous, and WILL make many good, smart people do bad things. Remember, these are just normal people, not evil people.

**Now, I don't dislike Jews, this is just an example. If you believe that Jews are evil, you're clearly mentally impaired.

#12 ...clears the cobwebs of his mind...has it really been a year?
Sadly, that game bit the dust last year. May it rest in peace.

I actually had to look up the definition of 'offensive' because, quite frankly, I at first thought you were using the word for the dramatic emphasis than because you really were offended. I think now it is because you wish to justify something in your mind. Why else the long dissertation and suggesting I believe my game "morally superior"?

Good v. Evil. It really is as simple as that. It's only humans that add the grey.

#13 Eric,

Sorry if I got carried away, but I really hate good vs. evil as a plot.

Quote:Good v. Evil. It really is as simple as that. It's only humans that add the grey.

Good and Evil are entirely human concepts, and are used to dehumanize enemies and justify immoral acts. Of course video games aren't responsible for any of this, but you should at least avoid supporting such a fallacy.

Besides, I expect that using grey characters will make any story stronger. If you don't want much story, I'd suggest either leaving the enemies unexplained or make the opponents mindless such as insects or robots. As an example, I think the show Space Above and Beyond from some years ago did an excellent job starting from Good vs. Evil and moving to grey.

To clarify, I'm offended at the Good vs. Evil idea, and not really at you. I think that it's human nature to want to see Good and Evil in things.

#14 Yes, good and evil are human concepts (at least, if you don't believe in a deity, such as 'God'). So are love, honor, respect, hate, anger, patience, jealosy, pity--but that makes them no less real. They are the concepts, emotions, and feelings that help seperate us from animals. It's our intelligence that helps us to rise above and should strive to better ourselves.

Just because Jeffrey Dahmer was a Boy Scout doesn't make is acts any less evil/wrong/horrible.

Allow me to put it this way: We teach our children where the lines are. Some of the above concepts are innate or tied physically to us, but we (are supposed to) teach that murder is wrong; that patience is sometimes called for--and so many more ideals. If we blur those lines, even in fiction, we risk never having those lines set firmly in their minds.

For us to dismiss this as not our responsibility as game makers, or to at least consider the repercussions,is doing wrong to society for our own sake. I hate to use such terms as Pavlovian Response and Brain Reconditioning, but they really are something to think on when we are writing the next GTA3.

#15 I'm new here, but been writing news (websites) for the gaming industry for years now. As a news editor, I often received PR emails and wondered about the hype. Recently, I've been closely involved with the Unreal Tournament 2003 release (as a newsie, not dev or publisher) and often received great support. However, there were times where news would leak out and I would call upon my contacts for verification of the "rumors". The troubling part is, that these leaks caused a stir among the community and I would be told they were strictly rumors. That is, until a few weeks later when the rumors become truth.

What I learned during this experience is that the PR reps had little control over what the publisher wants stated or released. Another thing is that the industry is huge and we all have "friends" in the right places. Leaks happen and that is more unethical than some PR stunts. In the case of UT2003, I really believe the publisher didn't intend to create a PR stunt, but due to close friends, information was leaked and the publisher needed to do some damage control. The canned statement "We don't comment on rumors and that is a rumor" is a self-protection attitude and not a means to stir up the fans or lie to the news sites.

I assume, this topic is actually about real PR stunts and not damage control. I agree, some publishers use such stunts to maximize media attention, but we can't blame this on the PR rep themselves. I believe they are doing what they are told and in such a hurricane environment, PR reps often don't see the ethical side effects from their releases. Maybe they do, but can't voice their opinions. I am fortunate enough to work closely with some good PR reps and they ensure our site receives clean information.

Now, this is just my personal opinion about adverstisements. Joe and Jane Public needs realize they have a brain and they weren't born sheep. Advertisement companies will only go for what they believe people will believe. Sure, they go over board, but who is really to blame, them or our lack of energy to seek the truth? Ages ago, Generals were the great deceivers, but now Advertisement companies hold that baton. In the Orient, deception isn't considered evil. Instead, the person who falls for the deception is considered...well...an idiot. To lie is evil, because lies are absent of all truth. Deception is the disassembly of the truth, but not void of it. On a side note, it is easier to remember a deception, than a lie. Anyway, this generation can be easily deceived to believe anything and companies will operate like this until we start to wise up. To some, such deception is unethical. However, I blame the public for allowing such tactics to guide their thought processes into buying a game they would never purchase without the hype.

Not all hype is bad. We need the facts about a game. We need some information to learn more about what we are buying. However, when stunts are used, it is our personal responsibility to decypher the facts against the over exaggerated hype.

#16 "What I learned during this experience is that the PR reps had little control over what the publisher wants stated or released. "

I think this is definitely a problem with some PR situations ... especially when you are relating to an agent, though it also happens with internal people too.

From a PR agent's perspective, if I was to say "well, Mr. media person here is the true story," when the client specifically said to only tell the un-true statement I could be fired immediately. So unless you are extremely honest it is often difficult to navigate that issue without sacrificing your ethics or your income.

That being said however, if you get a reputation for constantly BS'ing members of the media, one's value to a client will decline so one certainly must moderate one's actions accordingly.

In my experience, I prefer to answer things directly. While I would never release news, trade secrets etc as covered under an NDA, I think it is very important to work with members of the media "off the record" and on "deep background." Most clients understand the value of this when dealing with specific people who you know you can trust. Even if the "truth" seems bad, it can soothe potential bad feelings that a member of the media might have if you lie to him/her by attempting to cover a legitimate news leak.

When applied properly this type of tactic can pay huge dividends.

I think most developers and publishers are good people, but some just get carried away. I have worked with many developers over the past 4 or 5 years and I have only once or twice met ones that I would have had to worry about ethics with.

My word of advice is that if you have questions about the ethics of a client or boss, "DON'T TAKE THE POSITION." If they aren't ethical towards consumers/fans and members of the media they aren't going to be ethical towards you.

This is easier to say than do, but trust me it is best just to stay away :) Your job will be hell on a daily basis and ethical stuff has a habit of catching up with people ... you may only think that it is about squashing a true but negative rumor on a website, but that same attitude can also strike you directly on pay day :(

I hope this helps future PR people,
I am always willing to offer whatever advice I can to aspiring PR persons or developers.

James Hills
CyPR Media
http://www.cyprmedia.com