Sections

Indies must learn to love marketing

Praying for discoverability to magically get better is no excuse for sending your games out to die today; marketing is a key development skill too

"Who the hell has time to do that?", asked the piece we published this week about a Quo Vadis conference panel on indie developers and how they use social media to gain exposure for their games. It echoed directly comments from the panel about various - admittedly time-consuming - social media approaches being used by or suggested for indie developers. The original comments may have been partially tongue in cheek (I don't know; I wasn't at the conference) but even so, they reflect a sense of frustration that will be familiar to many indie developers, or to those who work with them in any capacity.

The root of the frustration is this: "I'm doing this because I want to make games. Why am I expected to do all this other incredibly time-consuming crap that isn't making games? Just let me make games!" It's a frustration that expresses itself in various ways - annoyance at the specialist media is one often encountered, as is a more directionless frustration with players themselves; but it's all dwarfed by the sense of anger many developers feel about Valve's Steam, Apple's App Store and Google Play. If only those companies would do their job properly; if only they'd fix discoverability, then developers could focus on making great games and stop mucking around with all the other stuff.

"Fix discoverability." There's a phrase to toy with. It's pretty much one of the most fundamental articles of faith of videogames (and media in general) right now that discoverability is "broken" and that someone needs to come along and "fix" it. This belief runs all the way from plucky indies in their bedrooms to millionaires behind mahogany desks. Rob Pardo, a man as close to industry legend as it's reasonable to be, preached the "fix discoverability" gospel just this week in an interview on this site; if the platform holders don't do it, he warned, someone else will step in and steal their lunch. Fixing discoverability is a thing that must inevitably happen, the gospel says, because discoverability is broken and that means there's a disruptive advantage to fixing it.

"When you grasped freedom from publishers, you implicitly gave up that right to say "I just make games, I don't want to do all this other boring stuff"

I get where this comes from; it comes from a deep sense of longing borne from the fact that discoverability is, indeed, completely rubbish. In an extraordinary sea of content, the likes of which has never been seen before, getting even the most exquisite and perfect game, book, song or other creation to be seen, heard, played; it's damned near impossible. Everything drowns in the mire. Floating to the top and becoming a huge success is a total crapshoot, or so it seems. When things are this terrible, surely someone's going to come along with a fix and make things better?

Maybe. Maybe this is just like the Internet before Google came along and applied clever algorithms to let us actually find things; maybe there'll be a New Google (or hell, just the old Google doing something cunning and brilliant) who'll figure out how to let us find great games and books and songs. That's what developers generally cling to as a dogmatic belief; a clean, tidy, engineering solution, an algorithmic saviour to fix the mess we're all in.

Maybe not. Maybe the truth is altogether harsher; that although discoverability is terrible, it's not actually broken. It's simply terrible because that's the new reality; because there's so much stuff out there; it's terrible because the walls have fallen and the gatekeepers have been toppled, and now anyone and everyone can make a game or write a book - and therefore, most of them bloody well seem to have gone and done so. It's terrible because there's no machine, no algorithm, that can say "yeah, this is a good game, this is a good book"; you need, at a fundamental level, to be discovered and loved and promoted by a reasonable number of real humans before any machine intelligence can seize upon that kernel of adoration and turn it into a clever algorithmic recommendation, and it's that first hurdle at which the vast, vast majority of games and books fall.

My belief in the latter outweighs my firm desire for the former, personally; but in a sense, this is all philosophical. We could have a good discussion about it down the pub, over a pint or seven, with wagging fingers and high-falutin' claims regarding the cleverness or otherwise of surprisingly subjective things you can get algorithms to do with natural language and whatnot. Then we'd all wake up in the morning with hangovers, having entirely forgotten the solution to the world's problems (well, perhaps just the App Store's problems) we came up with somewhere in the depth of our cups the night before, and discoverability, in the here and now, would still be absolute, irredeemable bollocks.

Which means that, in the here and now, developers who don't or can't find time to do all that annoying stuff, all that not-making-a-damned-game stuff, are sending their games out to die.

Here's the thing; indie developers have, for the most part, kicked publishers out the door, changed the locks and danced around the living room with Diana Ross' "I Will Survive" pumping out at top volume, and god, it felt good. The fall of the gatekeepers, digital distribution, the opening up of tools like Unity and Unreal; it's given developers the ability to take back control of everything, the whole process, to make games without asking permission from anyone or answering to anyone.

That's great; it's genuinely the thing that makes me most excited and happy about the direction of games over the past five years and the decades to come. It's not, however, a great big bag of freedom. It's also a great big bag of responsibility. Publishers aren't just parasites, even if their behaviour at times has strayed into that area (and those are the times that make the news, that get discussed in-depth on NeoGAF and that probably end up being a brilliant investigative article by Simon Parkin many years later). Publishers did stuff, important stuff, and if you're an indie developer you don't get to just ignore all that stuff and still expect to make a living; when you grasped freedom from publishers, you implicitly gave up that right to say "I just make games, I don't want to do all this other boring stuff."

"Marketing is more than half of a publisher's budget; I'm not saying it should be half of a developer's time, but I'm certainly saying that the answer to 'who has time for that' should generally be 'you do, I hope'"

Top of that list? Marketing. Sorry, dirty word, but there we are. Most publishers spend more money marketing games than they spend making games. That horrifies developers, but it's a perfectly logical and rational calculation. Whatever you've spent making the game is completely lost if the game sinks into obscurity upon release. The marketing dollars you spend don't just return themselves in sales, they're also the only way to redeem the developing dollars that have already been spent. Sometimes, this makes weird things happen; games that are completely finished by the developer don't get released because the publisher loses confidence, and everyone thinks it's crazy ("it's finished, why not just release it and make some money") except the people who know that most of the budget is marketing and that by not spending that, the publisher is saving themselves from throwing good money after bad.

Does this sound like it has a parallel in our brave new world? I think it does, because I think that what publishers face in this sphere isn't a long way from what indie developers face in terms of discoverability and visibility of their games. You finish your magnum opus, and perhaps it truly is brilliant - and as a developer, you feel like that's your job done, and you just want to get it out there and watch it succeed. If you're really wearing both of your hats, though, your developer hat and the one you snatched from the publisher's head, you know that your job isn't even half-done at this stage. Marketing is more than half of a publisher's budget; I'm not saying it should be half of a developer's time, but I'm certainly saying that the answer to "who has time for that" should generally be "you do, I hope".

This isn't to say that social media is the perfect solution to the discoverability problem; discoverability is still going to suck. Maybe it'll always suck, maybe it won't; but right now it does suck, and as an indie developer, you probably don't have the kind of big fat marketing budget required to soar above the noise. What you do have is your talent, your authenticity, a direct line to game fans all around the world, social tools of all kinds to put yourself out in front of the world and, yes... Your time. Unless you're fabulously wealthy, your time is pretty much the only asset you have; everything else is just a tool to project your time out into the world. Use those tools - and find the time. While everyone is drowning in the discoverability mire, it's only those who learn to kick most strongly who will find their way to the surface.

Latest comments (31)

Paul Johnson Managing Director / Lead code monkey, Rubicon Development4 years ago
It's a very common stance to stand up and offer wisdom that "marketing is a pain but it will fix your discoverability issue".

The thing is though, it just won't. Not for everybody, not even for many.

The core problem is that every game has a million competitors on the store page. If everyone heeds this perfectly reasonable marketing advice, then all that's going to happen is that media outlets are going to get drowned by a million outreaches for coverage instead. Now your visibility problem is caused by twitter or game sites instead of the app store. Nothing got fixed, just moved.
12Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Anthony Gowland Director, Ant Workshop4 years ago
Except everyone doesn't heed the advice. 99% will read it and, like yourself, think "well everyone's going to do that, I should continue doing very little marketing because it's going to be saturated and my efforts will be wasted".

Which works out better for the 1% who decide to get in touch with a journalist or two, though.

It's like a prisoner's dilemma of app discovery.
9Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Jamie Firth Video Games Production 4 years ago
"I'm doing this because I want to make games. Why am I expected to do all this other incredibly time-consuming crap that isn't making games? Just let me make games!"
I hear this a lot. Usually coupled with "I can self-publish: why would I need a publisher these days?".
2Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Show all comments (31)
Business, whether selling widgets or software or anything in between is about relationships. They key in this instance is being able to send an email or make a phone call to a reporter, a blogger, a you tuber, etc, and have it opened, read, answered. Business is about relationships. Its about having doors open to you. At shows and events you are better off taking a handful of journalist, bloggers and having beers with them and picking up the check, then you are having some booth. Become known, liked , since its, especially for indies, about you, not the game.
So when you do have a game to push, emails and phone calls will be returned since the person getting them will say to themselves." oh its Bob, wonder what his new game is all about, and they will open the door to you"
Now this wont fix the visibility problem, but at least it allows you a little traction to allow you to make a little noise in the crowded room.

Edited 3 times. Last edit by Todd Weidner on 24th April 2015 5:07pm

3Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Nick Parker Consultant 4 years ago
Indies usually underestimate the costs of marketing in the budget, slipping in a line for $50k and hoping word of mouth will do the rest. Looking at the cost of marketing as a % share of net revenues over the last five years reveals steady growth on digital platforms with, in the cases of the big boys like King and Supercell hitting 20% as they turn to traditional broadcast media and those further down the hit lists still having to spend 10% to 15% of revenues on marketing. This is the new (old) world for some while a few others can get cute to imaginatively create, or have created, innovative means and media to speak to their audiences.
2Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Nathan Fouts President, Mommy's Best Games4 years ago
For our most recent release, Finger Derpy, a game about uncontrollable horse-racing, we've done all the regular things like contact media, contact AppStore/GPlay, contact youtubers... but we've done other, more involved things like work with local businesses to form partnerships in our town (Kentucky Derby town-- Louisville KY!) And we've strategically released the game before the biggest horse race of the year (Kentucky Derby is May 2nd). We're showing the game at as many Derby pre-events as possible, talking on radio, talking in public, talking on the internet. Is it working? Some! Is it a financial success? Not quite yet, but it's getting there.
Talk to me again after derby, while I cross my derpy fingers and keep on pushing.
https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/finger-derpy/id977473798?mt=8
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.MommysBestGames.FingerDerpy
-Nathan
3Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
John Cook Senior Partner, Bad Management4 years ago
Stealing the phrase I once saw on the first slide of a Martyn Brown deck - "It's not Self-Publishing"

Second slide - "It's Publishing"
3Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Lewis Pulsipher Game Designer, Author, Teacher 4 years ago
The Law of Supply and Demand is inexorable. We have a vast oversupply, and getting worse, compared with demand. There is no technological fix for that, nor any fix that an individual or company can implement. The closest amelioration is spend a lot of time and money marketing the game.

As I believe Greg Costikyan said, do you want to be a designer, or a publisher? Once you self-publish, you're no longer a designer, like it or not.

It's no different in books. My publisher (McFarland, one of the largest independent publishers) publishes more books each year, but sells fewer of each on average.

I recall reading some Industry Legend say creators aren't going to be hurt in the new circumstances, it's the middle-men. He was wrong about the creators.
3Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Paul Johnson Managing Director / Lead code monkey, Rubicon Development4 years ago
Except everyone doesn't heed the advice. 99% will read it and, like yourself, think "well everyone's going to do that, I should continue doing very little marketing because it's going to be saturated and my efforts will be wasted".
Not like me. I've spent a lot of time personally trying to get the press involved. We couldn't even get a mention when one of our mobile games was put up for a BAFTA in a non-mobile, non-indie, AAA strategy category - XCom: Enemy Unknown scooped. Yeah, versus great little war game ios from 4 guys in a barn conversion. Interesting stories huh. Bullshit.

So then I realised it must be me and hired a series of professionals to take over. All that's happened is that after I lost a lot of my time on failed amateur press outreach, I lost a lot of my money on failed professional press outreach.

That's the bit nobody seems to mention and I'm sure this sorry tale isn't unique to me. Now I just don't bother; thankfully we've built a large and strong fanbase right under the noses of the press anyway. Just from making good stuff.

Edited 2 times. Last edit by Paul Johnson on 24th April 2015 11:20pm

5Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Lucas Seuren Freelance, Only Network4 years ago
There is more than press, and it depends in what segment you work. Most traditional games press do not work with mobile games, and award shows are rarely considered very interesting news. Also, four guys in a barn, it isn't particularly new; it happens regularly that a tiny studio gets a big hit and at some point it stops being interesting enough to give it a whole lot of coverage. That's not to say it's not impressive, but as an editor it is not an interesting story to tell if you've told it a couple of times before. Whether you deserve the attention or not is irrelevant, press need to make a living too and they cover what they believe will gain them the biggest amount of views, i.e. ad sells.

So yeah, I'm not surprised your tale is not unique. I work in a team that covers a relative large amount of indie games, and we still miss probably upwards of 90% (and we don't even do mobile). In the end, it comes down to luck as well as perseverance; there are no guarantees. Not every creative genie is appreciated in his lifetime, or ever, unfortunately. But that doesn't mean that trying is by definition a waste of time.
1Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Paul Johnson Managing Director / Lead code monkey, Rubicon Development4 years ago
Sorry, but I disagree even as I look at your own job title. If a pissfarting little company that nobody has heard of can get a mobile game into a major award show next to an all-time classic and this isn't an "interesting story" then nothing is. (I know this sounds self-serving but it's not meant to be, I happen to think stories like that are the very definition of "interesting" and it's just one I know quite well. I'm not bitter about this particular one as it's far from unique in my repertoire...)

Listening to Molyneux shocking the world that he's not shying away from the press after all? Again? Really? If the latter has to beat the former, then no indie is capable of doing what's needed so it's all moot anyway.

Again, this is not really about me - I've learned my lessons and moved on. I simply mean to offer a counterpoint to all this "just make it interesting", "just do this", "just do that". Sure do it if you want, but don't expect there's an inherent right for it to work. If you're not a big name studio already it probably won't. So there's the rub, my advice being to stick to what you know best, do great work and bide your time until you catch a break.
4Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Eyal Teler Programmer 4 years ago
What a meaningless non-article. Too many paragraphs to say: "there's a discovery problem, and the solution is advertising. I have no clue what that really entails or what effect it really has, but the big boys are doing it, so it must be the solution."

Sure, it makes sense that advertising can help, but how much does it help for how much work? Did the successful indie games succeed because of advertising? If so, what kind of advertising? How did it differ from what some failed games did? That would make for an article with some meat.
8Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Ruben Monteiro Engineer 4 years ago
That's it? Do more marketing? You're just replacing the "build it and they'll come" mantra with "market it and they'll come", and you seriously think that will solve everyone's problems? How naive can you be?
You're just kicking the can down the road from getting noticed by a publisher to getting noticed by the Youtube reviewer.

Make no mistake about this: there's only one way out that will benefit both developer and consumer and that's a mix of better search algorithmics and educating the consumer to have a more pro-active stance in searching for the games he wants.
Which works out better for the 1% who decide to get in touch with a journalist or two, though.
LOL! 1% is more likely the number of indie devs who don't email journalists. Better send some $$$ with that email or be childhood friends with the journalist, otherwise you're welcome to join his "Indie PR" inbox folder along with the other 1000 unread emails there...
2Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Keldon Alleyne Strategic Keyboard Basher, Avasopht Development4 years ago
At the moment I don't think gamers are demanding more games, so the discoverable problem mostly affects developers.

Whoever finds a way to solve discoverability in a way that adds value to the consumer will make a very nice income.
0Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Craig Page El Presidente, Awesome Enterprises4 years ago
I don't think Apple and Google want to "fix discoverability". They would probably make a lot less money from advertisers, and they would also be giving up the power they have now to choose winners and losers through featuring.
2Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Lucas Seuren Freelance, Only Network4 years ago
I'm not disagreeing with you that it is interesting, but news, especially on the internet, is not defined by whether it is new and interesting (which is weird, I know). Most websites tailor to that average consumer in order to get enough views to sell ads. It's why websites like Buzzfeed work so well; it's not about high quality journalism, it's about getting people to your site. Spend 15 minutes on writing a decent headline and 5 minutes on the articles, that is what "journalism" is about nowadays. Because content has to be free; people aren't willing to pay for quality, and so the market for quality journalism is very small.

When I still actually did editing work (my title is a bit outdated) and a different and much larger website than the one I occasionally freelance for nowadays, about 2% of the traffic went to the decent articles, the actual stories. All the rest was the easily digestible stuff. And that's not just frustrating for the people who you write about, but for the writer as well. Because hard work doesn't pay of, in the financial sense.

I word as an academic nowadays and the problem you have is the same as we have. You want to sell a product, but no matter how good it is, it's almost impossible to get noticed, because (a) there is an insane amount of competition and (b) nobody cares unless they can turn it into a story that easily attracts readers (it's why social psychology does so well).

So yeah, you're right. A pissfarting little company making a title that can hold its own with the great games should be news. Unfortunately, it's a story that is very hard to sell. And that's a problem all around.
3Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Paul Johnson Managing Director / Lead code monkey, Rubicon Development4 years ago
Thanks Lucas, I hadn't thought of it that way I must admit. Yep, game development has gone the same way.
0Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Jamie Firth Video Games Production 4 years ago
People talk of a "discoverability problem" being on the side of the platforms, like it's something totally out of their control. But, like any marketplace, it's up to the product seller to solve.
I totally agree with the article: Indies need to develop understanding of how to get their game eyeballs, and that's not sending a few emails to press/youtubers and crossing fingers that someone will do it for them. If you're self publishing then the development itself is (at most) 50% of the job.
1Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Keldon Alleyne Strategic Keyboard Basher, Avasopht Development4 years ago
Think of marketplace makeup in the real world, location and space limited arena.

Supermarkets only really ship global, nationally and regionally marketed brands tweaked by local preferences. Corner shops can sometimes be much more locally targeted with ethnic group specific products featuring heavily, and then you have your outright ethnic group store.

You also have market stalls, which is what the supermarket encapsulates into a single package, but in the pure market stall form sells much more unique products and is much easier for independent and smaller producer producers to reach.

Now look at the app stores. There is no equivalent in the digital world. There is no relation to geography, which is a gift and a curse.

In the real world discoverability may begin with a brand targeting a local store and maybe even with creating their own if they are going for the Mr Byrite approach. People local to that shop see new indie developments specific to where they are.

Those dynamics fall apart in the digital arena.

It could be emulated but the consumer isn't too fussed because the supermarket tends to have everything. So there are a few supermarket brands being the gatekeepers, and every once in a while an Innocent may appear, but generally it's the works of the few multinational giants filling the shelves in the supermarkets and the corner shops and crumbs falling into the markets.
0Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Jamie Firth Video Games Production 4 years ago
@Keldon Granted: this is all true.
My point is that *that's* how it is. The parameters are known: success is possible *despite* the marketplace, not because it's helped by it. Whilst they may improve things (curation on Steam is a good start) in time, you need to know how to work with the marketplace that currently exists, as is the case with any consumer product.
There are plenty of success stories - good place to start looking and try to spot how they did it (and before anyone says "They got lucky", look around a bit more: there are some outliers that maybe did have a slice, but there are equally games that have crafted success rather than been "gifted" it.)
0Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
George Williams Owner 4 years ago
You can market a game until you are blue in the face and still get no where. Mr Flappy Bird himself was shunned by the gaming press with poor reviews and then they all questioned him when Flappy Bird became a hit several months after release thanks to Pew Die Pie playing the game on his channel.

Sometimes you just need an element of luck and maybe the gaming press should be kinder to Indies in terms of coverage, because thats where most of them started.
0Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Jamie Firth Video Games Production 4 years ago
Flappy Bird became a hit several months after release thanks to Pew Die Pie playing the game on his channel.
This is commonly quoted, but Flappy Bird was in the top 10 apps in the US a month before Pew Die Pie featured the game. People are desperate to attribute its success to one event because it makes it easier to understand, but it wasn't the case.
It's an incredible piece of design: it is riddled with X-Factor and it's quite sad that people put it down to him "getting lucky".
2Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
James Podesta Lead Programmer, SASimulations4 years ago
There's also the issue that you can't market a $1 - $5 indie app. It would cost you more to reach each customer than you make from them. All the marketting channels are flooded with F2P marketting because those games can leech $1000 from each whale, so they are really just trying to reach the whales and anyone else that gets caught in the net is bonus.

I think Steam Curators are a good example of someone trying to "fix" the discoverability issue. These are people who's sole interest is to wade through all the crap and pick the gems. I'm not sure what the evidence is of great games never getting discovered... (since by nature I wouldn't know about any great games that haven't been discovered :) ).

In general, I'm not really convinced discoverability for indies is broken. If your game doesn't find some curators or bloggers that find it interesting enough to rave about, maybe its just not that special or its just not the right time for your game. You can't expect to hit the financial jackpot in indie anymore unless your game really has an exciting edge over the competition at the time it is released.
0Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Keldon Alleyne Strategic Keyboard Basher, Avasopht Development4 years ago
"Exciting edge!" Seems like a quality that can only be identified by the reception it receives. So if a game is not successful, we say it can't have had an edge, but if it is then we look for one.

Even with curators and bloggers, you still need to reach the influencers, and I imagine their in tray is going to be rather loaded. Still it's a step in the right direction. And if bloggers and curators were the absolute answer for success there would be absolutely no need for marketing, meaning that failing to succeed in the presence of bloggers and curators does not suggest an unworthy game otherwise that would imply there is no need whatsoever to market a good game because bloggers and curators are destined to fulfill that role.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Keldon Alleyne on 27th April 2015 11:05am

0Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Robin Clarke Producer, AppyNation Ltd4 years ago
A lot of these comments seem to be conflating marketing and PR. If your game is a confusingly communicated and unattractively presented press outreach won't fix anything.
2Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Maarten Brands Director, Cook & Becker4 years ago
The marketing problem for small game devs with limited budgets is made worse by the fact that they have zero control over the visibility in their main marketing channel (the App stores). Their other communication channels are much less effective sales-wise and are suffering major meltdowns themselves or are being closed off. Many devs try PR (as it is one of the few low cost out of pocket options) but specialists journalists are being fired left right and center and sites and magazines are closing down rapidly. as that business model is broken too. That means an ever rising number of indie devs are trying to reach a rapidly dwindling pool of journalists and writers that are under enormous pressure to churn out click-bait instead of original stories.

If you do get the PR exposure, statistics suggest that does nothing meaningful for you in terms of sales unless you are really targeting a hobbyist audience for your games (people that play games because they are passionate about them or the game's subject, not only because they are bored). Most casual gamers (for lack of a better term) are not actively seeking out information about new Apps.

That leaves social media as a low cost out of pocket option but the trend is that the major social media channels are slowly killing all non-paying distribution options (Facebook killing organic reach of Pages for instance).

Maybe throwing money at it is the answer (a publishing strategy, ad buying etc.) but it's hard to budget for a product you are giving away for free...

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Maarten Brands on 27th April 2015 2:18pm

0Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
It is not about whether you market your game or not. It is about whether you have 1 000 000+ dollars to spend on user acquisition. "Developers do not understand they have to market their games" is out dated one-liner that people who think the are so savvy about game business like blurt out.

And no, contrary to the article gate keepers have not toppled. They are just new gate keepers and the gate is new too. Appstore is the only place on the planet where to sell your product. And even though everyone is free to join the party, the VIP area i.e. AppStore promotion is very much controlled. And unless you get there and do not have 1 000 000+ dollars to spend on user acquisition, no amount of marketing is ever going to make your game successful.
1Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Jamie Firth Video Games Production 4 years ago
It is not about whether you market your game or not. It is about whether you have 1 000 000+ dollars to spend on user acquisition
You don't have to spend $1m+ to acquire users. You have to spend that to acquire *millions* of users.
"Developers do not understand they have to market their games" is out dated one-liner that people who think the are so savvy about game business like blurt out.
I'm sure that most developers understand they need to market their games... but I'm equally sure that some of them don't know HOW to.
0Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Keldon Alleyne Strategic Keyboard Basher, Avasopht Development4 years ago
Exactly James, you pay per user, however some suggest user acquisition is higher than average user spend. The losses of Zynga are testament to the difficulty.

Indie developers may not need to bid so high for users.

In any case traditional marketing rules still apply and that first chapter of the Ten Day MBA is just as valuable to video game marketing as it is for shifting bricks and mortar.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Keldon Alleyne on 28th April 2015 2:07pm

0Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Jamie Firth Video Games Production 4 years ago
If your advertising costs more than your revenue then you are likely to run into problems. So you find cheaper user acquisition or you improve your revenue per user.
I'm not saying it's easy to do either, but that's where success lies. Who ever said success was easy? :-)
0Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Keldon Alleyne Strategic Keyboard Basher, Avasopht Development4 years ago
Hence why I said, standard marketing rules apply and reading that chapter on marketing is a must.

It's easy to get caught in the gold rush mentality when coal mining mindset is just as valuable today as it was 100 years ago.

Remember that although a Leonardo da Vinci painting can get you millions, your typical large oil painting will only earn you a few hundred, and the material costs are high.

What a lot of people fail to realise is that marketing does not end with advertising, it continues inside your game as you still have the task of marketing the decision to make an in app purchase as well as to continue playing.
0Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply

Sign in to contribute

Need an account? Register now.