Disney Giving Away Free iPhone Game To Promote Movie
from the that's-how-it's-done dept
Reader Terry Westley points us to yet another example of how companies are recognizing that content is advertising. Disney has apparently released a free iPhone game that's fun on its own, but which also serves to help promote an upcoming movie release. While some will dismiss this as just being a cheap way of advertising, you have to wonder what happens when movie makers start making these sorts of games really, really good. Then what happens to game developers who think they can get away with charging for their mobile phone games? Suddenly it becomes a lot harder to support that model if there are other businesses that are using a model where, the more games that are given away for free, the more it helps the rest of their business.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: games, iphone, movies, promotions
Companies: disney
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
when does it stop being appropriate
Suddenly it becomes a lot harder to support that model if there are other businesses that are using a model where, the more games that are given away for free, the more it helps the rest of their business.
Content is advertising, advertising is content. But how far can it shift from "ad" to "content" before you start running up against antitrust regulations against using the profits from one part of your business to subsidize another part for market advantage?
I honestly don't know, and I don't think this comes anywhere close, but eventually something is going to come close enough to the line to draw out the lawyers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: when does it stop being appropriate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: when does it stop being appropriate
Are you seriously dense enough to believe that using the profits from the "sales" department to subsidize the "advertising" department will draw out the Anti-trust lawyers?
No, I don't think Disney using an iPhone app is going to draw out anti-trust lawyers. My question - if you read it - is at what point might this start becoming an issue. If Disney starts using profits from movies to give away catalogs of full video games, you think EA or Square aren't going to start tuning up their legal
departments looking for an angle on this? You know, here in the age of Hershey's Chocolate suing furniture companies for the artwork on their vans, you don't think there's a lawyer somewhere that'll take a shot at this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Of course!
However, I had an interesting thought last night. Who really benefits from these awe-inspiringly expensive video games? The PC hardware industry. Perhaps they ought to be considering an advertising type deal with the game makers.
Use infinite goods as advertising for those scarce goods known as upgrades. If the hardware industry sponsored the games industry, the cost of games would plummet, piracy would, and there would be an increase in hardware sales (those gamers would all rather spend their money on hardware than software anyways).
As for consoles, they will NEVER hit the sales figures of blockbuster movies until they stop their stupid insane pricing models either. The abysmally low "attach-rate" of every console out there is proof of that. What was wii's point in having the lowest cost console on the market, if they are still going to charge 60$ USD for every new release?
Here's a hint Nintendo (and other console makers): If the games were 15-20$ each, I'd be buying at least a game a week. At 60$ each, I have bought..... ZERO! I own a wii, but the only games I bought for it were the trash games that were on clearance for 20$. Since those games sucked, me and my kids have pretty much just abandoned the wii. The only thing we play on it now is wii sports and wii play.
It's time for a new business model in the video game sector, if they want to be taken seriously by consumers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Of course!
And my 7800 GT from BFG came with Call of Duty 2, a game I probably wouldn't have bought but thoroughly enjoyed to the point where I almost bought Call of Duty 3 and 4.
As for the high price point on console games vs movies. It is a chicken and the egg scenario. Game makers won't make games cheaper until there is a much larger market guaranteed to buy them, people won't buy them because they are too expensive. When the systems do finally get a large enough install base, it is about time for the next generation of the systems to be released.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Of course!
Also, most console games don't, I think, flash and hardware logos (aside from whatever console it is you already own in the first place).
As the GP said, if console games were $15 - $20, I'd buy one or two a month. As it is, I buy two or three a year. I'd spend more on games if I could do it in smaller doses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Of course!
The console manufacturers charge game producers to publish the game on their console. It is a really weird setup, in my opinion, that they would charge the people that make the console valuable but that is how it works. It alone adds about $10 to the price of each game bought. Console manufacturers tend to lose money (overall) on the console but make up for it in royalties.
As to your backwards compatibility comment, that was exactly my point about the generations of consoles. It takes a long time to build an attractive install base, and when you are basically hitting the reset button every 5 years it becomes that much harder to reach that point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Of course!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Of course!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Of course!
Anyways all it said was the best games only sell to
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Of course!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Of course!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Of course!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Of course!
You guys might not like it, but just because something is considered a "scarce good" does not mean that it is valuable. Often the physical object is used as a promotional tool or delivery vehicle for selling content and services.
I can get a TIVO for free if I sign up for service, I can get a wireless phone for free for signing a service agreement. These are examples of the "scarce good" being used to sell "infinite goods".
This is the way the music industry should work. Since the primary job of a musician is to create music they should be making money from the sales of their music (not using the existing RIAA scheme but instead recieving direct payment for their music). Musicians should be performing for free as promotion for the sales of their songs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Of course!
Second, service is not an infinte good. It's very finite, and something you can reasonably charge for (because it uses resources, such as time, operators, bandwidth, server cycles, etc). So you're talking about using a finite good sold at a loss to promote some other finite good (and recoup your loss). No big surprises there.
Finally, you have the whole music industry idea backwards. Once a song is created, it costs almost nothing to make copies of it, especiall;y when those copies are digital. On the other hand, performances take actual resources, such as time, electrcity, tech crew, effects, etc. What's more, a performance is VERY limited, in that most venues can only hold a few thousand people. You can't have an infinite audience inside a concert hall (with a possible argument for broadcasting). Musicians should be paid for making new music andf for performing live shows, and the already-created-and-now-easily-replicated music should be given away as free promotion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Of course!
Lets break this down...
"Once a song is created", what resources are required to create this song? Calculate the number of years invested learning to play music, the amount of time writing the song, the number of "takes", the amount of time spent editing the song, etc... How is anything that takes enormous resources for its creation considered an "infinite good"?
"..it costs almost nothing to make copies of it." The key word here is ALMOST. Many of the resources listed in your attack of my post are relevent, "resources, such as time, electrcity, tech crew". All of those resources are required to power and MAINTAIN the servers used to store and distribute pirated music.
The point I was making was that musicians should not be forced into going on tour to make music. There are "performers" and there are "musicians". Musicians shouldn't be forced into becoming proficient stage performers because the two are NOT the same. There are studio musicians and there are stage performers.
Just like your plumber doesn't have to learn how to balance your taxes to get paid. You pay your plumber for fixing your leaky pipe, musicians should be paid for the recording of their music, if that is the way they have chosen to market their music.
If a performer wants to give away music to drive people to their concerts I am perfectly OK with that. The problem has become that unethical people have taken upon themselves to distribute copies of MUSICIAN'S music without the consent of the musicians which can affect the ability of the musician to get paid if the musician is chosing to sell their songs.
Don't try to force musicians into become stage performers. The way the system works now IS broken but there is room for many different business models and ultimately the musicians should be responsible for chosing the one that works best for them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Of course!
Please learn the difference between fixed and marginal costs. Then pick up an econ textbook and learn why fixed costs are meaningless in determining price in a competitive market.
The point I was making was that musicians should not be forced into going on tour to make music. There are "performers" and there are "musicians". Musicians shouldn't be forced into becoming proficient stage performers because the two are NOT the same. There are studio musicians and there are stage performers.
No one said musicians should be forced into going on tour. We've laid out numerous business models that involve free music that don't require musicians to tour.
Though, I should note that musicians who decide not to tour may be limiting their income. It's the same thing as a travelling sales person who refuses to leave one city. Sure, you can do that, but you've limited your market.
Just like your plumber doesn't have to learn how to balance your taxes to get paid. You pay your plumber for fixing your leaky pipe, musicians should be paid for the recording of their music, if that is the way they have chosen to market their music.
No, the musician should be paid for the *creation* of the music, because that's the scarce good. You don't keep paying your plumber every time you flush. You pay him once to fix the toilet and then you keep flushing. Same thing. Studio musicians can be paid for their time in creating the music, and then you should be able to freely listen and share.
If a performer wants to give away music to drive people to their concerts I am perfectly OK with that. The problem has become that unethical people have taken upon themselves to distribute copies of MUSICIAN'S music without the consent of the musicians which can affect the ability of the musician to get paid if the musician is chosing to sell their songs.
You are, again, confusing two issues. No one is saying that it's okay to distribute someone's music without their consent. We're simply explaining why it makes more sense for them to willingly free up that music.
And it's not the "piracy" that is affecting the ability of musicians to get paid. It's their choice of business models. To demonstrate: if all musicians except one decide to give away their music for free, that last musician is going to have difficulty selling their music.
Don't try to force musicians into become stage performers.
Don't set up strawmen. No one is forcing them to become stage performers.
The way the system works now IS broken but there is room for many different business models and ultimately the musicians should be responsible for chosing the one that works best for them.
Basic economics would tell you it's THE MARKET that chooses the best model. You are implying that one side gets to choose, but that's not how it works. If no one's wiling to buy into your business model, there's no business model.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Of course!
1) The musician must sell tickets to concerts and train as a stage performer. Again, you are saying that the musician must act as something other than a musician. There are MANY musicians that put on terrible concerts because they are NOT good performers, but are excellent musicians.
2) The musician must resort to creating "scarce marketable goods". That is called "marketing", again, not the role of a musician. A musician is someone who makes music not someone who creates action figures (the job of a toy maker), designs t-shirts (the job of a graphic artist), or even creates a compact disc (the job of a CD duplication shop - CDs are only a delivery vehicle of the ultimate product which is music).
In each case the musician is not paid for being a musician but for marketing products other than music (a performance or a physical item). This would be akin to a plumber coming into your house, fixing your pipes (an intangible service) for free and then trying to sell you gold plated pipe fittings (a tangible item) in order to recoup the costs of his training, and labor. It's ridiculous! Pay them for the recording, it's simple and it's cheap.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Of course!
Explaining basic market economics so that musicians can take advantage of it is different than saying that I'm picking the winners.
1) The musician must sell tickets to concerts and train as a stage performer. Again, you are saying that the musician must act as something other than a musician. There are MANY musicians that put on terrible concerts because they are NOT good performers, but are excellent musicians.
Again, I have never said they need to be a stage performer. Why you insist I have said that I do not know.
2) The musician must resort to creating "scarce marketable goods". That is called "marketing", again, not the role of a musician. A musician is someone who makes music not someone who creates action figures (the job of a toy maker), designs t-shirts (the job of a graphic artist), or even creates a compact disc (the job of a CD duplication shop - CDs are only a delivery vehicle of the ultimate product which is music).
No offense, but please read what you wrote here, sit down, think about it, and then realize how stupid it sounds. Right now, as the market works today, how does a musician make money? They make money because someone MARKETS their music. It's ALREADY how the business works. Reading your point #2 here, it makes you sound as if you think someone creates music and money just rains down on them.
If there's going to be money involved, at some point there's going to need to be marketing involved.
Yet, despite what you claim, no one here says that a musician needs to be a marketer. They can be a musician, and have someone else do the marketing -- just as the situation is RIGHT NOW.
So, yes, you're correct that a toy maker makes toys, but I can tell you that toy makers have a market dept. And graphic artists design t-shirts, but someone is marketing those shirts. CD duplicators duplicate CDs, but they, too, have marketing shops.
In each case the musician is not paid for being a musician but for marketing products other than music (a performance or a physical item).
Read what I wrote above.
It's ridiculous! Pay them for the recording, it's simple and it's cheap.
But not economically sustainable. Look, I wish you were right, but economics isn't how you wish things would be. It's how things actually are. Learn to live with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Of course!
Today. Doesn't mean it will always be that way.
You guys might not like it, but just because something is considered a "scarce good" does not mean that it is valuable. Often the physical object is used as a promotional tool or delivery vehicle for selling content and services.
Well, you may be confusing value here, but the focus should be on maximizing total value, not worrying about which component is more valuable. You bundle the scarce and the non-scarce and people will pay.
I can get a TIVO for free if I sign up for service, I can get a wireless phone for free for signing a service agreement. These are examples of the "scarce good" being used to sell "infinite goods".
Service is not an infinite good, as someone else pointed out.
This is the way the music industry should work. Since the primary job of a musician is to create music they should be making money from the sales of their music (not using the existing RIAA scheme but instead recieving direct payment for their music). Musicians should be performing for free as promotion for the sales of their songs.
Quick rule of thumb for doing any sort of economic analysis: if you're using the word "should" you're probably doing something wrong. You're making a moral judgment, and economics and business models aren't paying attention to who *should* be paid. It just looks at the fundamentals and figures out what the most efficient method for transactions are. And, your solution of charging for infinite and freeing up the scarce is a disastrous model. You basically set the incentives backwards, greatly limiting the market. The "primary job" is meaningless. All that matters is supply and demand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Of course!
However, I had an interesting thought last night. Who really benefits from these awe-inspiringly expensive video games? The PC hardware industry. Perhaps they ought to be considering an advertising type deal with the game makers.
Heh. I wrote exactly that in the comments just a couple days ago. Hell, I took it further, saying that Intel should basically be paying developers to create the games and then just giving them away free to encourage more upgrades.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Of course!
Oh my, I sure hope that was a coincidence. I don't think I read your comment, but perhaps I did when I was overly tired and it just didn't sink in until days later.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Of course!
Mike, you have to keep hardware and software separate. Otherwise you'll get a Steve Jobs mentality going on where only AMD games will work with AMD hardware and INTEL games...etc. It's also been said several times already that NVIDIA, INTEL, ATI, AMD all sponsor big title PC games. Also NVIDIA and ATI bundle popular game titles with video card purchases. They do as much as they should do already. Its software and always been software that is the issue.
The PC gaming business model of Steam is solid. They are the Sam's club of PC Games. They are the ultimate middle man. Now if cross-platform mega production companies like EA could get it through their thick skulls that they sell their products and not lease them, they would sell on Steam as well. I'm not so much endorsing Steam as much as I am their model. It works. Consoles, on the other hand, have not caught up to this model. MS Live is a good start but like I said earlier the cost is reflective of the level of competition. If their were an equivalent middle man to mediate the console cross platform online play, youd see a truly competitive gaming market. As it stands though, Microsoft and Sony are too greedy to give a middle man any profits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Of course!
No, you don't.
I mean, you can try, but it would be dumb.
Otherwise you'll get a Steve Jobs mentality going on where only AMD games will work with AMD hardware and INTEL games...etc.
Not if the companies are smart. If Intel is confident that its chips work better than AMD's then it helps fund games that push more power, then it will help Intel a lot more than AMD, EVEN IF the games can also be played on AMD machines.
Also NVIDIA and ATI bundle popular game titles with video card purchases. They do as much as they should do already.
I'm pointing out that they could do much more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It won't hurt...
Also, it's really no big deal to pay 99 cents for an iPhone app. So why not charge for it?
Even if they don't, I don't think it will hurt indie developers who do charge. Again, 99 cents is not a big deal for most consumers.
It's the developers who insist on charging prices that are too high who have the struggle, but they will with or without advertisers like Disney.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's better than paying for advertising
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's better than paying for advertising
The forced previews are always for movies from the same studio (or siblings of the parent company).
I guarantee you, the studio is not "subsidizing itself with its own ads for itself".
They are forcing the advertisement on you simply because they can.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's better than paying for advertising
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Disney already gives away games as ads
Download and play for free (you have to pay extra to get the good stuff, but it's not necessary to have fun).
Disney is already giving away games/content for the sake of advertising. This is just an evolution of that idea into a new platform.
any people hate Disney, but you gotta admit they know how to get kids/teens go ape-sh#t over their products.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Balances out....
But the value of doing so diminishes when everyone else does the same thing. As the number of "free" games increases, the amount of publicity gained decreases in direct proportion, as you're now fighting to make YOUR free game stand out from the pack and gather eyeballs.
Worse, you may actually have to start paying to advertise the GAME in order to rise above the noise, which kind of defeats the purpose of getting "free" advertising. Especially when you could simply advertise the movie.
Secondarily, the more games released, the higher the odds that most of them are cra..., er... junk. (See most existing movie-spinoff games as proof.) Which again decreases eyeballs and interest as more and more customers are burned.
Speaking of spinoff games, you're also assuming studios are going to be happy to give up that branch of the co-marketing revenue tree. Doubtful.
Most of the "publicity" models work solely because of the novelty aspect, and simply don't scale when everyone else does the same exact thing.
One company putting free samples on my door once a month means that I might actually try the product. A dozen a day means that most of them are going straight into the trash can, and the odds of my remembering any particular one diminish to zero.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Balances out....
Really? You know an awful lot of music is released -- a hell of a lot more than video games. And yet the best music somehow finds a way of standing out from the pack and gathering more listeners.
Why won't the same happen for video games?
Worse, you may actually have to start paying to advertise the GAME in order to rise above the noise, which kind of defeats the purpose of getting "free" advertising. Especially when you could simply advertise the movie.
Again, this assumption does not appear to be based on reality.
Secondarily, the more games released, the higher the odds that most of them are cra..., er... junk. (See most existing movie-spinoff games as proof.) Which again decreases eyeballs and interest as more and more customers are burned.
Good work ignoring the point: which is that for this to work, the games need to be good. If they're junk, it won't work. You're exactly right. But that's a good thing. Why should we encourage junk?
Most of the "publicity" models work solely because of the novelty aspect, and simply don't scale when everyone else does the same exact thing.
Again, awesome job missing the point: that's why it encourages innovation. Because doing the same thing doesn't work. So new entrants do MORE. And that's BETTER FOR THE MARKET.
This really is not that complicated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Innovation
Band A releases a free MP3 as a promotional gimmick to sell their album and/or tickets. Studio B releases a free game as promotion to sell their movie and/or tickets.
Which means that the brilliant "innovation" is what, exactly?
Besides, you just acknowledged my primary point, "doing the same thing doesn't work". As such, none of the models scale. They're just publicity stunts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Innovation
Which means that the brilliant "innovation" is what, exactly?
If it works for them and allows them to make more money and makes their fans happy, then that seems pretty damn innovative to me.
I never realized that we had to pass Michael Long's certification to count for innovation.
Luckily for me, I believe that the market is what determines what is and is not innovative, rather than Michael Long.
Besides, you just acknowledged my primary point, "doing the same thing doesn't work". As such, none of the models scale. They're just publicity stunts.
Hmm. So you've just reduced all of the history of economic growth to publicity stunts? Brilliant.
Don't be so sure that innovation isn't scalable. It's worked for quite some time. I wouldn't bet against it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]