More Game Developers Realizing 'Piracy' Isn't Necessarily A Bad Thing

from the depends-on-what-you-do-about-it dept

We've written in the past about Minecraft's developer, Notch (Markus Persson), and how he's been quite vocal in arguing that game developers are making a huge mistake in worrying about "piracy" and he's still making bucketloads of money by treating his fans right and giving them reasons to buy. It appears that some other video game developers are recognizing the same basic truth. HothMonster was the first of a few of you to send in the story of "Team Meat," developers of Super Meat Boy and The Binding of Isaac. It appears that the two guys behind Team Meat are pretty clear that they're happy when their games get pirated. In fact, they hope they get "pirated" more, because, in the end, it seems to lead to them getting more money. As one of the guys, Edmund McMillen notes:

"If the game gets pirated heavily, if it's a good game that people really like, they're going to either buy it eventually or they're going to tell other people about it. Either way it's just going to come back to a sale."

He later noted his disappointment in it not being seen higher on the charts on The Pirate Bay:

"When Meat Boy came out on PC and torrents started going up on Pirate Bay, I would check, I had a friend of mine who said, 'congratulations, I just saw your game in the top 50 on Pirate Bay for games,' and I checked and we were 30th and I was depressed because it wasn't higher, because that's a measure of success."

There's also a fun rant in there about the "old way" of thinking:

"The dinosaurs of marketing are really upset by piracy. They think it's literally stealing... They're old. That's really the reason. They're old and their ideas are old. They don't understand where we are now. They don't understand the mentality of people who are pirating things. They see them as thieves, the same people who go and shoplift. I don't f*@#ing shoplift but I have pirated sh@%-loads of stuff. Like it's just not the same, it's not the same thing at all."

There are more quotes along those lines. While I like the attitude, they do still seem to take something of a "give it away and pray" attitude. I would think that there could be more effective ways to monetize what they've done beyond that, but I'm sure their general attitude wins fans... and at least makes lots of folks willing to test out their games to see what they're like.

Filed Under: copyright, developers, games, infringement, marketing, piracy

According To Pfizer, A Clinical Trial Is A 'Marketing Strategy'

from the our-regional-sales-rep-will-help-you-gather-your-data dept

It seems like only yesterday (but it wasn't -- it was actually June 28th) that we were discussing the pharmaceutical industry and its general abuse of numbers to keep itself afloat. (In a pool full of money.)

Some more drug company ugliness has surfaced in a report published in the Archives of Internal Medicine. Examining documents uncovered during the Franklin v. Pfizer case, researchers came across details of a marketing ploy disguised as a Phase IV trial of gabapentin, a drug used for treatment of seizures and neurological pain:

"The Study of Neurontin: Titrate to Effect, Profile of Safety (STEPS)" study was a so-called seeding trial, in which the stated objective was to assess the safety and efficacy of gabapentin, but the actual aim was to increase prescribing of the drug by duping the very physicians recruited to conduct the "trial," according to three medicolegal consultants involved in litigation against the drug's manufacturer.

In the STEPS trial, Parke-Davis recruited 772 physicians to prescribe Neurontin (gabapentin) and titrate the dose upward in patients whose partial seizures were not completely controlled by other drugs. The drug company purposefully recruited "site investigators with little or no clinical trial experience [and] provided insufficient training," and limited enrollment to about four patients per investigator.

The study design was uncontrolled and unblinded, and its rigid titration protocol led to the exclusion of 87% of the study subjects. One institutional review board that twice rejected the STEPS application to be conducted at their medical center stated that "the entry criteria and outcome measures are too vague to allow any scientific conclusions to be reach[ed]." Parke-Davis sales representatives collected and recorded individual subject data. In a clear example of data tampering, they not only attended epilepsy patients' office visits (under the guise of "shadowing" the clinician), but also actively promoted the use of Neurontin and blocked the use of competing medications, particularly lamotrigine (Lamictal), at those visits. They also rewarded participating investigators with free lunches and dinners.

In addition(!) to the data tampering, exclusionary tactics, unethical recruitment practices and low-level bribery, the researchers also found that Parke-Davis' (a subsidiary of Pfizer) own internal documents referred to STEPS as "a marketing strategy" and that the trial's findings were secondary to "increasing market share in new prescriptions":

"Mr. Krumholz and his coauthors clearly demonstrate that the true intent of seeding trials is to introduce a new product and induce clinicians to use it," according to Dr. G. Caleb Alexander. As others have noted, "Deception is not just an incidental part of a seeding trial, but rather the very success of the trial depends on such deception, since few institutional review boards, investigators, clinicians, or patients would willfully participate in a study with marketing objectives and little or no scientific value," Dr. Alexander wrote in commentary accompanying the report.

When contacted about its ethics breach (an understatement along the lines of the "Titanic's hull breach"), Pfizer spokesman Christopher Loder responded with a canned response that he quite possibly copied right off Neurontin's (gabapentin) promotional pamphlet:

"Neurontin is an important FDA-approved medicine that physicians have prescribed to treat millions of patients safely and effectively. Neurontin has been widely studied for more than 2 decades and there is an extensive body of publicly available literature on its safety and its use."

True that, I suppose. But at this point you can add "as well as a growing body of publicly available literature on its unethical testing procedures and another in a long series of black eyes for the pharmaceutical industry" to the end of that little blurb any time you want, Chris. "Now" would be good.

Filed Under: clinical trial, marketing, pharmaceuticals
Companies: pfizer

Priced Out Of Your Medication? Must Be All That 'Expensive' Big Pharma R&D

from the actually,-it's-the-bullshit-that-costs-so-damn-much dept

A few months ago, the pharmaceutical industry was throwing around careless numbers to justify the exorbitant price of its products. The "industry standard" of $800 million to develop a new drug had inflated to $1.3 billion (presumably thanks to non-existent inflation), but some digging around in the very same dataset produced a completely different number: $35 million. Sure, that's not exactly "walking around" money, but it's a lot easier to recoup your investment if you don't overstate it by $1.26 billion.

Some more damning numbers have emerged in a post at Rational Arguments, showing that even the drug companies' inflated R&D costs pale in comparison to what they really spend their money on. The first post pulls numbers from the Fortune 500 listing of top 10 pharmaceutical companies (by sales) and finds some (sadly) unsurprising results:

Those companies spent a whopping $41 billion on research and development. That's a lot of money. But it's significantly less than the $49 billion (18%) in profit they made. Just so you know, the average Fortune 500 company in 2008 made 0.9% of sales in profits. So in a recession, pharma did very, very well. [The] pharmaceutical companies spent $83 billion on marketing and administration. That's more than twice as much as they spent on research and development. That's an insane amount.

So it's a little disingenuous to claim that Americans must continue to spend so much to fund R&D when you could make cuts to either profits (which are big) or to marketing and administration (which is gargantuan). R&D just isn't that big a piece of the pie. There's plenty of fat to trim in there before research and development.

And why do pharmaceutical companies spend so much on marketing? It's simple, really. They're not creating new drugs. (Yes. That seems like a really moronic explanation, but read on...)

From 2000-2007, 667 new drugs were approved by the FDA. Of those, only 75 (11%) were new molecules that were much better than what we already had. In fact, over 80% of all drugs approved were no better than what we already had. Those are "me-too" drugs. Why do the pharmaceutical companies spend so much on marketing? Because you have to really promote drugs that really have no benefit over others that already exist. You have to convince people to buy those.

You know what needs no promotion? Awesome new drugs that save lives. When was the last time you saw a commercial for chemotherapy? For epinephrine? For steroids? Those drugs need no promotion - doctors just know to use them. But I bet all of you know about Nexium. Or Cialis.

Add to that the fact that drug companies are now helping themselves to medical records to help "guide" doctors' decisions and you've got a cyclical nightmare that increases costs while doing next to nothing for the health and well-being of their customers.

If you've managed to keep your incredulous rage (and whatever meal you last digested) suppressed, here's some more evidence dismissing pharma's everlasting claim to what's left in your wallet.

The Incidental Economist has a followup post by Aaron Carroll (who wrote the previous post at Rational Arguments), detailing even more evidence that the drug industry is blatantly lying when it claims its high prices are justified by its R&D investments. The twist here is that these companies, for the most part, aren't even doing their own R&D. (Click through for an informative and highly irritating graph. The colors are nice, though...)

The majority of research cited in patent applications was done in academic centers. Some more was done in other non-profit or government research centers. Only 15% of the research was done by industry. That's not a very compelling argument for the indispensable contribution of industry to research.

Carroll quotes another study, this one performed by Public Citizen in 2001, which showed that "U.S. taxpayer-funded researchers conducted 55 percent of the published research projects leading to the discovery and development of these drugs (and foreign academic institutions 30 percent)." In fact, drilling down even further into the data reveals that only one in seventeen papers come from the industry itself.

What we've got is an industry that uses the research (and money) of others to keep its profit margins right where it wants its. Even worse, it keeps going back to the government, fur-lined pimp hat in hand, looking for more funding, more patents, more patent extensions and more control over the medical community. Anyone looking to the pharmaceutical "community" for an answer to their health problems is in for a world of very literal hurt. The industry doesn't seem to mind if you're chronically ill. It just hates losing paying customers. To, like, death and stuff. And so it lowers its costs and raises its prices, trying to find the perfect balance between lifelong medical care and the local morgue.

Filed Under: marketing, pharma, r&d, research

Dell Employees Arrested Over Incredibly Stupid Marketing Stunt

from the faux-hostage-taking-is-not-a-good-idea dept

In the long list of really bad marketing ideas, I'd have to say that "pretending to take an entire office hostage to celebrate the release of a new product" may be somewhere near the top. However, that's what two Dell marketing employees thought to do -- and since they were the only two who knew about the plan (which involved one of them dressed up as a "biker with a black mask" carrying "mysterious metal objects" and then ordering the entire office to "go to the lobby"), employees, naturally, got upset. Some called the police, who responded to what certainly could appear to be a hostage situation. Thankfully, no one got hurt, but the two guys were arrested, and now face misdemeanor charges. I'm reminded of the story a few years ago in Boston where glowing signs of Adult Swim characters were misinterpreted as bombs, shutting down much of the city of Boston. In that case, however, there was a massive overreaction, where the mayor wanted to ban all "guerrilla marketing." Of course, there was a pretty big difference in that situation: the marketers in that case didn't think they were placing something that looked like "bombs." They were just placing funky LED signs.

Filed Under: marketing, stunts
Companies: dell

FTC Cracks Down On Marketing Firm That Put Up Fake Reviews In iPhone App Store

from the review-turfing dept

While lots of us were quite concerned about how the FTC might enforce its seemingly arbitrary new disclosure guidelines, so far, it should be admitted, that the FTC has enforced these new rules carefully. It did, for example, warn clothing retailer Ann Taylor for giving gift cards to bloggers who covered their new line of clothes. That was interesting in that it targeted the retailer, rather than the bloggers themselves -- but was potentially problematic in that blaming a retailer for potential actions of bloggers doesn't seem like correct application of liability. Still, in that case, the FTC only issued a warning.

Now the FTC has announced a settlement with marketing firm Reverb Communications, who was accused of writing fake reviews of apps in the iPhone app store. This FTC action makes sense, as it's clearly a case of someone passing off a review as legit, when it was part of a marketing campaign: That said, you could argue, at this point, that most people recognize that some percentage of online reviews come from insiders or friends anyway. And, considering that the FTC's explanation for why such rules did not apply to celebrities was that most people understand that celebrities get free stuff all the time, this all seems like something of an arbitrary standard. I don't have a problem with the FTC cracking down on these fake reviews, but it's still not clear that the FTC has an objective standard here, rather than an arbitrary one.

Filed Under: deception, ftc, marketing, reviews
Companies: ftc, reverb communications

Old Spice Man Gets Backed Up With A Few Numbers, Sales Up 107 Percent

from the silver-fish-catch dept

With all of the buzz lately around the fantastically successful Old Spice campaign, some numbers are finally starting to trickle in about whether or not the campaign actually translated into more sales of the body wash. Although initial reports suggested that the ads did little to boost sales, according to Nielsen, sales of the body wash rose 107 percent in the past month. That said, the increase cannot be necessarily attributed entirely to the social media campaign, since a coupon campaign for the body wash was also running at the same time. In an age, driven largely in part by the supposed traceability of online advertising, where there has been a large push to track ad spends all the way down to individual purchases, this ad campaign reiterates the adage attributed to John Wanamaker: "Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted; the trouble is I don't know which half." Since this campaign was very much a branding campaign, just because it happens online does not necessarily make it more traceable, so it's difficult to say what percentage of the increase can be attributed to the campaign. That said, at least for me, I know I considered buying some Old Spice body wash when I was at Walgreens last week, and apparently I was not alone.

Filed Under: marketing, old spice, sales

Dear Warner Bros., It's Not 'Word Of Mouth' If You Have To Pay People To Promote Your Movies

from the you're-doing-it-wrong dept

There was an amusing post this week at TheWrap.com discussing how the various Hollywood movie studios are confused about the basics of social media and Twitter. You may remember (or, maybe not), back in 2003, when Hollywood suddenly started blaming text messaging for certain movies failing, because some kids would go to a movie, realize it sucks, and quickly warn their friends to stay away. Of course, Hollywood blamed text messaging, instead of the fact that they made a crappy movie, and couldn't rely on their old methods of squeezing a ton of money out of people before word got around. In the age of Twitter, of course, this has only increased, so the studios started blaming Twitter, calling it "the Twitter Effect" and proceeding to freak out about it.

This new article points out that "The Twitter Effect" doesn't really appear to have any impact at all, but does mention that studios are trying to jump on this "Twitter" bandwagon by "buying trending terms" on the site. But watching the movie studios try to figure out this whole social media landscape can be pretty funny. Adam Singer sent over an email he just received from Warner Bros. asking him to join its "word of mouth marketing team" in which the studio would pay him to say nice things about Warner Bros. films:

Hello,

I am a part of the Warner Brothers word of mouth marketing team and recently came across your blog! Your blog uniquely stood out as dynamic, informative and highly creative. We are seeking bloggers that are passionate about entertainment to help us engage your readers with content that would be interesting to them.

We would like to have you join our WB Word marketing team to let fans know about our latest releases and relevant content/products. As a member of the team, you will be asked to display photos, clips, and stories on your Blog, Facebook and Twitter accounts. The best part is you will get paid! Additionally, we may even debut event previews and new content so that fans like you get to enjoy it first.

Here's a tip for Warner Bros.' "word of mouth marketing team." If it's really "word of mouth marketing," it probably doesn't require you to pay people to talk about your bad movies. And, of course, depending on how the various bloggers on the "team" indicate their relationship with WB, the studio may be opening itself up to FTC problems.

Filed Under: bloggers, marketing, shilling, word of mouth
Companies: warner bros.

Reviewer Caught Posting Marketing Material As A Review... Uses DMCA To Takedown Site Of Guy Who Exposed Him

from the this-is-going-to-backfire-badly dept

Duncan writes in to alert us to what must be the mother of all stories of a guy caught doing something questionable online, who then goes to amazingly great lengths -- including publishing private info, blocking users, changing content surreptitiously and (finally) using a bogus DMCA takedown to take down the entire site of the guy who caught him. It's quite a story, so let's start from the beginning.

There's some site called BenchmarkReviews. I'd never heard of it, but apparently it recently published a review of a Herman Miller chair supposedly written by one Olin Coles, who appears to own the site. Fair enough. However, some folks noticed some... well... oddities about the review, and started discussing them in the "World of Stuart" forums, leading journalist Stuart Campbell (of World of Stuart fame) to investigate. In looking through the details, it quickly became clear that the "review" text appeared to have copied potentially large segments from either marketing material or a press release. Some of the sources of the material were found out -- including a Herman Miller product brochure (pdf) and a furniture store company's product description. As people commented on the BenchmarkReviews website pointing this out, those comments were swiftly deleted, and the users' IP addresses were banned.

Campbell then sent Coles an email, identifying himself and asking a series of questions about the "review." Instead of replying, Campbell discovered that Coles posted a note to BenchmarkReview's forums, publicly naming Campbell, claiming that Campbell was banned from the site for making "anonymous... threats." Campbell says that the forum post displayed his name, email address and phone number, though it appears to only currently show his name and IP address.

Next up, a reader of Campbell's site contacted the furniture store in question, Smart Furniture, who claimed that they had written their own product description, suggesting that Benchmark Review may have copied it from Smart Furniture (or that Smart Furniture was lying).

Next up? Well, suddenly the text of the original review at Benchmark Review started gradually morphing, with no notice of the changes. Of course, Campbell had the originals and highlighted the ongoing changes. Oddly, the newly changed review included a whole bunch of ads pointing to Smart Furniture, the company who claimed to have created some of the text that showed up (uncredited) in the review.

That's when things got nasty. Apparently Coles sent a DMCA takedown to Campbell's hosting provider a company called JustHost. JustHost then totally overreacted, pulled down the entire site and seemed utterly clueless about how to properly handle a DMCA takedown notice and counternotice. In the end, JustHost would only allow Campbell's site to go back online if he removed the "offending" material. It has been removed, but the original blog post has been reposted elsewhere, so you can compare it to what's left.

The DMCA claim is clearly bogus -- and if Campbell decides to pursue it, the DMCA does allow for sanctions against those who knowingly file false DMCA claims. Cambell's post was clearly providing commentary on the review, and highlighting problems with it. The material was quoted in the context of highlighting the problems with the text, and certainly was not used in a manner that infringes. It's difficult to see how much deeper a hole Coles wants to dig himself here. His activities have only served to call that much more attention to the problems of the original "review" (if you can call it that), and filing a bogus DMCA notice to take down the website of the guy who called him on his activities seems only likely to make matters even worse for himself.

Filed Under: dmca, exposed, marketing, olin coles, reviews, stuart campbell, takedowns
Companies: benchmarkreviews, herman miller, smart furniture

T-Mobile Claiming '4G Speeds' To Pretend It's Offering 4G

from the nice-try dept

There's just something about mobile operators that they love to make claims that are just sorta kinda true, while not really being true in spirit. This is the industry, of course, that has perfected "up to" marketing. As in "you should get speeds 'up to' xMbps" which, is technically true since any speed below that is covered, even if you'll never get a speed anywhere near the defined "x."

The other popular tactic is to lie about what kind of wireless network you're actually offering. There were the claims that any wireless broadband solution was "WiMAX" back before the WiMAX standard was even set. So you started to get companies calling their solution "WiMAX" and then including all sorts of fine print about how it was "pre-WiMAX" and would certainly be upgraded to WiMAX once WiMAX actually existed.

Similarly, nearly a decade ago, when all the talk was about the upcoming "3G" networks, the mobile carriers all started pushing claims that they were offering "3G" when they absolutely were not. There were some interim "2.5G" steps, and some aggressive marketers just decided to round up. And, it looks like they're doing that again. T-Mobile is going around claiming its HSPA+ network offers "4G speeds," which, of course, is not to be confused with actual 4G. And, of course, this is an "up to" situation, where the network could, theoretically, sorta, kinda touch on "4G speeds," but probably won't for most people.

Filed Under: 3g, 4g, hspa+, marketing, mobile operators
Companies: t-mobile