I stole the title from Beg, Borrow or Steal? What can brands do in virtual worlds? a nice analysis of company's behavior in the virtual worlds. So, let's see what those three approaches are.
Steal
The most recent development in the virtual worlds space from a brand perspective is the concept of these companies creating their own worlds. Doing this means they’re stealing attention (in the form of registered accounts and time) away from other virtual worlds.
I typed thousands of characters about drawbacks of this approach. First of all, it is expensive. Second, it is making another product which then have to be advertised, marketed etc… for itself. First you have to think about your product, then you also have to think about virtual world that is product's advertisement. Then, it is rarely a world, it is usually another application.
But worst of all, it is mostly speaking to the audience that is already yours. E.g. Barbie World is hardly the world that will convince anybody to get a Barbie doll. Girls that come there, already have their Barbies. Point of the on-line application is to make them buy more equipment for their dolls. And to offer them some on-line fun and social network. If that thing there is to be called fun and social network.
Sure, this way has some advantages. System is built with one purpose in mind so it has desired look, feel and performance. And it can be a nice extension of the product, but it is not advertising. Nor it extends over the border of existing customers. It won't reach much further than you already got.
Borrow
Some companies, mainly American, have taken a different approach for the virtual antics [opposite to the open worlds like SL®] and instead have taken their brands into more controlled environments – they’ve borrowed the land and the attention of the members for tactically short bursts of activity.
These worlds, IMHO, are made as playgrounds with advertising in mind. mainly, they are social networks in three dimensions. And they just wait for somebody to come and stick their bloody billboards all over the place.
Will those campaigns work? Unfortunately, they will. Billboards, stupid commercials, rotating signs and other ways of stupid brainwashing work. Otherwise, we wouldn't be forced to look at them every day, in meatspace or in virtual worlds. And we would live in less polluted worlds.
Beg is the approach characterized in the worlds that are general-purpose, made for everyone and not just predefined audience, usually open to the idea of user-generated content. Like Second Life® is.
The communication approach that this instance is one of kindly asking for the attention of residents and appreciating/realising that the main reason for these residents to be in-world is definitely not to look at real world brands.
I cannot agree that presence in the "open" worlds is to be called "begging". Not if one is doing that properly. While brands have to put some effort into getting resident's attention, it is hardly begging. Or, at least, it shouldn't be. 'Cause begging doesn't work.
…a more direct approach meant the brands came down from their real-world pedestals and got their hands dirty with the locals.
And that is a good way to go. There were too many mistakes in the marketing approaches in virtual worlds, hopefully we have learned something from them. One thing that became obvious, is that most of the residents are looking for interactivity. After all, that is the essence of virtual environments (and also the contemporary web). I find it very weird that so few companies are still in "the old ways" and neglect this fact. Not only that "the old ways" are ending up as complete disasters, interactive marketing is easier to be done and much cheaper. Marketing in interactive environment is, by large part, done by targeted audience themselves.
Unlike the TV, radio or print campaign that is done, and paid for, completely by the company, in this scenario residents of virtual worlds will do a part of the job for the company. For free! OK, not for free. They expect value in return. They want to be entertained, or to learn something or to have some other benefit, usually other than money. But they will be a part of the campaign. And if target audience is an active part of the campaign, that is priceless. Should I say that message transmitted that way is way much stronger than the message slapped over the billboard?
So, it is not begging. It is offering the hand for the job to be done together. And offering to share the benefit together. Question is, whether marketing experts believe in what they are offering, whether the product and the campaign are beneficial for the audience. Or the audience is seen as mindless cattle who have to swallow the advertisement and head to the mall to spend more money on something they've just learned they cannot live without?
Leave a Reply