Food for thought: The spy who sold out
Forgiving a pretty face
Facebook to agencies: how will people share your story?
Is “The Pitch” an accurate reflection of our industry?
The word “play” suffers from ambiguity.
When you’re talking about listening to a CD or watching a movie, it’s a passive action. You push the “play” button, step back and the media plays.
But when you’re talking about a game or an instrument, it becomes an active interaction. Instead of simply watching or listening to something play, you engage with it. Instead of observing it play, you play with it.
Far too often, “interactive” media falls into the former category: it’s a banner on a website that launches a video; or a Facebook application that allows you to passively view pre-generated media.
I can’t help but feel that these are standards that have survived the days of print/radio/television because of their familiarity. And they are starting to show their age. Click-through rates have almost halved since 2004. Static banners average around 0.19%, and even the most compelling of animated banners still don’t pull more than .6% click-throughs.
So instead of looking to traditional media as an influence, I think the advertising industry should be looking to more “interactive” media, such as toys or video games, for influence on how to engage the user in “play.”
There are many benefits to allowing users to interact with media, rather than simply observing it.
A good banner can only really be enjoyed once or twice. A good video can be watched a handful of times; maybe each time the viewer will notice something new. But a good toy or game can be enjoyed indefinitely. Games from decades ago still maintain healthy communities, and toys from millennia ago are still being produced and enjoyed all around the world.
People also love to play with other people. While a viewer who has been moved by a static piece of media may share it with their friends, a game user will not only share an interesting game with a friend, they will teach them to play it and continue to play it with them. By creating these branded social experiences, you create branded recognition on a level unattainable through passive media.
Some will argue that many people enjoy passively consuming their media. They’d rather lean back and observe than lean forward and interact. While this is true, a well-designed game or toy can cater to a wide variety of players and even garner attention from people who have no interest in playing the game. You don’t have to be a baseball player or even a fan of baseball to appreciate the brand association in sports facilities such as the Rogers Centre.
We need to continue to look for ways for users to “interact” with our interactive media. While making a game or toy isn’t always the answer, I believe the industry would do well to borrow some influence from a medium that has proven its ability to retain users’ attention over long periods of time.
Plus . . . who doesn’t love a good game?
Mitch Ross
July 23, 2010 @ 3:45 pm
a good read, i think interactive advertising would only work for so long as people tend to avoid banner ads and vids, solely for that reason – they’re ads. Unless its forced upon them id say the majority are hesitant to embrace any kind of product plug. Plus how expensive would it end up making these ad campaigns? We’ve all seen the video game “shoot the kitty and win a milly!” type banners across the web, and i dont think ive ever been enticed to ‘play’ once. Attempting to turn ads into first person shooters and pacman adventures may dilute the ads intended purpose which is to sell. I think, depending on the level of interactiveness, most consumers might just end up enjoying the “gaming” aspect of the ad and not even remember what the product in question is. Also youtube video ads are annoying. Youtube was once a promised recluse from video adverts, and now there is no way to watch my fav vids without enduring 30seconds of an Anime DVD Boxset pitch. But again, good read.
Jesse MacMillan
July 23, 2010 @ 4:37 pm
Great article.
In the last few years I’ve even found myself to be less inclined to view movies or TV shows alone. I always want to share the experience with a friend, allowing for discussion and the making of a memory together.
as for interaction, Youtube has a wide potential for interactive AND passive media. Many people are making ‘choose your own adventure’ type videos where you must make a choice to continue viewing and your choices directly affect the outcome of the video that you are essentially just observing.
fun stuff.
Tweets that mention Are we interacting with our interactive media? « Big Orange Slide -- Topsy.com
July 23, 2010 @ 5:12 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by JacobKarsemeyer, miranda. miranda said: Are we interacting with our interactive media? http://bit.ly/cbAMvt [...]
Ryan Thomas
July 24, 2010 @ 2:19 am
We tell our clients to get brave. There is a larger up front cost in creating toys and additional services, but I think the race to develop iPhone apps and now iPad apps has clients understanding the value in creating real and meaningful experiences worth every penny of that cost.
But push that idea even further, this is not a solely digital phenomenon – how effective is your billboard vs. a ambient street team or a ARG gaming experience.
Our industry has shifted from interruption to engagement in a real and meaningful way. Glad to see Grip is on board with the shift as well.