Posts filed under ‘measurement’

Australian bank invents iPodinomics

ipodcash.jpg

Paul (MindShare, Bangkok) writes:

The famous Big Mac Index, developed by the Economist Magazine over 20 yrs ago, now has a new challenger in the form of the Ipod. Burgernomics is based on the theory of purchasing-power parity, the notion that a dollar should buy the same amount in all countries.

The people at Commenwealth Securities in Australia believe that their IPod Index is superior to the Big Mac index for a number of reasons. Read more here: The CommSec iPod Index.

Here’s how Asia compares:

CommSec iPod nano index, 2 gigabytes, US dollars, January 2007

Brazil $327.71
India $222.27
Sweden $213.03
Denmark $208.25
Belgium $205.81
France $205.80
Finland $205.80
Ireland $205.79
UK $195.04
Austria $192.86
Netherlands $192.86
Spain $192.86
Italy $192.86
Germany $192.46
China $179.84
Korea $176.17
Switzerland $175.59
NZ $172.53
Australia $172.36
Taiwan $164.88
Singapore $161.25
Mexico $154.46
US $149.00
Japan $147.63
Hong Kong $147.63

Advertisements

February 13, 2007 at 2:34 pm 1 comment

In-game advertising fails to engage

gaze plot of a driving game

Mark (MindShare Shanghai) writes: I saw this story about new research into the  (lack of) effectiveness of in-game advertising and product placement. The key highlights of the story are:

  • The survey was conducted by a UK research agency called Bunnyfoot
  • 120 game players participated in the study, all aged 18 or above.
  • Players were assigned to a particular title spread across 8 sports. Titles included Gran Turismo 3, NBA Live and Project Gotham Racing 3.
  • The results demonstrated a significantly poor level of engagement with consumers and exposed an apparent weakness within games to efficiently capture consumer attention.
  • Highest scores were found with NBA Live and Smackdown Vs Raw; however, recall and recognition figures were surprisingly low; a pattern evident across all titles.
  • PGR3 elicited no consumer engagement at all, resulting in 0% on all scores.

It’s interesting to see what appears to be some properly conducted and robust research into the actual effects on gamers of media placement in the games.   That the engagement levels were very low doesn’t really surprise me.  Consider that for years we have been referring to different media environments as a variation on the themes of lean forward/lean back; expansive/reductive; different enjoyment/interest levels.   

It’s fairly safe to assume that most gamers will be highly involved and ‘lean forward’, but at the same time, they are interacting, which means their brain processing is focusing on how to escape the flesh eating alien that’s chasing them, how to get their virtual Ferrari past the virtual Porsche in front or how to tackle Cristiano Ronaldo as he runs towards their goal.  I doubt there is too much brain time or capacity left to actively notice (let alone engage with) periphery product placement.  I’m sure that simple brand and logo exposure must have some effect – one would imagine especially if it copies a real world situation (eg. Nike perimeter boards at the real Old Trafford and in the virtual game), but this article does suggest that in game exposure may not be quite so lucrative as some people (and vendors) claim it to be. From a planning point of view my advice is to try out the medium if you have the opportunity and believe it is right for your brand, the message and the target audience.  However, do a thorough evaluation beforehand to set benchmarks and push to do some evaluation, so you really understand the value of the contribution afterwards.

January 15, 2007 at 9:20 am 1 comment


the big switch of control – from companies to people

MindShare's unofficial uncorporate Asian blog

asia:media:stuff

How to earn prime-time when you can no longer buy it

Monthly archive