Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

I Lost the Game so I Don’t Like the Brand

Related Books

Free with a 30 day trial from Scribd

See all
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

I Lost the Game so I Don’t Like the Brand

  1. 1. I Lost the Game so I Don’t Like the BrandDoes the Outcome of the Game Affect the Impact of In-game Advertising? <br />Gunnar Mau*, Günter Silberer#and Janin Gödecke #<br />* <br /> # Georg-August-Universität Göttingen<br />
  2. 2. Computer Games<br /><ul><li>Media fragmentation and declining television advertising efficacy, has engendered interest in developing more effective ways to reach consumers
  3. 3. Growth of importance of computer games
  4. 4. Higher sales have been generated by computer games than by movies in the US
  5. 5. Impressive number of players
  6. 6. Computer games have been discovered for marketing purposes
  7. 7. Steady rise in the number of companies placing their brands, products or advertising messages in computer games -> In-game advertising</li></ul>ICORIA 2009, Klagenfurt<br />
  8. 8. Computer Games as a Communication Tool<br /><ul><li>In recent years several studies have been published on the
  9. 9. acceptance of in-game advertising and
  10. 10. impact on the recollection of brands
  11. 11. Very little is known about the influence of game outcome on the effects of in-game advertising
  12. 12. However, many computer games are based upon the principle of competition – making the outcome of the game a key element in them</li></ul> What are the effects of game outcome on player’s mood, their attitude toward the placed brands as well as the game?<br />ICORIA 2009, Klagenfurt<br />
  13. 13. Effects of Game Outcome:<br />Player’s Mood:<br /><ul><li>If the influence of game outcome on the players is thematized, it is mostly its impact on the players’ mood.
  14. 14. Successful players (winners) of a (non-computer) game experienced more pleasure than those who performed worse (Holbrook et al. 1984)
  15. 15. Players with positive feedback exhibited significantly more positive mood scores than the control subjects, regardless of whether the win was attributed to luck or skill (Hill & Ward1989)
  16. 16. The results were subsequently replicated several times, e.g. for lottery tickets (Ward et al. 1988) or sports sponsoring (Drengner 2008)</li></ul> H1 If players finish a game as a winner (vs. loser), <br /> their mood improves (deteriorates) compared to before the game<br />ICORIA 2009, Klagenfurt<br />
  17. 17. Effects of Game Outcome:Attitude towards the Advertised Brand <br /><ul><li>Results of some studies indicate that brands are perceived more positively through their placement in computer games.
  18. 18. Influence of game outcome on the attitude toward the advertised brand has barely been investigated.
  19. 19. Theoretical Models of Advertising Effects
  20. 20. Mood experienced during the game influences the attitude toward the advertised brand as a peripheral cue (Petty and Cacioppo 1981)
  21. 21. Affective appraisal of the computer game influences the attitude toward the brand advertised (MacKenzie, Lutz, and Belch 1986)</li></ul>H2 If players win the game (vs. lose), their attitude toward the advertised brand improves (deteriorates) compared to before the game.<br />`<br />ICORIA 2009, Klagenfurt<br />
  22. 22. Effects of Game Outcome :Attitude towards the Game <br /><ul><li>Playing a computer game can be regarded as a task, the successful accomplishment of which is associated with positive feelings (cf. H1).
  23. 23. Ward et al. (1988) conclude from this that “winners are likely to feel better than losers, and have a better attitude toward the …the game itself, the odds of winning the game…”</li></ul> H3 If players win a game, they have a better attitude toward the game than players who lose it.<br />ICORIA 2009, Klagenfurt<br />
  24. 24. Design and Procedure<br /><ul><li>Field experiment, test people (N = 63) came from a university campus under the pretense that they people were needed for a special computer game for a national benchmark test on hand-eye coordination
  25. 25. Between subject design with the factor game outcome : winning vs. losing vs. control group
  26. 26. Winner condition: test people were told beforehand that the fastest time in which someone of the same age, educational background and computer game experience had completed the course was 4:55 minutes + positive feedback on their performance were given at two fixed points during the game
  27. 27. Losing condition: the fastest time was given as 1:55 minutes beforehand. There was negative feedback at the same points
  28. 28. Motor racing game “Racing Simulation 2” was chosen for this study
  29. 29. Game setting was varied in such a way as to exclusively place advertising boards for the brands Red Bull and Jägermeister along the course in equal proportions </li></ul>ICORIA 2009, Klagenfurt<br />
  30. 30. Results: Players’ mood<br /><ul><li>Mood of the winners improved after playing the game, whereas the losers felt worse
  31. 31. Results supports H1 (F (2, 42) = 18.03, p < .001, η2 = .462)</li></ul>ICORIA 2009, Klagenfurt<br />
  32. 32. Results: Attitude towards the Advertised Brand <br />Jägermeister<br />Red Bull<br /><ul><li>Positive game outcome: the attitude toward the advertised brand improved whereas players with negative game outcome rated the brand worse afterwards (control group: no change) (Jägermeister F (2, 41) = 7.14, p = .002, η2 = .258; Red Bull F (2, 41) = 7.48, p = .002, η2 = .267)
  33. 33. Results supports H2</li></ul>ICORIA 2009, Klagenfurt<br />
  34. 34. Results: Attitude towards the Advertised Brand <br />Volvic<br /><ul><li>The attitude toward the brand not advertised, Volvic, did not change significantly subject to the outcome of the game (F (2, 41) < 1, p = .431). </li></ul>ICORIA 2009, Klagenfurt<br />
  35. 35. Results: Attitude towards the Game <br /><ul><li>Winners rated the game as better than the losers and the control group (F (2, 41) = 3.91, p = .028, η2 = .160)
  36. 36. Results supports H3</li></ul>ICORIA 2009, Klagenfurt<br />
  37. 37. Conclusion<br /><ul><li>The outcome of the game can have a significant impact on the players’ mood, and their attitude toward the advertised brand and the game itself
  38. 38. Players with a negative game outcome are not only in a worse mood afterwards and rate the game as worse; they also rate the advertised brand more negatively than before the game. The winners display the opposite effects
  39. 39. The fact that the effect of the game outcome on the appreciation of the brands is not merely an unspecific influence of the more negative mood on brand appreciation is clear from the result that only the advertised brands are actually rated as worse but not a brand that is not advertised
  40. 40. It would be too easy to conclude from this that it is only worth advertising in games that are so easy that every player can win them.
  41. 41. The results of the flow theory, according to which the enjoyment of the game is greatest when the demands of the game and the players’ ability are equal (Csikszentmihalyi and Rathunde 1993), suggest rather that games that adjust their playing ability to suit the ability of the players are more interesting for brand advertising (Zentes and Schramm-Klein 2004). </li></ul>ICORIA 2009, Klagenfurt<br />
  42. 42. Thank you!<br />

    Be the first to comment

    Login to see the comments


Total views


On Slideshare


From embeds


Number of embeds