Behind the Buzz - digital and interactive advertising and marketing

Complexity in marketing puzzles

by Rachel on August 23rd, 2007

A question that I’ve been asked recently relates to the length of time a puzzle/game campaign for your brand should last. Should it be short and sweet or longer, potentially increasing frequency of exposure to the message. Of course, the answer is ‘it depends’. What are your trying to do? As important, maybe more so, what resources do you have at your disposal.

I’m looking at a proposal that suggests a game lasting 6-7 weeks, with one clue released per week. Some successful games this year have been very different, with timelengths of 2 or so weeks with new clues every day, such as the Search for Bourne. Sarah Jessica Parker’s Covet is very different, 10 weeks with one clue/puzzle a week, with 2 bonus opportunities to win prizes.

In the first type of game you have:

• daily puzzles released at set times
• structured interface, with registered users
• simple clues, everything you need within the interface or clearly signposted
• a structure that can be pretty much set up and left running, with no deviation from story and no (or little) interaction with players.
• little, if any, associated back story

In the second type, with clues released at a lot lower frequency, you can play it with the same model, but you run into the issue of engaging the players between releases. If the puzzles can be solved relatively easily and there is nothing else to talk about, how do you keep the attention and encourage players to spread the story.

SJP Covet has extended the play; there’s a larger puzzle to solve and speculate about, encouraging conversation - they even refer the player to forums to talk about the game. There’s an active puppet master who is monitoring developments amongst the players and reacting to them. The second clue released was regarded as easy and got solved within minutes, prompting in-game commentary. Although considering how hard the first one was for the amateur player, it may not have been a bad thing. Further commentary is beign provided about how far the players are going in discussing the smallest lead in the game content.

The challenge of making something complex enough to hold attention beyond a few minutes means you may alienate many players. Covet has done a good job of ensuring there are prizes for the first to solve the clue as well as a random drawing for every clue; this means you can play along, even using the answers provided in the forums if you just want to enter without stretching your mental muscles. By providing a metapuzzle, it encourages conversation outside of the day the clue is released, keeping interest in the game and the brand higher than if it was just ’solve the one clue’. Information is provided throughout the week, that is in reaction to the players.

But doing this has a cost. In the first model, providing it’s tested well, management can be pretty simple - perhaps just a daily release of new content that can be scheduled in advance. You need tech support, not creative. In the second, you need creative support throughout, with corresponding increase in cost and complexity.

That is often the break point, as there are very few case studies that I’ve found demonstrating the Return on Engagement for these marketing campaigns. the additional cost and effort can make many budget holders baulk - are they getting enough benefit back. You can spend a lot on a game that few people play, whereas you can spend a lot less for a straight sweepstakes that gets the same number of entries.

Share This

Related Stories

Involving the Customer
Tropic Thunder
Search for Bourne Clues
links for 2007-07-31
Chaotic Fiction

POSTED IN: Fun and Games