Adventures in game economics

Designer Ron Gilbert, best known for the Monkey Island series, Maniac Mansion and co-founding Humongous Entertainment (best known for releasing Total Annihilation), has a blog-like website I just discovered, and yesterday he posted an excellent article, The Economics of a 2D Adventure in Today's Market.

After running through a bunch of assumptions and number crunching, he comes up with a figure of $950,000 to develop a 2D adventure game in a 12-month period. He admits to keeping things lean, and this amount would be hard pressed to do the job, IMO. But Ron is obviously far more experienced than I in this genre. Anyway, this is an informative article that I highly recommend.

Quick aside: I remember talking to Ron just prior to the release of Total Annihilation: Kingdoms, telling him I thought the name was a marketing mismatch, because Total Annihilation was already perfectly branded as a futuristic RTS, and sticking "Kingdoms" on the end of it for an unrelated fantasy RTS didn't make a lick of sense, and would muddy the overall brand. He didn't hesitate in agreeing, and said that the name was the work of the publisher's marketing department. Total Annihilation: Kingdoms is a classic line extension mistake, much like Coke C2, which I heard this morning on the news has flopped horribly. I sure hope no one at the Coca Cola Co. was surprised.

Comments

[AdamW]

Yep, Ron's website is excellent, and his archive is well worth a read. I'd like to hear your response to his opinions on games and violence, too, as I think Max Payne and Duke Nukem Forever are fairly good examples of the games Ron would like to see fewer of in the industry :). The Grumpy Gamer flash cartoons are definitely worth watching, too.

[Ron Gilbert]

>>as I think Max Payne and Duke Nukem Forever are fairly good examples of the games Ron would like to see fewer of in the industry

No, I loved the original Duke and enjoy FPS. What I would like to see less of is just pointless violence for shock value or just because it's easy to do. It seems (to me) that a lot of violence in games come from immaturity more then anything else.

I think some (not all) FPS are missing a great opportunity to build something more interesting then a shooting gallery. I am very anxious to play Half-life 2 and see where they took things since the original. They were off to a brilliant start.

I would also like to see more diversity in games, because it helps everyone. But I don't want to see less FPSers.

[Robert Howarth]

Instead of making a $950,000 2D adventure game, how about a 3D extravaganza that might reserrect the dead genre?

[Robert Howarth]

resurrect too...

[Joe McGinn]

Sort of OT, do you think maybe there's a market for adventure on some of the new handhelds? e.f., the Nintendo DS? Teenagers always seemed to love those games (grim Fandango, Monkey Island, etc.). Might even be a way to make them more user friendly through clever use of the touchscreen (e.g., puzzles with more of a tactile feel).

[Talon]

I think the touchscreen for the DS will be both a source of innovation, and of lazy developers. Although a few games (eg: Atlus' operation game, Nintendo's PictoChat) have shown how to properly use the additional screen, far too many DS games over the horizon are just using the second screen for crap. A great example of this would be menues that could be shown on one screen, stats and so forth. There's a great potential for it of course, but so far I dont see many taking advantage of it.

[Jake]

To go further off topic, I wouldn't be surprised (if) once DS flash carts become available, you see a port of ScummVM ( www.scummvm.org ) for the system. Doesn't really mean much for future adventure viability, of course, but I'll like it.

[steve]

"Total Annihilation: Kingdoms is a classic line extension mistake, "

Scott, you often use failures to illustrate your points (like Total Annihilation Kingdoms, which might have also been hurt by the fact it wasn't a particularly good game), but what about the successes?

For example, isn't something like Mario Kart an extension of the Mario brand? Nintendo, in general, seems to have no issues with moving its main franchises and brands to different products, with varying levels of success. What about various Final Fantasy products?

Would a Max Payne or Duke Nukem movie be a line extension mistake, since they're already branded as game characters and are trying to move into another media?

I suspect you'll discuss the differences between characters and brands, but I fail to see how the market distinguishes them, i.e. "Final Fantasy" has just as much meaning and value as "Duke Nukem."

Or to put it another way, would a Grand Theft Auto movie be a mistake? Do you think a GTA FPS or race game would be a failure?

[AdamW]

apologies for misrepresenting you, ron - wasn't trying to cause trouble, it's just an issue I'd like to hear Scott's take on. Having said that, I do remember Duke was one of the games often cited in the "gratuitous violence" complaints back in the mid-90s, along with Doom and Mortal Kombat. (Duke3D got extra points for the strippers and the toilets, but MK edged it out with the whole spinal column thing. Doom came in last.)

talon, I agree completely about the DS - when I read the reports of the first few games in development my response was generally "wow, that's *really* cool", but as more and more games are announced they seem to be doing less and less useful stuff with the touchscreen and the second screen. Like the Mario Kart with a map on the other screen - *why* do you need that? All it shows is a bunch of little dots going around the circuit very close to each other. Pointless. I can't wait to see what the Wario Ware guys do with it, though.

[AdamW]

As for the branding point - well I guess Mario's advantage is that he's been around a long time and has already been made into so many different things, fairly successfully, that to the target market he's not "side-scrolling platform game" but he's more in the category of Mickey Mouse - you could put Mario on *anything* and it'd sell bucketloads to Japanese eight year olds.

As for Final Fantasy, that's a fairly general brand - it's not heavily associated with any particular character, story or even world, and that's how it's been from the beginning. About the only things you can count on from Final Fantasy are moogles and gil...and homicidal black mages. (that one was for the 8-bit theater crowd ;>)

By comparison, Total Annihilation was - as Scott says - in a great position as a brand based on a fantastic futuristic RTS game. That's a very specific identification, and trying to immediately stretch it to a historical / fantasy RTS game with massively-multiplayer ambitions was a mistake. If they'd built five TA games previously and maybe sold a few TA figures and a TA soundtrack CD...then maybe they could've branched out a bit. But there wasn't any groundwork.

[AdamW]

one more post - to Robert Howarth, what do you think Grim Fandango and MI4 were, besides 3D extravaganzas hoping to rekindle the genre? GF was indisputably a fantastic game, and I quite liked MI4. But in commercial terms neither did anything like as well as LucasArts needed them to. I doubt the results would be any different for any further attempt at the same thing...

[Robert Howarth]

>>Robert Howarth, what do you think Grim Fandango and MI4 were, besides 3D extravaganzas hoping to rekindle the genre?

I thought they were good games, I was bummed out when LucasArts gutted its adventure division. I guess once they stopped doing Indiana Jones movies the writing was on the wall (i.e. - focus more on Star Wars related stuff).

I am in no way an expert on adventure games, but personally, I'd like to see more mystery oriented stuff. I doubt we'll be seeing any next-generation 3D engines being used; I bet you could really do some neat stuff with full motion video using today's technology, however. Especially with so many people having DVDs in their computer.

[Alan]

"Instead of making a $950,000 2D adventure game, how about a 3D extravaganza that might reserrect the dead genre?"

I'm not convinced that would actually sell better and I'm definitely not convinced that 3D makes games more fun. Sometimes 2D, or at least psuedo 2D gameplay with a bit 'o 3D, can be really fun! Just look at Paper Mario, Duke Nukem: Manhattan Project or the upcoming Alien Hominid (which looks pretty nifty). Sometimes I wish the game industry would consider other mediums than 3D. I mean, we still watch cartoons on TV...

However, I suppose I'm a bit uninformed on this particular subject, since I don't have the actual market data in front of me. I just wonder if the 3D requirement is a marketing group "value add" requirement, rather than a real requirement in the eyes of players. I guess I could see it both ways. It would be interesting to have some hard data... maybe it's time to do some research. Unless someone has such data. If you do, please share!

[PaG]

About brand extension, the dilution is generally a long-term effect and not a short-term one. Releasing, say, a party game as "Mario Party" boosts its sales because of its link to the popular brand, but it dilutes the whole brand in the long term.

Mario, as a brand, has definitely lost strength lately. Each new Mario game used to be a huge release by Nintendo, but now it's much weaker. Super Mario Sunshine is a good example of this since it sold much less than expected. Mario used to be Nintendo's big brand, but now it's Zelda because they diluted it beyond recognition. I used to know what a "Mario game" was, but today it could be anything and that reduces my interest. That's not to say that Mario, as a brand, is worthless -- but it's certainly not what it used to be.

For that matter, Nintendo is doing the same thing with Zelda by putting Link everywhere (Soul Calibur 2, etc.) -- it's another brand that's going to lost strength. I guess they'll continue this trend by creating a Metroid Party or something...

As for Final Fantasy, they were pretty well focused up until recently. When talking about Final Fantasy you knew it was a specific type of RPG for consoles -- the focus was not on character or universe, but rather on game type. The recent brand extensions caused problem however and will cause more in the future. The Final Fantasy movie was a miserable failure and looking at my friends who are Final Fantasy fans, the mmorpg wasn't well received, nor were the other spin-offs (of course, friends opinions isn't exactly scientific evaluation but that's all I have). Square is doing more spin-offs now with the DVD and the mobile games. We'll have to see where it goes, but I predict the whole Final Fantasy brand to lose much strength over time.

[Scott Miller]

-- "it's just an issue I'd like to hear Scott's take on [the violence in 3DR's games]."

Adam, Duke 3D is pretty darn tame nowadays, wouldn't you agree? And back then, we knew that there'd be an over-the-top reaction that would later prove to be much ado about nothing. The same thing happened when we release Wolf 3D, so we had a handle on how these things pan out.

Also, before Duke 3D came out we met with many magazine editors and made it clear that we were making an adult oriented game, not a game for children. We believed this was an under-exploited market back then, as there weren't many games made then that had an M-rating (and ratings were relatively new back then). Johnny Wilson, then the long-time editor for Computer Gaming World (the leading magazine back then), visited us before Duke's release and agreed with our direction. And after the game's release, he wrote and published several replies to letters defending the game and our choices. In fact, many other magazines came to our defense, too. In a way, we were cutting the way for games like GTA, Max Payne and Manhunt.

In today's industry, adult oriented content is commonplace, just as it is in other forms of entertainment. I think this is as it should be.

BTW, I'm 100% for laws that keep these games out of the hands of kids, and I'm all for ID'ing buyers at stores that sell mature games.

Steve asked:
-- "For example, isn't something like Mario Kart an extension of the Mario brand? "

Well, yes, BUT... Brands that are focused on characters are something of an exception, if handled properly. People will accept the idea that a versatile character like Mario can appear in adventure games, golf games, racing games, etc., without changing the nature of the central character (or characters).

I've written in other forums that character-based properties make for the best transmedia (read: multi-media) brands. Spider-Man and other comic book heroes are a good example, and the model we used back in the early nineties when we researched this area. This is why, like comics, we name our games the name of the lead character -- it allows for the most transmedia flexibility. Plus, psychologically, people are inherently more interesting that places or events.

-- "What about various Final Fantasy products?"

Well, the movie flopped. But sure, it's was a stinker. Otherwise, FF has consistently remained a fantasy RPG brand, AFAIK, so I don't see much line extension here. Although the ridiculously numbered sequels is a laughable mistake.

-- "Would a Max Payne or Duke Nukem movie be a line extension mistake...?"

Again, character-based brands offer more flexibility in this area. A Max Payne RPG or Pinball game, though, would be a mistake. Command & Conquer: Renegade, for example, was a big-time branding boo-boo, and I was on record saying this well before the game came out.

-- "[W]ould a Grand Theft Auto movie be a mistake? Do you think a GTA FPS or race game would be a failure?"

A movie is not-so-bad, because it would stick to the nature of the brand. However, an FPS version of GTA would be a branding blunder, both in terms of mis-positioning of the brand, and being a line extension (line extensions, for those who aren't sure, use the brand's name, but introduce new core values or attributes to the brand, and this dilute the value of the brand by making it less focused...i.e. Pepsi Blue, Coors Edge, Descent--Freespace: The Great War).

BTW, PaG is right, brand dilution via line extension is a long term disadvantage, yet can often work well in the short term, which is why companies continue to use it as a strategy. Coke C2 stated off fast, as people wanted to experience Coke's new offering, but then it quickly died because it's a product without a clear identity. For example, if people want calories, they'll choose regular Coke. If they don't want calories, they'll choose Diet Coke. Why would they ever choose half calories? (BTW, Diet Coke was also a line extension mistake, but this is a much longer mistake to explain.)

[Jake]

>> I doubt we'll be seeing any next-generation 3D engines being used;

>> Instead of making a $950,000 2D adventure game, how about a 3D extravaganza that might reserrect the dead genre?

While "next-generation" and "resurrect the dead genre" might be going a bit far, have you checked out http://www.dreamfall.com ?

[AdamW]

Scott - by today's standards, sure, but standards are always a moving target! From what you're saying I surmise that Forever will be fairly "tame" by today's gaming-violence standards, also?

btw, I don't know if you know it, but Duke3D was rather popular with the teen market - it rather lent itself to people telling their friends things like "it's like Doom, but - get this! - it's got toilets you can blow up!"

What's your take on Ron's view that the market is heavily skewed towards dumb violent games for adult males? Do you agree? What do you think should happen to redress the balance, if so?

A factual note on Final Fantasy for someone who mentioned it - there have been some "extensions" of the brand going back quite a long way in its history. The first few games in the separate SaGa series were unfortunately branded "Final Fantasy Legends" for their release outside of Japan, and there's two turn-based strategy "Final Fantasy" games, Final Fantasy Tactics and Final Fantasy Tactics Advance.

[Scott Miller]

-- "What's your take on Ron's view that the market is heavily skewed toward dumb violent games for adult males? Do you agree? What do you think should happen to redress the balance, if so?"

I probably agree with Ron, but it doesn't bother me as much. I prefer the more innovative & intelligent violent games. I'd put Max Payne in this category, and Half-Life. Medal of Honor and Halo, too. The only thing that will change the "balance" is when gamers slow down on buying the not-so-intelligent shooters. Publishers follow the buck.

[kik]

heh, ain't that the truth. ultimately, the most conservative part of the games industry is the gamers themselves.

business don't become successful by giving people what they don't want.

[Willy M]

Half Life did, and the upcoming sequel will do much to give FPS a 'brain' to go with the 'blood'. Similarly, the persistance of WWII-themed and non-deathmatch (Max Paine 2) FPS demonstrates that there is a push away from the 'childish' roots of Wolf3D and Doom. Even examples such as UT2004 and Halo are attempts to give the genre some class and style departing from the traditional view as 'them thar vio-lunt vid'yuh-games' Then again, you will always have games such as Painkiller and Serious Sam, which are just kinda... there.

[AdamW]

willy m:

"Similarly, the persistance of WWII-themed...FPS demonstrates that there is a push away from the 'childish' roots of Wolf3D..."

erm...:)

[Tadhg]

Alan wrote:

"I just wonder if the 3D requirement is a marketing group "value add" requirement, rather than a real requirement in the eyes of players."

I think it's the competition requirement more than anything else.

One of the things that seems infuriating about the industry, and especially the development industry, is this sense of technology competition. Most developers are in a race constantly to make the absolute best jee-whizz jiggery pokery tech experience that they can manage. More polygons, more textures, more weird shader effects, and so on, and so the cost of developing games drives ever upwards. It's a vicious cycle, and one that I think is responsible more than anything else for the collapse of the development industry as a whole.

Rather than focussing on competition among the best games, studios focus on competition among the most powerful games, and this seems to have had a direct knock-on effect with regard to conservative choices of style and creative direction in the games themselves.

What confuses me is WHY this is the case. I don't think that the games of today are any more entertaining than the games of five years, even though they certainly cost three times as much. I don't think that the games of today sell in vastly more quantities either. The market is growing, but not at the pace at which the development costs have.

Is it the hardware manufacturers?
Is it the media's predilection for doing previews based on demos and hyperbole?
Is it just a general fear that pervades development?

[PaG]

I think it's a matter of marketing. When you're looking for interesting games, you can't know ahead of time which ones are fun and which ones aren't. So you have to choose by some other factor; you get interested in games that stand out from the pack. There's no point in settling for second best, right?

An obvious way for a game to stand out from the other games out there is through technology and graphics. If your game looks better than your competitors then all you have to do is show screenshots to convince player -- that's really easy. Moreover, if your game is almost the same as what came out last year (and with publishers' current fear of risks I can't blame you) then technology is the only differenciation aspect you can leverage.

There is, of course, another way of doing things. Graphics and technology is only one of many possible differenciations. If make your game uniquely compelling then it won't matter if your graphics are sub-par, players will get interested anyway. Case in point, The Sims: mediocre graphics, huge sales.

A nice thing for designers about this second method is that it puts the responsibility squarely in their hands: they have to create a unique and compelling game or it will fail. Of course it has to be compelling in a way that's easy to communicate. It sucks, but if players have to play your game to understand how cool it actually is, then the game will probably fail because players have to be convinced it was worth trying _before_ they try the game and not once they've already tried it. Even demos don't solve this problem: there's a huge amount of demos released and players only have a finite amount of time so they won't try games that don't seem interesting.

[Scott Miller]

Taghg, gamers care about gee-whiz graphics that pimp their latest hardware. And I have no problem with chasing technology and trying to stay on the leading edge. However, I'm equally for gameplay innovation, and using the technology to enhance gameplay. This is why I've said for years I'm more interesting in technical advances in physics than in graphics, because I think physics has more potential to enhance gameplay. I think we'll see the tip of the iceberg with Half-Life 2. (Previous games have used physics primarily for show, rather than gameplay.)

People always point to games like Roller Coaster Tycoon and The Sims as successful games with average graphics. But these games lacked real competition, so they could get away with lower graphics standards. (Positioning rule #1 says: It's better to be first than better.) In competitive categories, graphics becomes an important comparison factor in gamer's buying decisions.

[AdamW]

actually, Rollercoaster Tycoon was in direct competition with a 3D version of Theme Park (which most people don't even remember existed now, as you handily show :>), the previous definitive theme park-simulation-thingy. RCT was a superior game by leaps and bounds, despite not having the gee-whiz graphics, and it won. Textbook case of gameplay beating graphics. Although, actually, RCT's graphics are very good - they're just not polygonal 3D. I've always thought Transport Tycoon and RCT had the nicest isometric graphics I've ever seen.

[Damion Schubert]

(BTW, Diet Coke was also a line extension mistake, but this is a much longer mistake to explain.)
I'm curious why you think that. It's been a long time since I was in college, but it was touted as a success in Advertising school - Coke went from having the #1 product to having both the #1 and the #2 product, and increasing overall market share besides.. A huge part of the success of this was that they were the first diet product which sold itself on taste instead of being low calorie ("Just for the Taste of It"). Not only did it allow Diet Coke to escape the stigma that had haunted Tab and other low-cal soft drink options, but it meant that Diet Coke stayed somewhat true to the central promise of Coke - great taste - and therefore supported rather than diluted the brand.

Miller is the classic example of a line extension weakening the brand. Miller was the number one beer on the market, until Miller Lite came along. This knocked Miller out of first place and gave Budweiser the lead they still enjoy today.

C2 will fail, largely because it commits one of the cardinal sins of soft drink branding: you can't tell what it is at a glance. Pepsi Blue and Mountain Dew: Code Red don't really tell you at a glance that those products are Berry and Cherry-flavored, respectively. If you're going to risk extending your brand name, at least be sure your customers can identify the extension at a glance (Vanilla Coke, Cherry 7-Up).

Lastly, there's a lot to be said towards building your product with an eye towards extension, as Prego did with their spaghetti sauce (and Fanta did with their soft drinks). There was actually an incredibly fascinating article about Mustard, Ketchup and Spaghetti Sauce that talked about this topic published very recently, that I'd recommend to anyone who was interested in product branding.

[kik]

The problem with using the Sims, coster tycoon, tetris, ddr or deer hunter as examples of the want from traditional gamers for gameplay over graphics, is the fact that most of the audience for these games are not traditional gamers. A highly significant portion of players of any of those games very likely have never bought any other game.

Traditional gamers, the current bread and butter of the industry, are terribly conservative. They scoff at original games like the sims. Companies like EA are in the position they are, not because of some evil corporate voodoo, but because they are serving the wants of their customer base incredibly well.

If you're interested in creating new and innovative games, then you have to look outside of the current market, to people who are much more open minded. But obviously, that is a whole hell of a lot harder because instead of simply convincing them to play something new, you have to convince them to play at all.

[AdamW]

damion - one thing I've always found completely weird about diet things claiming they taste great is that it leaves an immediately obvious credibility gap. If Diet Coke has less sugar than regular Coke, and it tastes just as good - as the advertising seems to say - why can you still buy regular Coke? The only logical option is that Coke is lying somewhere; either Diet Coke *doesn't* taste just as good as regular Coke, or it has some other deficiency they're not telling us about. I don't know why this doesn't hurt "diet" brand pushers more, as everyone understands it, most people make the same point when you ask them, and just about everyone will tell you Diet Coke certainly doesn't taste as good as regular Coke. But no-one really seems to mind. I guess it's just that old apathy to clearly false advertising...

[Tadhg]

"Traditional gamers, the current bread and butter of the industry, are terribly conservative."

Hey Kik,

I completely 100% agree. Moreover, it's a big shift since the games industry of 15 years ago, when there was much more of a sense of anything goes. The games industry has run up against the same problem that the comics industry has: It attracts the sorts of fans that fear change and are very loyal to specific brands only.

In a sense, this is good for certain industry segments because it makes the whole business fairly particular. Get a good game, add a recognition factor for the press, get a lot of coverage, and you're pretty well likely to sell a lot.

Ironically, the thing that stands in the way of games becoming a fully mass-market medium is gamers themselves.

[PaG]

"The games industry has run up against the same problem that the comics industry has: It attracts the sorts of fans that fear change and are very loyal to specific brands only."

That's a very good insight, Tadhg. Why do you think this is? Is it because the industry as a whole avoided originality and innovation for too long, so people who were into that went to other media? Is it because we put too much emphasis on sequels? Is it because we suck at marketing new ideas?

[Tadhg]

No, I'm more of the mindset that the industry mostly follows where the money goes, rather than the other way around. There are some exceptions, of course, but in the main it's the customers' preferences which fuel what ultimately succeeds. If they'll buy it, somebody somewhere will make it.

As to the more general question, I'll get very wiggy and say how I think it's more symptomatic of a post-millennial lack-of-meaning culture which produces a natural idyllic version of the past, and that what's going on in games, movies and a variety of other media (and other areas, like politics) in this respect is an attempt to idolise the past to try and put some sort of framework on the present. The games industry may be all up the retro wazoo, but so too are music, film and so on. We, as a culture, are in the business of trying to remake ourselves at the moment, and you can't turn but see some latest attempt to try and recapture the past either in name, tone or flavour.

But ultimately, like all those remakes and rehashes and good deal of rejuvenations of brands, what stands out most from these works is how hollow it all is, how we've become increasingly more obsessed with the image of the past rather than its substance (the difference between old and new Star Wars in a nutshell) and how, ultimately, living in the past produces diminishing returns.

I also think this is more of a male trait than a female trait, in that men seem to have more of a need to make their lives mean something in that symbolic way and tend to reflect that in the sorts of media that they consume. This is why comics and games are especially hard-hit, as they are much more male-dominated than female.

[AdamW]

I think one problem is one Ron Gilbert identified elsewhere; game publishers give up too easily. They try a new idea, and if it's not as successful as the Sims right away, they give up, they don't stick at it.

I also think we may be a little US/Europe-centric, here. I was looking at ign.com's weekly roundup of Japanese game releases earlier, and there's always wacky and innovative stuff in that each week. It just rarely gets released anywhere else...

[kik]

it's hard to say what caused the current situation. there is probably a whole slew of different reasons, all contributing in their own way. but one possible reason that I'd like to point out, and that isn't mentioned all that often when it comes to the games industry, would be that it is a systemic power law problem.

basically, it's a positive feedback loop: first you start with a wide range of diverse games. then as gamers choose from the available games, certain types of games become more popular then the others. as newer gamers come along, they are more likely to pick up the popular games then the other ones. And then, developers and publishers amplify this effect by also choosing to make more of the popular games.

see http://shirky.com/writings/powerlaw_weblog.html for more info.

[Damion Schubert]

damion - one thing I've always found completely weird about diet things claiming they taste great is that it leaves an immediately obvious credibility gap. If Diet Coke has less sugar than regular Coke, and it tastes just as good - as the advertising seems to say - why can you still buy regular Coke?

Cognitively, no one expects Diet Coke to taste great. However, all of the advertising for diet products before that emphasized 'low cal' instead of 'great taste', and when you went and drank a Tab, you found out that low-cal wasn't very good.

When Coke was ready to release Diet Coke, they had to conquer an entire stigma - that diet soda couldn't taste good. Diet Coke had Nutrasweet, which was a damn sight better than what the sodas had before. They had to convince people to try it. So the selling point "Just for the Taste of It" was designed not to differentiate themselves from Coke or Diet Coke, but rather to differentiate themselves from the graveyard of failed diet sodas that had come before them.

[J.]

Coke C2 sucks because while the Atkins and South Beach diets might have made the whole world nuts about "carbs," people aren't -that- dumb.

Know how they reduced the carbs in C2? They reduced the carbonation. It tastes like regular Coke that's been sitting open in the fridge for an hour.

Furthermore, there's absolutely nothing about it that people have ever suggested that they want. If people want Coke, they'll drink Coke. If they want Diet Coke, they'll drink Diet Coke. C2 could only work if there was a substantial middle-ground market of people who hate the taste of Diet Coke but are too hung up on healthy living to drink the "real" stuff.

Trying to make people think about it comes far too close to making them think about why they want to drink syrupy acid water at all.

[steve]

"Know how they reduced the carbs in C2? They reduced the carbonation. It tastes like regular Coke that's been sitting open in the fridge for an hour."

Er, huh? Carbonation has no carbs; it comes from air. Ever have seltzer water? No carbs.

They lowered the carbs in C2 by lowering the amount of sugar. C2 is half sugar, half artificial sweetner.

I'll admit, I drink C2 for exactly the reasons you mentioned: I hate the taste of diet sodas, but would prefer half the calories with basically the same taste. Therefore, C2 actually fills my needs.

[Scott Miller]

Yeah, carbonation (saturated gas within a liquid) has nothing to do with carbohydrates, which are complex sugar molecules.

Tab was actually a stunning success for the Coke Co. prior to the release of Diet Coke, even though it was poorly named and poorly packaged (its pinkish can was clearly not something males wanted to be seen drinking). What does Coke mean nowadays? What flavor is Coke? Is it Cherry, Lemon, Vanilla, Lime -- what's the next fruit on the list for them? Coke used be be just Coke, pure and simple, and that's when the brand was most focused and powerful. All of these bastardizations should have been released as a separate and unique brand, rather than a brand extension. Diet Coke should have had its own unique name, which would have made it even more powerful and appealing in the long run. Instead, the Coke Co. has severely diluted the meaning of the Coke brand, and now it means everything and nothing. But since Coke's competitors all make the same bone-brained blunders, it's a level playing field. The beer market is equally bone-headed. It's fun to watch these fools, but they are not doing themselves any favors.

[AdamW]

Well, I'm not sure it's quite so simple, Scott - after all, it's not like the Coca-Cola Company has some kind of ideological objection to non-Coke soft drink brands; it owns plenty. They must have some rationale for dividing Coke Brands (Coke, Diet Coke, Caffeine-free Diet Coke, Cherry Coke, Vanilla Coke, Diet Coke With Lemon, Diet Caffeine-Free Coke with Cherries, Lemon, Bananas and the Dalai Lama on a Stick) from Non-Coke Brands (Fanta, et al). I think they work on the basis that people tend to mess with Coke - they put it in cocktails, put lemons in it, add vanilla to it - and figure they can make money from pre-packaging it. I know the supermarket I used to work in shifted metric buttloads of diet coke with lemon and vanilla coke.

[Gabby Dizon]

Wow, Al Ries would be really proud of this thread.

Scott, I just wanted to say thanks for sharing all the books you've read - I've explored some of them, and from there got on to read others that have really broadened my perspective, not just on marketing but on many other things. Now that's more valuable than giving us hours of fun on Duke Nukem (though that didn't hurt as well!).

Looks like you've influenced Jamie Fristom too, as he used a nom de guerre on his recently published book, so that people wouldn't wonder what the hell a game developer is doing writing fiction (a line-extension mistake).

Keep blogging!

[Damion Schubert]

The Coca-Cola company does not see its brand as being all about itself- rather, it sees Coke as being a 'Cola' brand. All of the product extensions they've done have been colas, and as such, bring the strength of the Cola brand with it.

This is smart positioning. Prego doesn't sell 'Chunky' spaghetti sauce. They sell spaghetti sauces, and a wide variety of them. America right now is a narrowcast market, and Prego and Coke are playing it correctly.

Compare this to Pepsi, who seems to have no problems slapping the Pepsi logo on any refreshment: Pepsi Blue, Pepsi Crystal. When the new Pepsi Spice was announced this morning, I couldn't help but wonder if they made that mistake again.

For what its worth, I don't think I've bought a pure diet brand product ever in my life (Slim-Fast, Weight Watchers), but I'll readily buy low-cal versions of products I already love. I drink Diet Coke by the gallon. There's something about the fact that its not a pure diet product that makes me feel a lot better about purchasing it.

[Walter]

It's like, you don't have to live in a totally seperate reality to get the benefits of a diet product.

I actually don't think Coke is weakening the strength of their brand all that much, even if the products that try to cash in on it turn out to be 'failures'. What's clear to me is that Coca-Cola is a remarkably stable brand, and *always* strongly associated with its core product, whatever its line extensions. In fact, I think you have to consider that Coca-Cola's line extensions work wonderfully well at keeping the brand in the forefront of the world's consciousness, and may be intentionally used that way. Even if they're 'failures' in the sense that they don't last or create a significant new market, people talk a helluva lot about them. And when it turns out they don't like the new product all that much, it only solidifies their appreciation for the original, further cementing original Coke's status as a Pillar of Society.

Tinkering with the original formula IS a good idea.

[Walter]

Oops, I think I just meant 'Coke' wherever I said 'Coca-Cola'.

To put it another way, though, Coke's line extensions aren't about creating successful line extensions: they're about keeping the Coke brand exciting, relevant, and a part of our shared history.

[AdamW]

@gabby: sorry, but the world of writing is ahead of Scott, here :). Authors have long known the perils of line extension; many writers who are primarily known for writing in one genre will use a different name if they decide to write in another. It keeps their more conservative fans happy.