That answer leaves me wanting a little more. I can't get away from the mindset that anti-advergames should discourage someone from buying a product. Bogost told me we shouldn't think in such black-and-white terms, but I disagree. Advertising isn't like politics - another chapter of his book - where you can become a little more liberal or conservative. When it comes to eating at McDonald's or making copies at Kinko's, you either buy the product or you don't. Even if the player doesn't come to that conclusion immediately, we should at least expect a decision somewhere down the line. From the anti-advergames that are out there, I just don't see that happening.
Hope isn't lost for the genre, but there are a few things that must change. First, anti-advergames need clear messages, not ambiguous attacks on the way a company works. This idea comes right from marketers that Binay, the doctoral candidate, interviewed for her thesis. "If you want to change their message, then you can't just sit out there and say, 'No they're wrong,'" one advertiser said. "You've got to give people something else."
Consider, for example, the Neistat brothers' campaign in 2003 against the short life of iPod batteries. In a video posted to ipodsdirtysecret.com, Casey Neistat's customer service call to Apple plays while he cuts a stencil with the words "iPod's unreplaceable battery lasts only 18 months." He then prints the message onto iPod ads all over lower Manhattan. The visitor counter at ipodsdirtysecret.com shows more than 2.2 million hits, and major media outlets flocked to the story.
The video was successful because the message was clear: Potential iPod owners should consider the gadget's short battery life before buying, and those who are already screwed should protest. The next year, several owners actually filed a class-action lawsuit against Apple. The company settled, ran replacement programs and offered $99 replacement batteries and $59 extended warranties. Best of all, the video was a procedural representation of what happened to Neistat and what he and others can do about it. Sounds like videogame fodder to me.
There's another point to glean from that video. The Neistat brothers chose the right battle against a hot product. McDonald's, by contrast, has seen the same arguments dragged out countless times in all media forms and in court. And who really needs a videogame to demonstrate why FedEx Kinko's sucks?
If games can raise issues that are clear, edgy and new, distribution should be easy. Maybe I run in the wrong circles, but I haven't met a single person outside the gaming community who knows what an anti-advergame is or has played any of its kind. The iPod video was so clever it distributed itself virally, but videogames, I think, will have to work a little harder.
Bogost said he's looking at commercial avenues, which I support if he can make it happen, but these games could also learn something from adbusting's confrontational style. People need exposure to anti-advergames without knowing what they're getting and without coming armed with preconceptions.
Molleindustria, for example, could design a web ad that looks like McDonald's sponsored it and get sympathizers to donate the ad space. As I type this, colbertnation.com is linking to Aqua Teen Hunger Force Zombie Ninja Pro-Am, the videogame. Maybe they can make room.
Jared Newman is a freelance contributor to The Escapist. Visit his blog at www.jarednewman.com/blog.
