Relying on POS means the ad campaign has failed, that is meant to remind, not to introduce.
But if they are doing more than just "point of sale", how are they relying just on that?
Again, it's not one or the other. Multiple factors are important in attracting people to a product.
And no, in store advertising isn't just meant to remind. It can also be used as a form of introduction as well. How can it not be if there has been many cases of costumers buying products that they didn't know about before going into the store?
These trends are not set in stone, & they need to adapt to the changing market. Given the numerous attempts to make "CoD" money that failed to reach even a miniscule amount of that market perhaps following the status quo is a bad idea?
What's to say that the games that tried to make "COD money" wouldn't have done even worse if they didn't go in that trend?
Yes games need to adapt but for the past 4-5 years, shooters have remained popular. Things haven't changed in that area.
If the argument is that people won't buy games due to the box art (which it seems it is), then instead of changing the box art(to look similar to most games, both the games that sell & the vast majority that don't), they should concentrate on the more important aspects of the marketing campaign. Also I did provide an alternative to it being an excuse, you didn't
Again, box/packaging art
IS just as important as other aspects of getting the attention of customers.
As I have a soul, no I haven't.
Haha, yeah... taking an advertising class = having no soul.
But I don't care about the box art for this game, I just think the implications of his statement were interesting, & that there are many more important things they could have done to broaden the appeal of the game rather than superficial changes to the box.
There are many other things they could have done to broaden the appeal but outside of box art/advertising, the only other area would have been to change the game up; something that would have been worse than simply changing up the box art in terms of the game that the devs want to create.
Why don't you ask them? However, speaking as someone who doesn't find the game appealing I would much rather the developers had made a game that I did find appealing regardless of whether it was what the devs originally intended to make.
So having devs change what they originally wanted to make (the actual game content) to cater to a wider audience is okay.
Box arts are the real problem in the current industry!
Did you not read past the bolded? I explained why I think they are upset, I fail to see what more I can say on that.
Yes I read the bolded. Again, I don't get it.
It's a box art. It's not like the game isn't being catered to the GAF audience via the changing of in game content. It's (again) only box art.
What does the decades of research say about shelf position versus packaging art, I know retailers are convinced shelf position is far more important (also I know many new products who are trying to break into a existing market deliberately choose unusual colour schemes to stand out from its competitors),I just find it odd for someone to claim there is only one way to sell anything,those people are usually best at selling themselves.
Shelf position is important as well however that in itself can be ruined if the product itself doesn't look good to a consumer.
An item could be dead center but if the item doesn't look good or interesting to potential buyers then that item's shelf position is pretty meaningless.
