The Gap Between Toys and Games

A game is governed by rules. If you don't play by the rules, you're not really playing.

A toy, on the other hand, has no rules. You make up the rules yourself.

A ball, for instance, is a toy. In general, physical objects are more likely to be toys than games. In fact, a game may not even have a physical component. It may consist entirely of rules. Hide-and-seek, for instance, is a game that can be played anywhere hiding places can be found.

I have the impression that childhood was once much more centered on toys. My own childhood, for instance, was toy-centric. One of my favorite toys was a shovel. With a shovel one could dig ditches, put boards over the ditches, and have "caves." I don't remember playing in these homemade caves- except to prove that one could get from point A to B. The fun was in the making. Legos too, were a toy. They could be combined in countless ways. Again, "play" consisted of the act of building.

The distinction is important in light of the fact that many things that are being sold as toys are actually games. Toys that represent very exact things- action figures belonging to a certain narrow mythology, plastic GI Joe tanks with no other purpose than to serve as weapons of imaginary war, items ostensibly designed to be considered "collectible." The downside of the gamification of the toy industry should be relatively obvious. Toys require- and inspire- the use of imagination; games operate at face value- without any added imagination being necessary. You can play Monopoly as a boardgame- as nothing more than what it is. You don't need to imagine yourself as a real estate tycoon to play the game. You can play a video game without imagining yourself to be part of the world.

Game mentality becomes more prevalent as a person grows older. Rules make for more complicated outcomes, more reliably enjoyable play. Toys can be hard work. One even gets the idea that a child may prefer toy-based play simply because he or she cannot grasp the complexity required for game playing. But which is more fun?

Without a doubt, toy-based play is more enjoyable. Adding a layer of self-identification to a video game makes it far more fun. Subtracting that layer is never preferrable.

Here is my mini-manifesto for toy designers.

Design for generic play. Get away from specific uses. As a child I would rather have had a new Lego set with many versatile blocks than a few narrowly-useful unique ones. A toy plane would have been preferrable to a toy boat. Better yet- a toy float plane. Toys were vehicles of imagined exploration. RC cars always went too fast. Their batteries died too soon. I would have preferred a vehicle that made the house or yard seem big by going slow, not small by going fast. An RC tractor would have been more fun than a high-speed buggy. A toy plane isn't much fun if the only thing it can carry is a pilot. An amphibious cargo plane would be more interesting than a fighter jet. Boys like their toys to have weapons, but a mistake to build an entire toy around a weaponized use. When it comes to play, fighting isn't as important as exploration.

In the grand scheme of playthings, nothing is superior to Legos. I have a problem with how hard it is to get enough pieces to be able to build a satisfying variety of thing. Lego should sell sets that embrace versatility. Narrow, specific designs end up supporting game-like play.

Video games should be the same way. Too much energy is spent designing games with single, specific pathways to success. Exploration, which is based in toy-like play, is woefully overlooked. When I was a kid, the best game you could have given me would have been one in which I had a choice of vehicles to move from point A to B, as well as a variety of obstacles to overcome. The best example of what I mean, unfortunately, is Grand Theft Auto, which is not for kids at all.

The toy industry's profit motive is written all over the place. Game-based play is easier to sell. It's easier to develop product tie-ins around. It's easier to leverage into a line of collectibles. Toy-based play, on the otherhand- Legos, Playmobile, building blocks- can be extremely cost effective by comparison.

So what should be done?

Toy designers, design for versatile exploration. Move toward the generic.

Parents, buy buckets of Legos, not individual sets depicting Star Wars fighters.

Kids, never forget how to engage in toy-based play.

The Next Decade in Advertising

Ideas about the future of advertising don't leap to mind as being particularly compelling reading. Well, okay.

There was a road that I often traveled with my parents when I was a kid. It was a road going west out of Randolph, VT. There was a place in the road where you could make a choice. You could go up over a hill, or around to the side of it. Beyond that choice the road rejoined and went on. What strikes me about that choice was that they were, in a sense, nearly equivalent. Neither was a shortcut. One represented lateral displacement, the other vertical. Often my parents would call for an instant vote. "Over or around." We usually voted to go over.

Since the beginning of modern advertising, messages have been targeted as members of demographic groups. If you wanted to sell luxury cars, you advertised them in the business section of the newspaper. If you wanted to sell diapers, you might put them in women's magazines. If you wanted to sell toys, you marketed them directly to the children that would play with them, hoping that the children would act as an unpaid sales force.

What you didn't do was advertise to too small a niche. You went for the greatest common denominator (GCD). And in the process of advertising to the largest group possible, you actually had a hand in defining that group. Advertising, especially after World War II, when American capitalism entered its strongest chapter, has had a homogenizing effect on how culture sees itself. We're still living with the labels and assumptions that were first developed for that era.

But this is a very different age.

When we were choosing whether to go over or around, we knew that we would end up in the same place either way. We knew it would take about the same amount of time. The only thing different was that particular part of the journey.

Those who use advertising- a group that encompasses the whole gamut of business in our post-industrial society- don't need to care about how they get to their destination. They need only one thing. They need to arrive. They need to convert customers. Whether taking them from the pool of the previously uncommitted, new spenders, or by stealing them from competitors, the path isn't as important as the destination.

And therein lies the problem with old style advertising.

If you don't care how you get there, you'll choose the more direct route. If you were to look at two roads on a map- a 2D flattening- you'd be tempted to believe that the straightest, most-direct seeming route was by far the best. You'd be missing the hill altogether.

Successful advertising has, for a long time, consisted of large campaigns targeted at the GCD of huge numbers of people. The finesse approach, which focuse on smaller cross-sections of a product's target market, often used the same advertising assets. There was an expectation that, to some degree, a product represented those that would buy it. In other words, the brand was mistaken for the product itself. It was even misconstrued as representing the target market itself. Someone could be a "Marlboro man" or part of the "Pepsi generation." Car salesman sold image overhauls in the form of hood ornaments (attached to automobiles). If you participated- as all were required to do to some degree- then you could be identified by the labels on your clothes. One could even use brands to identify oneself.

That's still how most advertising works. Big brands require big piles of money. They not only reach a broad demographic, they actually define it.

But I'm not here to write about going over.

A new form of internet technology opens up a completely new road. And the ramifications of traveling that road stand to have a profound effect on the concept of product-based identity.

Instead of pushing people into categories and hoping that they fit well enough to be durably branded, it is now possible to reach people where they already are. Instead of advertising to million of people an once in hopes of reaching those who actually could be customers (if they could be converted), it is now possible to target, with greater and greater sophistication, smaller and smaller definitions of the buying public. Microniches are now addressible.

But I'm not thinking about targeted marketing. I'm thinking about something a whole step beyond. Let me describe what it would look like.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that you're a 25-year-old male with a new car in your garage and a hungry dog by your side. Let's say you want to watch a program on the History channel. Traditionally, you can expect to see ads for the AARP, term life insurance, and comfortable sedans. But you're not in the market for any of those things, and if the advertisers of those things knew a little more about you, they wouldn't be wasting their money trying to sell them to you. So, in our next-age example, you see ads for pet food, new tires, the most recent FPS. And you're more than happy to give that information about yourself because it means not having to watch ads that hold no interest for you.

Let's take it a step farther. Suppose one of those ads is successful. You decide, based on the ad, and how happy your dog is, to go with a particular brand of dog food. Let's say that you let Purina know that you're now one of their loyal customers.

Purina now has a vested interest in keeping you while other dog food manufacturers have an interest in poaching you. Purina won't try to convince you to switch anymore. Instead, they'll let you know when and where to find their products on sale. They make sure you know about other products your dog might like. They'll change the tone of the conversation and, in so doing, they'll solidify their advantage.

Purina's competitors may be able to identify you as a loyal customer and try to lure you away. But the same system that would allow them to craft a campaign specifically for that purpose would also allow Purina to keep tabs on the competitor's exposure. Both parties would be able to exercise their campaigns with greater efficiency. It would come down to who did a better job. Who offered a better product. Who made the customer feel more appreciated. In essence, customer service- even at the level of initial advertising.

Let's take it another step. Let's say that two competitors are vying for your patronage. One of them, unfortunately, has ads that annoy you. They're whiny, manipulative, and desperate. In fact, every time you see such an ad, it makes you want to punish that product's maker by going to the competition. So, you let that company know. You tell them, "I don't want to see this ad anymore." And they are faced with a choice. They can ignore your request and risk annoying you further, or they can honor it, replace the ad with something else, and improve their standing with you. The better their ads- the more amusing, the more powerful- the more likely you are to watch them.

One more step. Let's say that you're in the market for a new car. So you say so. Upto that point you were being shown a slow steady stream of car ads calculated to get you in the mood to buy something new. But the moment you admit to being in the market, the conversation changes. One company in particular starts putting a series of ads in front of you. You find that you now know about the car's engine and fuel economy. You have a feel for its interior. You've seen it accelerate. You've seen it in the snow. And then, one day- when the advertiser knows you know everything you need to know- they offer you a deal and tell you where to go to take advantage of it. They issue you a personal invitation to do a test drive. And because you have no real need for pickup truck, not once did you see an ad for one.

And I'm not talking about TV advertising- though TV is part of the picture. I'm talking about the ads you see while watching shows online. Sidebar ads on practically any website you might visit. Even the ads you hear while listening to your nextgeneration car radio. I'm talking about the ads you see while reading a ereader version of your favorite magazine. By the way, ereaders need to two pages as soon as possible. One page for the print, one for the ad. If you can do that, and do it soon enough, you can preserve and perfect the existing print advertising paradigm. Otherwise, print advertising dies.

What can you do about it today?

Well, if you an advertiser, stop trying to sell to the idea of the single perfect ad. Don't get stuck taking just one road. Improve your footwork. Stop thinking of yourselves as contractors and start thinking of yourself as partners. As a consumer-marketer-producer feedback loop is developed, expect to be paid on the success of your ideas, not merely for your ability to sell them.

If you're a business owner, expect more specific ideas. Expect sophistocated psychology. Expect to pay more in creativity as part of the tradeoff in getting your message more efficiently to market. Expect to learn things about yourself you neven knew. And be prepared to employ more than one ad agency. Update your approach to image-branding. Alter your expectations of what advertising can accomplish.

If you're a consumer, start volunteering information. If you have an opinion about an ad, let the company know. Use words like "boycott due to annoyance" and "great job!" At the end of the day, the consumer is the one that stands to benefit the most. The more valuable your advertising, the more power you have to support the TV shows you enjoy. Less of your time is wasted in watching ads that don't interest you. More access to news and articles, based on the increased value of the advertising that accompanies it. More power as a consumer.

The choice was whether to go over the hill or around it. The distance was the same. The destination was the same. The difference was how you got there. Do you go uphill- spend the money, build the brand, change the basic fabric of societal identity? Or do you go around?

You go around, because, as it so happens, that's where your customer lives. You don't need to look down from the high vantage anymore. You can go right up to the front door. You might even get invited inside.