4 ms·
I wouldn't say that Zynga is using virus tactics, I would say that viruses have been using marketing tactics that everyone knows works for short term gain. But
by talmand 14y ago
I wouldn't say that Zynga is using virus tactics, I would say that viruses have been using marketing tactics that everyone knows works for short term gain.
But there's plenty of blame to go around for this stuff being out there. Zynga for doing it, Facebook for allowing it, and the user for not reading about what they're clicking.
- Draiken 14y agoI'd say you can't blame the user for not seeing a hidden checkbox in the corner. Same thing with advertises and their little asterisks in the bottom with unreadable letters. It's just a shame that this is pretty much the only business model that you see today in "social" games. Never understood what is social about sharing a predefined message that you have harvested a crop.
- saraid216 14y ago> Never understood what is social about sharing a predefined message that you have harvested a crop. Nothing. This is a misunderstanding of the history of the term. A "social game" is a game built on top of a social network site (authoritatively defined here: http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/boyd.ellison.html http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/boyd.ellison.html ) that makes actual usage of the SNS mechanisms. Farmville was the genre-definer (social games fitting the definition pre-Zynga were not categorized as such), so it's not surprising that the term is basically bullshit. Wikipedia has an article that differs a bit from my explanation here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_network_game http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_network_game
- ianferrel 14y agoYou can blame the user for not noticing that they're spamming their contacts and deleting the offending app once they notice it.
- talmand 14y agoIn this case I can blame the user if what was described is true. While correct that the checkbox is off to the side, not really hidden, the problem surfaces when they get to the next screen. There they are supposedly offered an explanation of what's going with an option to say no that is all provided by Facebook, not Zynga. If at that point the person quickly clicks yes just because they want to get back to the game then I would say that's their fault. If moving forward required clicking an okay with no other obvious out, then I would agree. But in this case they had two chances; the first with a not-so obvious opt-out while the second had the obvious opt-out.
- mdonahoe 14y agoI agree, but you can blame the users that then click on the spammy posts and install the promoted apps. They are the reason this is an "effective" technique for viral growth.
- robbiemitchell 14y agoI would describe these more specifically as psychological tactics that many exploit, including marketers, advertisers, and product developers. Calling disdainful exploits "marketing tactics" is inaccurate and prevents healthy discussions around acquisition and retention.
- talmand 14y agoI would assume that the people who use them would describe them as "marketing tactics" and not "disdainful exploits". Not that I disagree with you.