Well, crap in a hat. A surprising study has come out this week, featured in Science Codex that claims studies show that minorities are notoriously underrepresented in video games. Holy cow - are you serious?? Are we really going there?
You know what, let me back up here. Yes, I agree; Latinos are not generally well-presented in video games, and there aren't a lot of African American lead characters. However, video games are not reality; they exaggerate stereotypes and play on history, much like films do. Were the Russians bitching when GTA4 came out and the lead character was a Russian gangster? No, because that shit is based on reality, albeit exaggerated for entertainment purposes. There was a big uproar when Res Evil 5 came out because all the zombies were black. First of all, they aren't really zombies - it's a rage virus. Second, the game took place in AFRICA. News flash: lots of people are black in Africa. Let it go! Did Spanish folks complain when Res Evil 4 took place in a Spanish village? No. And no one can bitch about Japanese RPG's because you can't even tell what gender half of those people are, never mind what race. Maybe transgendered individuals will start complaining about that. I mean, that's gotta be malicious, right? Game developers are evil, evil people.
On top of all this noise, the study neglected to mentioned that characters are fully customizable in a myriad of games right now. Mass Effect, Fallout; hell, look @ Miis! So if you're you're white and nerdy, you can be a ripped black guy if your heart so desires.
Here's the reality, folks - the world is (thankfully)full of diversity and different cultures. Each culture shares similarities among its individuals, which creates stereotypes. Game developers merely take some of these generalizations and populate their virtual worlds. They are not being malicious. That's why there are black people in Africa, and why Mario is a chubby Italian.
With regard to lead characters, I personally think it's difficult to discern their race sometimes. Sure, they have American accents, but that's just dubbing. What the hell race is the lead from Gears of War supposed to be? He kind of looks white, but who knows? He's always kind of dirty, and I can't see his hair. Holy crap - is he bald?? That's just cold. And he's insanely huge - is that discriminatory against skinny, small people? As a petite woman, I'm offended.
Look, I know race is still a serious issue, both in America and globally. But let's keep the issue to where it's truly relevant! A video game is not one of those places. Let's all just sit down together and have some fun, huh?
Friday, July 31, 2009
Monday, July 27, 2009
The Reason Why I Can Do Without a Don Draper Action Figure
By: Steven Shapiro, Esq.
As many of you may have seen this past week, Banana Republic has entered into a co-marketing deal with AMC’s Mad Men to promote the latest season of the hit ‘60s era period drama. I admit that I am relatively new to the Mad Men bandwagon, but if you’re looking for a show that teases out the almost other-worldly anachronisms of early ‘60s culture, this is the one.
Beyond a doctor smoking a cigarette in a gynecology ward, the most striking thing about Mad Men is the fashion. Any given issue of GQ will tell you that the American-Style of men’s fashion was buried with Cary Grant. In contrast, Mad Men showcases a throwback to when the American man could dress—pocket squares, tie clips, fedoras and all. Even before I started watching the DVDs, I started intergrating three-piece suits in my everyday business attire. Can we say that Mad Men sparked a resurgence in the well-dressed American? Or perhaps we can say that the show merely (and perfectly) rode an already forming fashion zeitgeist? Either way, Mad Men reminds us that dressing sharply is striking.
What’s also striking is that the producers of this program about a Madison Avenue Ad Agency actually get marketing. Over the past season, we have seen some well-executed product placement endeavors featuring Sterling Cooper account execs sitting across from famous real world prospects like Heineken and Cadillac. But the current promotion running in tandem with Banana Republic further demonstrates that not only can they do marketing, but that they can do it authentically and seamlessly. Could any other retail store connect with the property, fashion and viewers of this show better than Banana Republic? Go to BR’s website to find full-length character profiles paired with Banana merchandise that calls to mind the Mad Men Look.
But… why stop there? The ingredients are already here, why not take the plunge and make this an iconic licensing relationship? As Michael Stone, President/CEO of The Beanstalk Group, is often quoted, licensing is NOT a non-strategic, transactional decoration exercise, but an opportunity to build enduring brand equity through “…match[ing] or extend[ing] the brand to products so authentically that the brand enters consumers’ lives in ways that are unpredictable, but natural.” Look at Trump, Inc.’s relationship with Van Heusen for dress shirts. It took time and energy to build from Donald Trump’s persona to The Apprentice to Macy’s best selling high quality branded line of men’s wear. The title to this article may seem silly, but that is exactly what happens when licensors omit such time and effort from a licensing program— at best, no one cares and, at worst, everyone groans! Don Draper action figures with waist-activated infidelity action? LICENSING FAIL. Toys would not cause the brand to resonate with viewers.
Whether intended or not, this co-marketing promotion has created just such an unpredictable and genuine relationship between Mad Men and Banana Republic in the minds of consumers. So why stop at showcasing vintage suits next to pictures of actors, when you could launch The Sterling Cooper Line from Banana Republic? Mad Men would certainly benefit from the exposure of having an official vintage clothing line and all those men (and girlfriends/significant others/moms shopping for those men), who dig that vintage look, are going to have a direct tether back to the exclusive retail location showcasing the official men’s wear of Mad Men. For what it’s worth, I’d buy Mad Men-inspired attire.
So while I may be shooting my dream of having my own 6” Christina Hendricks plastic idol in the foot, bringing these two brands together was brilliant and they should continue to intertwine them. Besides, Firefly’s Saffron getting the action figure treatment makes a lot more sense than Joan Halloway.
Steven Shapiro is an attorney and Vice-President at Exemplar Law Partners, LLC. He specializes in brand licensing in the comic book and apparel industries.
As many of you may have seen this past week, Banana Republic has entered into a co-marketing deal with AMC’s Mad Men to promote the latest season of the hit ‘60s era period drama. I admit that I am relatively new to the Mad Men bandwagon, but if you’re looking for a show that teases out the almost other-worldly anachronisms of early ‘60s culture, this is the one.
Beyond a doctor smoking a cigarette in a gynecology ward, the most striking thing about Mad Men is the fashion. Any given issue of GQ will tell you that the American-Style of men’s fashion was buried with Cary Grant. In contrast, Mad Men showcases a throwback to when the American man could dress—pocket squares, tie clips, fedoras and all. Even before I started watching the DVDs, I started intergrating three-piece suits in my everyday business attire. Can we say that Mad Men sparked a resurgence in the well-dressed American? Or perhaps we can say that the show merely (and perfectly) rode an already forming fashion zeitgeist? Either way, Mad Men reminds us that dressing sharply is striking.
What’s also striking is that the producers of this program about a Madison Avenue Ad Agency actually get marketing. Over the past season, we have seen some well-executed product placement endeavors featuring Sterling Cooper account execs sitting across from famous real world prospects like Heineken and Cadillac. But the current promotion running in tandem with Banana Republic further demonstrates that not only can they do marketing, but that they can do it authentically and seamlessly. Could any other retail store connect with the property, fashion and viewers of this show better than Banana Republic? Go to BR’s website to find full-length character profiles paired with Banana merchandise that calls to mind the Mad Men Look.
But… why stop there? The ingredients are already here, why not take the plunge and make this an iconic licensing relationship? As Michael Stone, President/CEO of The Beanstalk Group, is often quoted, licensing is NOT a non-strategic, transactional decoration exercise, but an opportunity to build enduring brand equity through “…match[ing] or extend[ing] the brand to products so authentically that the brand enters consumers’ lives in ways that are unpredictable, but natural.” Look at Trump, Inc.’s relationship with Van Heusen for dress shirts. It took time and energy to build from Donald Trump’s persona to The Apprentice to Macy’s best selling high quality branded line of men’s wear. The title to this article may seem silly, but that is exactly what happens when licensors omit such time and effort from a licensing program— at best, no one cares and, at worst, everyone groans! Don Draper action figures with waist-activated infidelity action? LICENSING FAIL. Toys would not cause the brand to resonate with viewers.
Whether intended or not, this co-marketing promotion has created just such an unpredictable and genuine relationship between Mad Men and Banana Republic in the minds of consumers. So why stop at showcasing vintage suits next to pictures of actors, when you could launch The Sterling Cooper Line from Banana Republic? Mad Men would certainly benefit from the exposure of having an official vintage clothing line and all those men (and girlfriends/significant others/moms shopping for those men), who dig that vintage look, are going to have a direct tether back to the exclusive retail location showcasing the official men’s wear of Mad Men. For what it’s worth, I’d buy Mad Men-inspired attire.
So while I may be shooting my dream of having my own 6” Christina Hendricks plastic idol in the foot, bringing these two brands together was brilliant and they should continue to intertwine them. Besides, Firefly’s Saffron getting the action figure treatment makes a lot more sense than Joan Halloway.
Steven Shapiro is an attorney and Vice-President at Exemplar Law Partners, LLC. He specializes in brand licensing in the comic book and apparel industries.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Songs v. Recorded Music, or Artists v. Labels
In my line of work, I do quite a bit of copyright consulting for my customers, many of whom are musicians. My approach to copyright registration is more "teach a man to fish" than "give a man a fish"; as an integral part of their careers, I think artists should be empowered to learn how to register and manage their copyrights. This is especially important if the artist later signs with a label or a publishing company, who may be administering the copyright on the artist's behalf. An artist needs to be able to read royalty statements and understand which copyrights are generating which type of income.
Tied to this, I frequently hit a road block when I talk to musicians about recorded music. Every piece of recorded music actually embodies two separate copyrights - one for the actual "song" and one for the actual "recording" or "master." For example, if you would like to record your own version of a song, you need only license the copyrights associated with the "song" itself, not the recording. However, if you wish to sample a bit of recorded music, you must license both copyrights associated with the "song" and the "master."
Enter the issue of contention between Artists and Labels: when an artist signs a recording agreement, they retain the copyrights to the songs (subject to any publishing agreement they may have signed), but any recordings made of the songs under the label belong to the LABEL. This is an unfortunate industry standard that very few artists have been able to avoid. Case in point: British artist Calvin Harris lashed out on Twitter when YouTube removed a music video of his song that he posted himself. The article cites that the copyrigt claim was most likely put forward by BPI, a representative for the recorded music industry. Recorded music = labels. I can totally understand why Calvin Harris is pissed off, but my assumption here is that he probably doesn't own the rights to the masters; his label does. This disconnect in copyright ownership creates inherent and added friction to the already strained relationships between artists and labels.
So how can we stop this? There needs to be a balance here. If the recording industry wants to keep the standard of owning masters (which I'm sure they do), they should be extending licenses back to artists to promote their recorded own work. Artists extend that right to labels by licensing their name and likeness for labels to use for promotional purposes, so license should be reciprocated. The idea that an artist can't post their own recorded music on a FREE site for their own promotional purposes is simply ludicrous. In this digitally driven world, there needs to be new and reasonable standards for labels. After all, in the words of Calvin Harris, "it's my fucking song you absolute bastards."
Tied to this, I frequently hit a road block when I talk to musicians about recorded music. Every piece of recorded music actually embodies two separate copyrights - one for the actual "song" and one for the actual "recording" or "master." For example, if you would like to record your own version of a song, you need only license the copyrights associated with the "song" itself, not the recording. However, if you wish to sample a bit of recorded music, you must license both copyrights associated with the "song" and the "master."
Enter the issue of contention between Artists and Labels: when an artist signs a recording agreement, they retain the copyrights to the songs (subject to any publishing agreement they may have signed), but any recordings made of the songs under the label belong to the LABEL. This is an unfortunate industry standard that very few artists have been able to avoid. Case in point: British artist Calvin Harris lashed out on Twitter when YouTube removed a music video of his song that he posted himself. The article cites that the copyrigt claim was most likely put forward by BPI, a representative for the recorded music industry. Recorded music = labels. I can totally understand why Calvin Harris is pissed off, but my assumption here is that he probably doesn't own the rights to the masters; his label does. This disconnect in copyright ownership creates inherent and added friction to the already strained relationships between artists and labels.
So how can we stop this? There needs to be a balance here. If the recording industry wants to keep the standard of owning masters (which I'm sure they do), they should be extending licenses back to artists to promote their recorded own work. Artists extend that right to labels by licensing their name and likeness for labels to use for promotional purposes, so license should be reciprocated. The idea that an artist can't post their own recorded music on a FREE site for their own promotional purposes is simply ludicrous. In this digitally driven world, there needs to be new and reasonable standards for labels. After all, in the words of Calvin Harris, "it's my fucking song you absolute bastards."
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Massachusetts Game Developers! Time to Get Some Tax Credits!
Ah yes - could there be a more exciting title to a blog in the whole world? I don't THINK so. But seriously, I have some important news for game developers and game development companies in Massachusetts. There is a bill in the House right now that would extend tax credits to game development companies in the same manner that they are currently offered to motion picture companies that film in Massachusetts. I've provided hyperlinks for both the proposed changes and the current bill, but I'll break it down for all of you that don't like spending the little free time you have reading statutes.
First, a little overview of tax credits. Unlike tax deductions, which reduce the total gross income on which you pay taxes, tax credits actual reduce the amount of taxes themselves. So if you have a $10,000 tax bill and $4,000 in credits, you only pay $6,000. With that in mind, onward we go!
1) Game Development companies would get a 25% tax credit based on the total payroll for production costs in Massachusetts if total production costs (not just payroll) are $50K or more during a given tax year. This doesn't include employees that are paid over $1,000,000.00 (I don't think many folks have to worry about that part!)
2) You get an additional 25% credit for all other production expenses, excluding payroll for production if @ least 50% of the total production costs were incurred in Massachusetts.
3) You apply the credits to your total tax bill, thereby reducing it. If you have credits left over, you have 2 choices: you can ask for them back, and you will be refunded 90% of their value; or you can carry them over for 5 more years.
4) You can also SELL the credits to other people/companies! However, if you acquire a transferred credit, you can't get a refund on it (see 3)), but you can still carry that acquired credit over for up 5 five years. And you need to sell the commissioner if you transfer it.
So that's pretty much it! I'm not a tax attorney, but my understanding of the situation is that the 25% is pulled from the total amount spent. So, if you spend $600,000 total on production, and $100,000 is payroll, you get a tax credit worth 25% of payroll ($25,000) plus 25% on the balance of $500,000 ($125,000). However, I'm still doing some research on this for some of my gaming clients, so I may amend after a further look.
However, I think the important thing is that no matter what the amount, this is directly benefiting your company and the gaming industry at large in Massachusetts. Our state has some of the brightest minds in the industry, and I would strongly encourage you to write to your local congressmen and ask them to lobby in support of the bill. Game development companies bring jobs to the area and keep our brightest minds here in the state of Massachusetts. You guys are some of those minds and we want you to stay! So please consider taking the time to lobby for yourself and others.
First, a little overview of tax credits. Unlike tax deductions, which reduce the total gross income on which you pay taxes, tax credits actual reduce the amount of taxes themselves. So if you have a $10,000 tax bill and $4,000 in credits, you only pay $6,000. With that in mind, onward we go!
1) Game Development companies would get a 25% tax credit based on the total payroll for production costs in Massachusetts if total production costs (not just payroll) are $50K or more during a given tax year. This doesn't include employees that are paid over $1,000,000.00 (I don't think many folks have to worry about that part!)
2) You get an additional 25% credit for all other production expenses, excluding payroll for production if @ least 50% of the total production costs were incurred in Massachusetts.
3) You apply the credits to your total tax bill, thereby reducing it. If you have credits left over, you have 2 choices: you can ask for them back, and you will be refunded 90% of their value; or you can carry them over for 5 more years.
4) You can also SELL the credits to other people/companies! However, if you acquire a transferred credit, you can't get a refund on it (see 3)), but you can still carry that acquired credit over for up 5 five years. And you need to sell the commissioner if you transfer it.
So that's pretty much it! I'm not a tax attorney, but my understanding of the situation is that the 25% is pulled from the total amount spent. So, if you spend $600,000 total on production, and $100,000 is payroll, you get a tax credit worth 25% of payroll ($25,000) plus 25% on the balance of $500,000 ($125,000). However, I'm still doing some research on this for some of my gaming clients, so I may amend after a further look.
However, I think the important thing is that no matter what the amount, this is directly benefiting your company and the gaming industry at large in Massachusetts. Our state has some of the brightest minds in the industry, and I would strongly encourage you to write to your local congressmen and ask them to lobby in support of the bill. Game development companies bring jobs to the area and keep our brightest minds here in the state of Massachusetts. You guys are some of those minds and we want you to stay! So please consider taking the time to lobby for yourself and others.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Rehashing Old IP a Safe Bet in Gaming Industry
As an avid gamer, I'm always excited to get the latest copy of Game Informer in the mail. Even the covers, with their elaborate artwork, impress me. Creating games has become an art form that is to be respected. However, although video games have experienced a surge in the mainstream over the last few years, it is still an inherently risky investment. Game developments costs a crapload of money, and, without the proper marketing and promotion (more cha-ching) the best game in the world can fall through the cracks.
So what's a game development company to do when times are tight? The answer, apparently, lies in sticking to tried and true IP franchises, which decrease the risk of a flop. Hell, even sequels that suck bring in decent bucks; I won't name names... perhaps I should transform to a different topic. Back to my Game Informer covers. This year alone, Assassin's Creed 2, COD: Modern Warefare 2, Bioshock 2 and Uncharted 2 have graced the covers of this publication. Don't get me wrong - I'm not bagging on Game Informer or these franchises. In fact, I think most of these games are kick ass. My point is that I believe that even if they were mediocre titles at best, they may be considered for a sequel right now. IP development is very expensive (believe me, as a lawyer that spends most of her time writing licensing agreements, this stuff can get complicated), and the mainstream public is largely unpredictable when it comes to embracing new franchises. The cost of developing a game with hype and a marketing foundation already in place saves companies a lot of time and money - they've got fans and word of mouth already set from the first (or 4) games, not to mention the support of critics that enjoyed the first (or 4) games.
So am I upset about Bioshock 2 or COD 2? Hell no! But not all franchises are created equal, and I hope the industry continues to back good choices about which IP to fall back on. (cough Too Human cough). And while I'm at it, can we PLEASE stop adapting games for the Wii that are meant to have good graphics just because?? It's time for face facts. Dead Rising:Chop Til You Drop looks like shit.
So what's a game development company to do when times are tight? The answer, apparently, lies in sticking to tried and true IP franchises, which decrease the risk of a flop. Hell, even sequels that suck bring in decent bucks; I won't name names... perhaps I should transform to a different topic. Back to my Game Informer covers. This year alone, Assassin's Creed 2, COD: Modern Warefare 2, Bioshock 2 and Uncharted 2 have graced the covers of this publication. Don't get me wrong - I'm not bagging on Game Informer or these franchises. In fact, I think most of these games are kick ass. My point is that I believe that even if they were mediocre titles at best, they may be considered for a sequel right now. IP development is very expensive (believe me, as a lawyer that spends most of her time writing licensing agreements, this stuff can get complicated), and the mainstream public is largely unpredictable when it comes to embracing new franchises. The cost of developing a game with hype and a marketing foundation already in place saves companies a lot of time and money - they've got fans and word of mouth already set from the first (or 4) games, not to mention the support of critics that enjoyed the first (or 4) games.
So am I upset about Bioshock 2 or COD 2? Hell no! But not all franchises are created equal, and I hope the industry continues to back good choices about which IP to fall back on. (cough Too Human cough). And while I'm at it, can we PLEASE stop adapting games for the Wii that are meant to have good graphics just because?? It's time for face facts. Dead Rising:Chop Til You Drop looks like shit.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Take-Two Delays Bioshock 2: A Good Choice for Transparency
I stumbled on a great article written by IndustryGamers on Gamedaily.com discussing Take-Two's decision to delay the release of Bioshock 2 into 2010. The article cites the sometimes precarious situations this can put development companies in, balancing the needs of their consumers and investors. It's no secret that investors are, at the end of the day, all about their ROI - otherwise, why invest? However, this article artfully points out that, while this delay may initially put investors on edge and delay an ROI, that ROI won't be diminished. In fact, I would argue it could increase, since the reason for the game's delay appears to be the developer's desire (need?) to fine tune every aspect of art and game playing experience. As word of this gets out in the gaming community, it's sure to garner some appreciation. Plus, since the last property (the first Bioshock) was so incredibly well-received by players and critics alike, I don't think investors need be concerned that they may not get their pay off @ the end of the day.
Along the same lines, until recently, game developers faced ridicule from many anxious consumers, who got severely pissed off when games were delayed. However, I think the industry has done a great job of bringing the true reason for delays to light, whether or not they are favorable ones. Here, it appears Take-Two genuinely wants to release an incredible sequel, not only for their loyal fans, but to keep the franchise alive and well (ala Final Fantasy? Who knows how far this could go!). Check off two for Take-Two! (HA!)But in the past, game developers have come out with less favorable truths about delays, including licensing and contract negotiation delays. I sincerely think this is a good move for the gaming industry, and not one we see often in entertainment - transparency with consumers. Obviously there are details these companies can't release, but the fact they release what they cane fosters a sense of community that only the gaming industry has.
Overall, I think it's both a good financial and PR move for Take-Two. I would invite you to read the article and share your comments on it there or your thoughts on my opinion on the matter here. Happy gaming!
Along the same lines, until recently, game developers faced ridicule from many anxious consumers, who got severely pissed off when games were delayed. However, I think the industry has done a great job of bringing the true reason for delays to light, whether or not they are favorable ones. Here, it appears Take-Two genuinely wants to release an incredible sequel, not only for their loyal fans, but to keep the franchise alive and well (ala Final Fantasy? Who knows how far this could go!). Check off two for Take-Two! (HA!)But in the past, game developers have come out with less favorable truths about delays, including licensing and contract negotiation delays. I sincerely think this is a good move for the gaming industry, and not one we see often in entertainment - transparency with consumers. Obviously there are details these companies can't release, but the fact they release what they cane fosters a sense of community that only the gaming industry has.
Overall, I think it's both a good financial and PR move for Take-Two. I would invite you to read the article and share your comments on it there or your thoughts on my opinion on the matter here. Happy gaming!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
