Effective Marketing, SquareSoft-Style: Infect the Fans

by Bill Johnson

While I don't always agree with Matt Blackie's opinions, I've always found his theories on Square's policies intriguing. For the uninitiated, Mr. Blackie claims that Square, Ltd. is first and foremost a company, whose sole purpose is to generate profit. Everything they do, therefore, is planned to achieve those ends; that is, Square makes high-quality video games simply because it's a direct route to fiscal success. Sounds obvious, huh? Well, if one accepts this argument, it spawns all sorts of interesting corollaries. A short logic leap reveals that we, the role-playing public, are then simply a gear in Square's machine, and an extremely troublesome gear at that. In order to convince us to keep sending them our money, they have to sink vast sums of their own capital into first creating quality merchandise, then spend even more of their own money telling us about it so we can buy it. While we consumers are obviously a vital part of the production cycle, it's simply good economic sense to try and reduce the overhead we require in one or both of those areas. The solution? Well, we lay people obviously aren't qualified to help develop Square's products. This leaves us with marketing/advertising--the problem of spreading word of a product to as many buyers as possible, while spending as little money as possible.

What was your reaction when you finished FF7? Its plot is richly convoluted, twisting back on itself more often than a successful attempt at untying The Human Knot. One could devote years to unraveling its twists and turns. What about the ending scene? Do you think humanity perished? None of us knows for sure, but we have certainly spent a lot of time and energy debating the issue.

Final Fantasy Tactics--a completely different game than FF7. It has a different cast, a completely unrelated plot, and a game engine which itself is a significant departure from all previous Final Fantasies. Have you ever discussed with your friends whether you think the game deserved the title "Final Fantasy"? Maybe you told some classmates or colleagues about the game and what you thought. Did you become become engrossed with the story and the characters playing it out? How did you react to your character(s)' deaths (if they were among the ranks of the fallen)? Did you fully understand the plot your first time through? No, of course not. Most players probably still don't fully follow the sequence of events comprising the Lion War. Also, like FF7, what about the ending? Did Ramza and Alma survive the disaster at the Graveyard of Airships? Did Ovelia indeed attempt to kill Delita? What does Delita mean with his final words "...What did you get, Ramza?" What do you think?

Despite their seeming disparity, these two games are beautiful examples of what seems to be a whole new marketing tack at Square: they're inciting controversy among their faithful, and it's working beautifully. It's a well-documented fact that people love controversy; what better way for Square to help reduce costs than to use its peskiest capital asset, us players, for cheap advertising? Square launched an expensive ad campaign for FF7, but that's it. Since establishing themselves in the mainstream with its groundbreaking success, they've been able to rely on their fans to spread the Gospel.

Has Square really resorted to using us loyal fans as cheap marketing? It's a thought-provoking question, and there certainly seems to be a lot of evidence pointing that direction. If you decide that seems to be the case, several other issues arise to be dealt with: how do we feel about being "used" like that? Is it enough for our satisfaction to be simply a by-product of Square's money-mongering corporate climb? Think about it. There has been a disturbingly large number of inflammatory editorials lately, written not to sway readers' opinions, but instead to impose upon them the author's. In defiance of the style du jour, I offered this editorial as an attempt to reintroduce thought into what has become an decreasingly intellectual and increasingly emotional feature.

For those who haven't caught on yet, the point of this editorial isn't whether Square has taken advantage of people's thirst for debate; it's an attempt to re-light a much larger fire, one of intelligent debate and compromise instead of thoughtless flamboyance and bombast. When people write publicly while under the influence of heavy emotion, the bias is highly visible. Regardless of what the author has to say, the way he says it is enough to at best flash a bright red flag to readers, and at worst to alienate them before they've even listened to the ideas. There's a right and wrong way to do anything, and the presentation of opinion is no exception; it's something to consider next time you write to persuade. Think about it.