Last week, Nintendo unveiled to the world its next generation of home console: the Nintendo Switch. They did so in a roughly three minute video not specifically talking about the features but rather showcasing what gamers will be able to do in real life situations. If you haven't seen it yet, you can watch the video below:
Amidst lots of other chatter about the unveiling, Nintendo was widely praised amongst many outlets for purposefully not using children in their initial unveiling. This is because, as you may be aware, Nintendo has been largely viewed as the video game console maker for kids recently, especially when compared to the likes of PlayStation and Xbox.
As a big Nintendo fan myself, I, too, had the same reaction when watching that video. I thought, "Finally, Nintendo is looking to break the mold they set with the last console generations."
Here is where things get interesting.
Enter tech journalism site, TechnoBuffalo. Primarily focusing on consumer electronics in general (e.g. smartphones, laptops), TechnoBuffalo doesn't place a huge focus on gaming content as would an IGN or GameSpot, but they had a very interesting perspective on the Nintendo Switch.
Check out this article: No children in the Nintendo Switch reveal, but that's normal
To summarize what that article says, TechnoBuffalo went back and looked at previous console unveilings to see how they compared to the Nintendo Switch's unveiling. The results might surprise you. (They did for me!)
The Wii U? No children.
The Nintendo DS? No children.
The Nintendo 3DS? No children.
And moreover, that last one was unveiled with a parade of supermodels. Not exactly child friendly imagery!
So where the public was praising Nintendo for "finally getting away from children," this actually wasn't new at all for Nintendo.
Let's talk about why this may be, since I have a couple of different theories. It is well documented within the docu-drama of a book, Console Wars, that Nintendo all the way back in the days of the Super Nintendo that they wanted to be a family friendly system. Granted, that was well over 20 years ago now, and the console unveilings of the last decade seem to lend toward Nintendo not perceiving themselves that way anymore.
I think it has more to do with their first party titles. Look at game series like Mario, Zelda, Animal Crossing, and the recent Splatoon. Those tend mostly to be kid games, right?
Well, I actually beg to differ. While Nintendo might purposefully set out to create some titles for kids (e.g. the Mario Party line), I think that their goal, to borrow from Apple, is to think differently. Where other AAA game companies are seeking to create super realistic games that often involve a lot of adult-themed blood and gore, Nintendo is seeking to establish themselves as a game company who makes great games that don't fall in that category.
It just happens to work out that these titles end up being family friendly.
Because of this, parents have made Nintendo their "go to" choice when buying a console because they know Nintendo is much more likely to offer kid-friendly content than the other systems.
So let's take a step back now and look at the implications of this beyond just Nintendo. Can the public's perception of a product influence perception more strongly than the advertiser's perception?
Like all things in life, I don't think there is a clear black-and-white answer. For Nintendo, it's clear that the public has perceived the nature of its products to be one thing over how it is actually advertised.
Let me use another example of that: Minecraft. (Sorry for using another video game reference. It was the first to come to mind!) Minecraft is largely perceived to be a kids game because of the simple gameplay, colorful UI, and LEGO-like creativity. But, much like with Nintendo, Minecraft does not perceive themselves this way. The creator, Marcus "Notch" Persson, did not set out to create a children's game. Notch was just creating a game for the general gaming community, and if you don't believe this, watch the "endgame" of Minecraft. It's a gigantic, philosophical poem that goes way over the head of any ten year old. (Whoops, spoiler alert...?)
Let's look at some other non-video game examples. Apparently, Listerine was originally marketed as surgical antiseptic and a cure for gonorrhea. Definitely not how it is used (or marketed) today! Oh, and how about Viagara? Before its days of helping old men get... well, you know... it was designed and marketed as heart medication. Apparently the original designers behind Play-Doh thought it would make for a good wallpaper cleaner. I'm sure mothers around the world would love their kids sticking Play-Doh to the wall!
So we've found that when it comes to marketing that the public's perceived nature of a product can outweigh the advertiser's perceived nature, but I should end with saying that this tends to be the exception and not the rule. Sure, I found some examples above, but it took me googling several different phrases before I was able to find them. Generally speaking, the advertiser's perception falls right in line with the public.
Mountain Dew is Mountain Dew.
McDonalds is McDonalds.
Nike is Nike
Donald Trump is Donald Trump.
(Actually, you might be able to argue that last one!)
It's still an interesting concept, nevertheless, and something companies might want to keep in mind as they develop products with a somewhat ambiguous nature.
Comments
Post a Comment