Sign up FAST! Login

The money in Angry Birds is no longer in “Angry Birds” - Quartz

Stashed in: Brands!, Mobile!, Candy Crush!, Advertising, Monetization, Most Important Stash Ever

To save this post, select a stash from drop-down menu or type in a new one:

Rovio seems to have calculated that it can make more money from people buying bird- and pig-decorated paraphernalia than off games themselves, which is why it no longer charges to play. “We look at this from the audience-reach point of view,” executive vice president for games at Rovio Jami Laes told the Wall Street Journal.

Angry Birds Go! is also a step into a new genre for Rovio. Unlike its predecessors, which entail firing birds out of slingshots, it involves racing them in cars down an obstacle course. That likely means that Rovio plans to expand to other genre games, especially if this latest version is a hit. “It is kind of an implication of our future direction, where we are thinking more of games as free-to-play. We think that when done right, free-to-play is the best model for our fans, consumers, developers and publisher,” Laes told the WSJ. He probably should have mentioned licensees, too.

Like George Lucas knows that the movies are just advertisements for merchandise and licensing.

Like good musicians know that music is just advertising for concerts and memorabilia and tees.

The name of the game is brand building. Give away products to bolster the brand.

This works well if the product cost is free to make more copies -- like movies, songs, and software.

Getting Game of Thrones and Walking Dead pirated has only bolstered those brands too.


"Like good musicians know that music is just advertising for contents and merch."  

Can we replace "good" with "enterprising"?

Yes of course. Enterprising!

You May Also Like: