419,232 Registered Players
Back to post list
Back a step
Replies:
Add reply:
Back a step
| Eddie_the_Kid
Posts: 2,545 Status: Lord Karma: +377 [+1] [-1]   |
Subject: Response | |||||
Note that I never questioned your ability to think and am simply carrying on a discussion. My views are in my posts alone unless I say otherwise. You know this but yeah  Also, note that I am prob not competing in this promotional event myself so kind of outside looking in.Now, I think there is another difference to here. What you are describing are for the most parts contests, but contests differ slightly from competitions although both are examples of promotional activities. Contests are essentially situations where a consumer purchases are product which allows them to fill a ballot for a draw, or their purchase has a random prize attached to it. This is what we see with most of the promotional contests presented by your examples. A competition however is intrinsically different. Random chance plays a much more limited role and becomes a question of skill against skill and resources and resources between multiple parties; it is performance based. Note that multiple parties is defining characteristic. Of course an individual/party with the resources or skills could manipulate a contest in their favour, but unless there is another party for them to actively compete against then it is not a competition or a contest. Now, I think that based on these definitions you would agree that cbr is a competition and not a contest. As such, your earlier examples do not apply, even when extra prizes are added as a one time promotional deal. cbr is still a competition based on performance. A better example to compare to would be a production division of a company that employs performance based motivational packages. In order to meet an increased level of production, like for say the holiday season, these companies offer bonuses based on various levels of increased performance. Those with the highest levels of increased production will of course get the largest bonuses, but everyone will still get a bonus of some kind for their increased levels or performance, even if they where not the top performer in that division. The regular performance based compensation is the clan medals as ziggy pointed out, but if Felt wants increased performance all around, then he should offer smaller bonuses for different levels of performance as well as for top performers. Academics have been writing about the advantages of such positive reinforcement for years and it is logical, to me at least, to think that offering everyone increased chances for performance based brings the performance level of the entire system up (think system utilitarianism... the main justification for capitalism as well) and make everyone's game experience a little better. Not even top 10 would be required for this but perhaps top 8 or top 5 even, although the more the better so long as an actual level of increased performance is needed. Now, as for cutting into the profit of the business. I do not think so. A larger player base competing where they can means more elements being burned. All promotional events are a risk of cutting into profit as they can back fire. But that being said, the worst thing that can happen here from the profit perspective is that only 3 or 4 clans actually bother trying. If that happens then the increased consumption of elements are not likely to cover the costs of the prizes and result in profits as much. Therefore, from a profits perspective, the best thing would be to have as many people and clans competing as possible so that the resources consumption from those competing will cancel out the cost of the prizes. Offering smaller prizes for lower ranks that will not add much to the prizes over all expense can result in large payoffs in terms of resource consumption from those clans that are now just as motivated as the top 3 clans. This is how promotional offers work and why companies hold giveaways, contests, and competitions in the first place. |
||||||
|
||||||
Replies:
Add reply: