作者：David Garth

第一节：迅速上涨的用户获得成本

随着手机应用市场的成长壮大，竞争随之加剧，发行商和开发者越来越难使消费者注意到自己的产品。生产一款好游戏，或甚至了不起的游戏，不再是打败众多竞争对手、获得足够的用户关注的筹码。甚至有些广受评论界赞誉的游戏也很难被消费者注意到。

发现问题稳步加剧。根据Xylogic的统计，仅在2013年3月，就有近3.1万款新iPhone应用和超过2.2万款新Android应用出现在美国应用商店中。

营销成本和广告成本相应增加，使小开发者的日子更难过，更别说开发新受众（他们甚至负担不起成本）。通过提高转化率、留存率和赢利率，开发者已经竭尽所能地增加收益。但他们面临的是一场艰难的战斗，只要用户开发成本持续上升，收益就会不断被侵蚀。

根据FIKSU的每忠实用户成本指数（Cost Per Loyal User Index），有些品牌的主动营销使应用安装平均成本从2011年3月的0.99美元增加到2013年3月的1.36美元，这个增长率是45%。

如果免费游戏的每安装成本是1.36美元，且游戏每月的转化率是2.5%，那么付费用户平均获得成本（ACPPU）就是54.4美元。所以为了支持用户获得成本，游戏的付费用户平均收益（ARPPU）必须达到54.4美元（扣除30%的平台分红）。

根据去年的SuperData研究数据，在美国，付费社交游戏的玩家平均支出是37.59美元。扣除谷歌或苹果抽走的30%，剩下26.31美元。与54.59美元相比，缺了28.09美元（游戏邦注：即使你把转化率增加到5%，保持1.39美元的获得成本，仍然不够）。

简单地说，游戏发行数量庞大和用户获得成本上涨使得手机游戏的曝光问题更加棘手。

历史上，授权改编的名声不佳，通常被当指责费用过高。而眼下出现的新局面已经扭转了授权改编的形象。使用授权内容和它所产生的营销噱头（如果使用得当），不仅可以解决手机游戏的曝光问题，同时还可以显著地降低用户获得成本。

第二节：关注授权改编

手机开发者和发行商解决游戏的曝光问题和减少用户开发成本的方法之一是，使用知名的、识别度高的专利产品——电影、电视、漫画等媒体中的角色、故事和品牌—-这些可以帮助游戏迅速积累人气和信誉。

授权改编游戏经历了一段非常糟糕的历史。玩家和行业人士深知在使用了热门品牌的憋脚游戏中，获得改编许可不过是利用品牌的价值挣钱，游戏开发被授权方拖拉的审批流程所累，最终做出的是一件三流产品；或者，游戏为了迎合电影发布日期，匆匆完工——从电影工作室的角度看，游戏只是另一种营销工具。

说到糟糕的知名改编游戏，所有玩家都能列出自己的单子——比如《Family Guy: Back To The Multiverse》、《黑客帝国》、《ET》、《猫女》等等。但这些正体现了知名品牌的营销力量——所有人都认识这些游戏，无论它们制作得有多烂。

总之，热门的改编内容不应该成为憋脚游戏的免罪金牌。但没有理由为什么它就是。如果你得到一款有超的游戏，其转化率不错、能留住玩家且赢利成绩理想，那么授权内容总是能够作为一种市场优势，有助于解决曝光问题。

曝光

人气授权内容具有诸多好处——固定的粉丝受众（包含非玩家）和更强大的病毒性传播力。游戏可以使用授权品牌的LOGO和关键词，当人们浏览应用商店时就能立即识别出来。

对于已经很流行的内容，PR工作也更容易展开。如果授权方是电影工作室或电视公司，协议使用已有的营销渠道，那也是非常好的。

即使潜在玩家没有看到你的PR，Google Play和苹果App Store的决策者总会看到的——他们当然更可能关注与著名品牌有关的游戏。在Google Play或苹果App Store，知名品牌是获得“推荐”的重要因素之一，是应用发现的“圣杯”（根据行业研究，利用知名品牌每天可吸引约100000名免费玩家）。

授权内容还助于提高留存率和赢利。在一款设计良好的改编游戏中，面对已经很熟悉的场景和角色，玩家更容易对游戏产生情感共鸣，更可能重返游戏。

如果虚拟物品和奖励是根据玩家认识的品牌设计的，那么玩家就会更愿意购买和争取。根据Iconicfuture的Ze’ev Rozov，“与一般道具相比，玩家愿意在他们认识的品牌道具上花更多钱。”GSN的Nick Bogovich表示，他们的《幸运之轮》游戏使用了授权品牌后，点击率和留存率都有所提高。

用户获得成本

人们通常认为，游戏要获得知名品牌的使用权，必须支付相当高的成本，无论是围绕品牌制作一款游戏还是局部使用（例如，出售品牌虚拟道具）。这个假设是错的。

授权协议通常包含销售的版权费，或者某些收益分红协议。被授权方可以提前支付一部分版权费，然后在合同期内按一定量支付剩下的版权费给授权方。不同的授权方可能对预支多少和之后追加多少版权费的要求有所不同，取决于授权的内容。

然而，最重要的事是，授权方是否赞同授权方案和信任使用方。因此，甚至小开发者或发行商也可以争取到非常热门的品牌。

现在，有许多产品如玩具、纪念品等都大量使用授权品牌，与其相比，手机应用开发者们可以乐观一些了，因为手机应用使用授权品牌的还极少——这个形势可能很快就会改变了。

因为版权费能否付清要看实际销售情况，而不是展现量、点击率或免费安装，所以可能对用户获得成本产生非常大的影响。

我们来计算一下：

假设每安装成本（CPI）是1美元（游戏邦注：除了直接付款的消费者，如点击谷歌关键字广告，还包括病毒性传播开发而来的消费者），那么发行商要获得20万次安装量必须支付20万美元。如果用户转化率为5%，那么将产生1万名付费用户，而ACPPU为20美元。

我们假设净ARPPU比较理想，为40美元，那么20成美元的成本产生40万美元的净收益，纯利润就是20万美元。

不是直接支付20万美元（大多是提前支付）而产生40万美元，现在我们假设产生这40万美元的成本是版权费的12.5%。不仅全部成本可能只要5万美元，而且如果能够提前支付，甚至可能低至1万美元。

当然，认为使用授权内容需要占用全部或大部分用户获得预算，这是错的。但毫无疑问，通过良好的PR工作、应用商店的“推荐”或病毒性传播力，知名品牌确实能达到更理想的营销和用户开发成绩。

*不说1万个付费用户，我们假设20万美元的花费产生30万次安装，这样（转化率仍为5%）就有1.5万个付费用户，这也并非不合理的期待。

*在其他条件相同的情况下，净收益将达到60万美元，与20万美元的成本相比，现在的版权费是7.5万美元。

*纯利润是32.5万美元，与之前的20万美元相比，确实大大增加了。

第三节：授权改编的得与失

上述收益数字让人看得热血沸腾，但并非所有老品牌都能产生那么大的影响力。你必须找到合适的好品牌。

授权改编的一大优点是，可以根据授权内容的名气和目标受众来评估效益——这是靠开发者自己的新游戏无法做到的。例如，在Facebook做个小小的市场调查，就能发现目标授权内容有多少受众，以及他们的年龄、地区、学历、相关活动和喜好等等。这只是很肤浅的研究。

然而，寻找合适的品牌、与授权方交涉可能是相当艰难的过程。在上文中已经提到一些不愉快的情况，我们还要再回顾一下。开发者应该始终保持谨慎的态度，不要被品牌的人气所迷惑，而忽略了争取有利的协议条款或忘记可能产生的麻烦。成功的授权协商离不开详尽的调查。

成功的授权是什么样的？

授权的形式有很多种：

有些是新内容（如即将上映的电影），有些是已经存在的内容（游戏邦注：例如，现在正在剧院、电视上播出的内容，或者已经播出过的）。

新内容看起来令人兴奋，但通常更有风险，且往往（尽管不总是）比旧内容更昂贵。即使开发者相信即将上映的电影会叫好叫座，也无法排除失败的可能性（与正在或已经播放的内容不同，无法对新内容提前进行有意义的市场研究）。

开发者和发行商应该记住，好莱坞工作室喜欢通过尽可能多地授权给即将公映的新电影造势。但如果把成本全押在授权上，并且给电影工作室提前支付版权费，然后被许可方自己以承担所有风险来换取可能的成功。

有些人也许还会提出，工作室应该为自己的营销策略支付成本。有风险，但也可能带来巨大的成功。说到新电影，这绝对是一条买者自慎的原则——让购买版权的人当心！

最大化PR和广告效果是授权改编的主要和首要原因，授权方对此的贡献占了很大份量。被授权方应该总是从授权方处获得清楚的营销活动保证，如平面媒体PR、游戏在授权方网站上得到推荐、在社交媒体活动或事件中出现等等。

游戏开发者和发行商还可以通过分层版权结构的协议，鼓励授权方积极参与市场营销。这个办法有不同的执行方式，其中之一是授权方同意支付一定量的用户获得营销预算，而被授权方支付更高的版权费，直到偿还达到某个比例。

与授权方合作

开发者应该记住，品牌所有者希望保护它的内容的品质和真实。另一方面，授权方与开发者的眼光可能是不同的，所以必须确保双方达成共识。以下是几个需要考虑的重要问题：

授权方与开发者或发行商的合作情况。应试能够与之前的被授权方谈话，以决定授权方的经验是否丰富和实用（记住，许多授权方对游戏的内容授权可能比较陌生）。

授权方可能希望更多地参与制作过程，而开发者并不喜欢这样。如果这个过程管理得当，可能不会造成麻烦，反而成为一种优势。得到授权方的帮助，使玩家与游戏产生情感上的联系（进而增加留存率和赢利率），是授权改编的价值所在。

有些授权方恶意拖延审批进程，开发者或发行商应该避免陷入这种局面之中。书面协议上应该清楚地规定审批完成的期限（加上特定的机制，用于审批失败后的修改和回应失败的自动批准）和如果授权方没有在期限内完成审批需要支付的罚金。

总结

因为产品间争夺同类受众的竞争前所未有地激烈，游戏市场已经发生变化，这是不可避免的事实。即使开发者通过改进保持留存率和赢利率的技术，以最大化收益，新游戏为数众多的发行量和付费用户开发成本的上涨仍然使用户开发变成一件越来越困难的任务。

授权知名内容可能产生巨大影响力——无论是在制作一款在竞争中脱颖而出的游戏方面还是在降低用户获得成本方面。即使有些业内人士对内容授权持消极态度（因为授权改编的过去的成绩参差不齐），但不可否认，如果能找到合适的品牌、授权方和达成有利的协议，授权改编绝对有助于在解决发现问题和降低用户获得成本。（本文为游戏邦/gamerboom.com编译，拒绝任何不保留版权的转载，如需转载请联系：游戏邦）

Discovery & User Acquisition Costs: Content Licensing To The Rescue?

by David Garth

PART A: MUSHROOMING USER ACQUISITION COSTS ATE MY LUNCH

As the marketplace for mobile apps has become larger and ever more crowded, it’s increasingly difficult for publishers and developers to get their products noticed.  Producing a good game, or even a great one, is no longer enough to stand out from the crowd and be discovered by enough prospective users. Even some critically-acclaimed games go largely unnoticed by consumers.

There’s a steadily mushrooming discovery problem.  For just the month of March 2013, Xylogic counted almost 31,000 new iPhone apps and over 22,000 new Android apps in the US app stores alone.

The cost of marketing and advertising is correspondingly on the rise, which make life harder for smaller developers (who may not be able to afford these costs) to reach new audiences.

Developers already do all they can to grow revenues by improving conversion, retention and monetization rates. But they’re fighting an uphill battle, as long as the expense of customer
acquisition costs continues to rise and eat into profits.

According to the FIKSU Cost Per Loyal User Index, the average cost, for brands who proactively marketed their apps rose from $0.94 in March 2011 to $1.36 in March 2013.  That’s an
increase of 45%!

If the Cost Per Install for a free-to-play game is $1.36, and the game has a monthly conversion rate of 2.5% (the conversion rate across all genres, according to SuperData Research numbers
from last year), that means the Acquisition Cost Per Paying User (ACPPU) is $54.40.  So in order to break even on the customer acquisition cost alone, the game would have to generate an

Average Revenue Per Paying User (ARPPU) of $54.40 (NET of the 30% platform share).

According to the same SuperData Research numbers from last year, the average paying social game user in the US spent $37.59.  Subtract the 30% that goes to Google or Apple and you’re left
with $26.31.   Against $54.40, that’s a loss of $28.09.  (Even if you double the conversion rate to 5% and keep the acquisition cost at $1.36, the result is still a loss).

In short, the combination of the vast number of releases and the rising cost of acquisition has turned discovery into mobile gaming’s thorniest problem.

This new landscape has created a new role for content licensing, which has historically had a bad rap and is often (mistakenly) assumed to have a prohibitively high cost. The use of licensed content, and the marketing buzz that it brings (if utilized correctly), can provide the edge needed to solve mobile gaming’s discovery problem and can also significantly lower customer acquisition costs at the same time.

PART B:  TIME TO TAKE NOTICE OF CONTENT LICENSING

One way that mobile developers and publishers can get their games noticed and potentially lower their customer acquisition costs is to use well-known and recognizable intellectual property – characters, stories and brands from movies, TV, comics etc. – which can provide immediate attention, differentiation and credibility.

Licensed games have a pretty bad history. Gamers and industry insiders are well aware of the crappy games that have been launched using popular licenses, where the license has been little more than an attempt to cash in on the value of the brand, or where game development has been held back by a licensor’s long approval process, and the end result has been a third-rate product. Or where a game has been thrown together to meet a movie launch deadline – just another piece of merchandising from the point of view of the movie studio (on somebody else’s dime).

Everyone has their list of famously bad licensed games – of Family Guy: Back To The Multiverse and Enter The Matrix, ET, Catwoman etc.  But right there is an illustration of the marketing power of well-known IP – everyone knows these games, however bad they may have been.

In short, popular licensed content shouldn’t be an excuse for a bad game.  But there’s no reason why it has be.  If you’ve got a fun game with good conversion, that retains players and monetizes well, then there are ways in which licensed content can provide the marketing edge that’s needed to have a major impact on the discovery problem.

Getting Discovered

Popular licensed content brings many benefits – a built-in audience of fans (including non-gamers) and a much greater viral appeal.  It allows the use of logos and keywords that are instantly recognizable to people browsing the app stores.

PR is also much easier to generate for content that’s already popular.  And if the licensor is a movie studio or a TV company that’s contracted to help via its existing marketing channels, these will be as good as it gets.

Even if potential players don’t see your PR, the decision-makers at Google Play and the Apple App Store will – and they’ll certainly be way more likely to pay attention to a game that’s built around a popular brand they already know. Well-known IP is one of the top factors in getting feature placement on the App Store or Google Pay, which is the ‘holy grail’ of app discovery (generating around 100,000 free users per day, according to industry observers).

Licensed content can also help with retention and monetization.  A well-designed licensed game, with scenarios and characters that are already familiar and meaningful to players, can make the game more rewarding and make players more emotionally committed to the game and more likely to return.

In-app purchases of virtual objects, as well as rewards, are also more appealing if the items are based on a brand the player recognizes. According to Ze’ev Rozov of Iconicfuture, “users are willing to spend a lot more money on a premium item based on rights they recognize than on a generic item” and Nick Bogovich of GSN says that their Wheel of Fortune Slots game gets higher click-through rates and longer player engagement as a result of the use of the licensed brand.

Managing User Acquisition Costs

It’s often assumed that the cost of licensing popular content for use in a game is prohibitively high, whether for building an entire game around the content or for the use of pieces (for example, selling branded virtual goods).  This is incorrect.

Licensing agreements usually involve the payment of royalties on sales, or some sort of revenue-sharing agreement.  There’s a minimum guarantee of a certain dollar amount in royalties
that must be paid over the lifetime of the agreement and part of that is payable upfront.  Different licensors may demand different minimum guarantees and upfront payments, depending upon
the property involved.

The most important things, however, are whether the licensor likes what the prospective licensee proposes, and trusts that they are able do a good job. Thus even small developers or publishers can license some very popular brands.

Currently, developers are helped by the fact that, relative to the vast number of properties available and already licensed for products in the broader market (toys, novelties etc.), very few have been licensed for mobile apps – a situation that is likely to change quite fast.

Since royalties are paid on the backend (on actual sales), rather than upfront for impressions, clicks or unpaid installs, there can be a major impact on customer acquisition costs.

Let’s take a look at the math.

Let’s say that with a Cost Per Install (CPI) of $1 (including customers acquired virally, not only those paid for directly, for example via clicks on Google Adwords), a publisher is able to spend $200,000 and thereby obtain 200,000 installs.  With a good conversion rate of 5%, that will result in 10,000 paying users and an Acquisition Cost Per Paying User (ACPPU) of $20.

Let’s imagine that the net Average Revenue Per Paying User (ARPPU) is a healthy $40, so that the expense of $200,000 generates $400,000 in net revenue and a gross profit of $200,000.

Instead of paying $200,000 (most of it in advance) to generate $400,000, now let’s imagine that the cost of generating that $400,000 was a royalty of 12.5%.  Not only would the total cost be only $50,000, but perhaps as little as $10,000 of it would be payable in advance.

Of course it’s wrong to imagine that the use of licensed content should take up the entire user acquisition budget, or even most of it.  But there’s little doubt that a popular brand would result in much more effective marketing and customer acquisition, through vastly better PR, getting featured in the app stores, or exponentially more powerful organic, viral growth.

Instead of 10,000 paying users, let’s say that the expense of $200,000 results in 300,000 installs and thus (also at the 5% conversion rate) 15,000 paying users, which is not an unreasonable expectation.

Other things being equal, the net revenue generated would then be $600,000, against the combined cost of $200,000 and now $75,000 in royalties.

The gross profit would be $325,000, significantly more than the previous gross profit of $200,000.

PART C:  LICENSING DOs AND DON’Ts

Those profit numbers are all well and good, but not just any old license would have that sort of impact.  You have to find a good one.

One of the great things about licensing, though, is that a real measure can be taken of the popularity and target demographics of a prospective licensed property – something that cannot be done with a developer’s brand new title and characters.  For example, just doing a little market research on Facebook will uncover how many “likes” a prospective licensed property has, as well as their age, locations, education level, related activities and likes, and so on.  And this is barely scratching the surface.

It’s also a question of finding the right licensor and negotiating a good deal with them, both of which can be pretty tough unless you know what you’re doing.  A few unpleasant scenarios were mentioned above, and we will revisit some of those.  The developer should always be careful that they are not so entranced by an exciting prospective license that they fail to obtain a good agreement or ignore warning signs of possible troubles ahead.  There are many points of due diligence that should always be part of a successful license negotiation.

What A Good License Looks Like

There are many types of licenses available.

Some are new properties (for example an upcoming movie) and others are existing properties, whether current (in theaters or on television now, for example, or older ‘catalog’ properties).

New properties, while they may look exciting, are generally more risky and are often (though not always) more expensive than older ones.  Even if a developer is convinced that an upcoming movie will be a big hit, it may flop, (and, unlike current or catalog properties, there’s no way to conduct meaningful market research in advance on its popularity).

Developers and publishers should bear in mind that the Hollywood studios like to create as much buzz as possible around NEW movies by trying to license as much merchandise as they can
in time for the launch.  But if a licensee is shouldering all the costs, AND paying royalties upfront to the movie studio, then the licensee is taking all the risk upon itself in exchange for a shot at some upside.  And, some would argue, also paying for what should be the studio’s own marketing.  It’s risky, and it can be hugely successful.  The rule when it comes to new movies is definitely caveat emptor – let the buyer beware!

Maximizing PR and getting an advertising bump is one of the main reasons for licensing in the first place, and the licensor’s contribution to this effort is big part of that.  Prospective
licensees should always obtain very clear commitments from the licensor for a whole range of marketing activities, from print media PR, getting the game featured in the licensor’s website and social media activity, events and so on.

Game developers and publishers can also encourage active marketing participation from the licensor by negotiating an agreement with a tiered royalty structure.  This can work in different ways, but one example is for the licensor to agree to a specific marketing budget for customer acquisition, and the licensee pays a higher royalty rate until some percentage of  that spend has been recouped.

Working With Licensors

Developers should remember that the brand owner will want to protect the quality and integrity of its content – and it’s good if a brand is properly cared for.  On the other hand, the licensor may have a different vision than the developer, so it’s important to ensure that both are on the same page.  There are some important questions to ask:

Will the licensor work well with a developer or publisher.  It should be possible to talk with existing and previous licensees to determine whether their experience was a good one.
(Bear in mind that content licensing for games may be new for many licensors).

The licensor may want to be more involved in the creative process than the developer would like.  If this process is well-managed, though, it can be turned into an advantage instead of
a problem.  Getting the licensor’s help in unlocking the value of players’ emotional connection to a game (and thereby increasing retention and monetization rates) can be a valuable part of a license.

Some licensors are notoriously slow with their approvals process, and it’s an important part of a developer’s or publisher’s due diligence to be sure to avoid getting into such situations.  The written agreement should clearly lay out time frames within which approvals need to be granted (plus specific mechanisms for the correction of disapprovals and automatic approval for failure to respond) and perhaps contain penalties if the licensor fails to meet its deadlines.

SUMMARY

It’s an unavoidable fact that the gaming landscape has changed due to the unprecedented proliferation of products competing for the same audience.  Even as developers refine their retention and monetization techniques to maximize revenue from each customer, the vast number of new game launches and the rise in paid user acquisition costs is making it increasingly difficult to reach those customers in the first place.

Licensing well-known content can have a major impact – both in making a game stand out from the crowd and in lowering customer acquisition costs.  Even though some in the industry take a dim view of content licensing (due to its spotty track record), if done correctly, with due diligence in finding the right license, the right licensor and negotiating the right agreement, there is no reason why it should not play a major role in solving the discovery problem and holding down user acquisition costs.(source:gamasutra)