i did this for extra credit in a class back in 2012
i ran across it today on my computer and decided to share it i think it was a good little story +++++++++++++++ James Smedley Case Study Extra Credit 08-05-2012 Gary’s In Trouble Gary worked for IVG (internet video gaming). He wrote reviews with great integrity and truth. He found himself in an odd situation one day when IVG’s marketing team called him into their office. “Hey Gary, glad to see you, BloodFun 2 is looking like a great game isn’t it?” “Yeah it looks awesome! BloodFun 1 was incredible, has it come into the offices yet?” “No, we just wanted to get your opinion on it.” “Yeah the game looks incredible- looks like it’s shaping up to be far better than BloodFun 1.” “Great, alright well we’re not going to hold you up we just wanted to pick your brain a bit.” Gary wondered what that was about. He felt like something odd was happening but couldn’t exactly put his finger on it. The next day he asked a few of his co-workers if they were getting weird vibes from the marketing department as well. They all said no. No one else was asked about BloodFun 2 at all. The next week came and it was time for Gary to review BloodFun 2. The company made the decision to give Gary the game to review even though he was swamped with other reviews already. “Why don’t you guys get Allen to review it? He’s nearly done with his Wii Dance Fit review.” “We think you’ll do the best job on this one.” Gary got that eerie feeling again. After playing through the game, Gary typed his review and published it live on the IVG webpage. He went home and went to sleep. The next day he arrived at work and was immediately called into the marketing office. “Gary you finished your review extremely fast we really would’ve liked to see it before you published it.” “What, why?” “We thought you loved the first BloodFun game.” “I did.” “Well what was so wrong with BloodFun 2?” “EVERYTHING! I don’t even know how they did it but the graphics are worse than the first one, the music went from licensed songs to ambient tinkering, the plot is nonexist-“ “That’s enough, look Gary.. here’s the deal, we gave you the game to review because we thought out of all the reviewers here that you’d like the game the most. We needed to review this an 8.5 out of 10 or above to keep the game company’s ad revenue.” “Oh so you’re all upset at me for being honest in my reviews?” “Gary, you trashed this game.. do you even go on the IVG website? Haven’t you seen the BloodFun 2 ads plastered all over the site!?” “Yes I go to the site, but-“ “Oh so you did know then. This game company is basically keeping the lights on for us and now after you rated their game a 4.5 out of 10 they are removing their ads not only for that game but for the next three as well!” “Well what do you want me to do?” “Nothing Gary, you’re fired.” 1. What should Gary do in this situation? 2. Who is to blame for this? 3. How can the company avoid this type of dilemma in the future? 4. Should the company expand communication with the video game companies, or with its employees on the review staff? Why? 5. Does marketing have a right to be angry with Gary? Why? 6. Is the organization operating with integrity right now? Why or why not? 7. If IVG develops a culture of doing reviews to solidify monetary gain from game companies, what might the long term organizational effects be?
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Beautiful things
a nonstop rush Archives
December 2015
|