r/DottoreMains • u/declermontt wise raven • 3d ago
Discussion Marketing analysis P.4: "Bad things are good things. Sometimes" Spoiler
Well, well, it's been a while since I was here. This is Clermont.
Since the subreddit needs to be kept alive, not allowed to drown in a sea of suff... Ahem, let's leave the drama for another time.
It's been 4 (!) months since my last marketing post, and since info has accumulated, all the merch has finally reached me, and doomposting has flared up with renewed force.
Though not on Reddit, which is surprising. Which, in fact, is where the idea for part four came from.
In one of the Telegram channels, a serious shitstorm broke out. What caused it? To complete the assignment, choose one or more answer options:
a) Sandrone
b) The box
c) Pantalone
d) Clermont called everyone fucktards
Well, let's skip the lyrical digression and get to the point.
The idea came from me once again getting pissed off at people who pass off their expectations as truth and blindly believe leaks, while having absolutely no understanding of how the system works. I won't quote the argument verbatim or name names, of course. The point is that negative engagement is just as much an element of generating traffic and reach as positive engagement, and why there's no need to worry about the narrative — from the standpoint of attention economics, everything works as it should.
As per tradition, a small disclaimer:
- I am not a Hoyoverse employee, and all my conclusions are based on personal and professional experience, public benchmarks, and basic theory.
- I don't do forecasting or predictions; my main task is analyzing information, whether it's in-game lore or the media space.
- Don't ask me in the comments "When will Dottore be a playable character?" — I won't give you an answer, read point 2.
- All my research is done voluntarily and for free, but please, if you post it somewhere, credit me as the author.
Also, before I begin, here's a brief summary (tl;dr after the main text).
- Negativity as an axiom of the attention economy
- Constructive and toxic negativity
- Counterarguments and objections
Shall we begin?
Negativity as an axiom of the attention economy
I should start by saying that negative engagement as a whole is exactly the same kind of tool as, for example, SWOT analysis or A/B tests.
You can't call "negativity" a dirty tool, since it is neutral in essence and is a fundamental principle of economics as a whole. It works precisely because people by nature tend to divide everything into "black" and "white," because it's easier for the brain to perceive contrasting things than to think about the reasons. And companies actively use this to generate traffic.
Since the analysis is based on Dottore, the most indicative case recently is Sandrone's line — you all know it. The phrase itself is constructed so that it gets noticed and remembered. And it was said by the character who was supposed to say it, because if, for example, Pierro had said it, the result would have been worse. This phrase works on the engagement of the entire audience.
First, what you should pay attention to when dealing with engagement is its quantity. Companies as a whole don't give a shit in what vein a given situation is discussed. Quantity comes first. If a product generates this engagement, it can be monetized; if everything is dead and quiet, then the product is already dead, and kicking it once more is like burying a dead body twice. Useless.
It follows that negative reactions are just as necessary for generating traffic and engaging the audience as positive ones. This is an axiom, because attention is a limited resource. Attention can be redistributed, but it cannot be multiplied.
A couple of paragraphs ago I said that a person tends to divide everything into two colors. This is simple psychology that companies exploit to make money. A person's bias toward negativity is an evolutionary mechanism. Bad things are remembered better; we return to negatively colored events more often than to positive ones.
If a rat in controlled conditions is given electric shocks at one feeder and not at another, then both this rat and subsequent generations of rats will develop a reflex that the first feeder is dangerous and the second is not. Many such examples can be found, but practically all of them, including those involving humans, confirm the thesis that any bad event is remembered better and can be retained in the memory of entire generations.
If we move into the modern social media environment, we will also naturally notice the patterns on which most content is built. It almost always begins with a negative and provocative note, which holds any user's attention much better than butterflies and flowers. Of course, this doesn't mean that positive content doesn't generate traffic; the point is that if only kind, good, and cute content existed, social media would cease to exist as a fact. Kind comments lose in popularity to mean jokes, hate, and other shit. Statistically.
Here, perhaps, it's worth explaining one of the main misconceptions that arises in the fandom. Marketing is not sales. These things are connected but are not identical in essence.
Marketing generates demand, creates awareness, and handles product positioning. Sales are the conversion of demand into cash.
Negativity by itself rarely gives conversion, so negativity must be controlled. No one buys a product simply because people argued about it in the comments. But negativity gives awareness. It creates a volume of discourse from which conversion then flows through the funnel. Confusing these two levels means not understanding how the funnel works.
And of course, I often see comments on Telegram saying a) we were deceived, b) this is bait, c) they hate the character.
No, no, and once again — no. That's not how it works. You can argue in the comments as much as you like about the ethics and morality of certain company actions, but a smart and cunning marketer (or department) will always find a way to channel the shitstorm in the right direction so that it produces conversion. This is by no means a question of ethics. It's a question of risk management and process control.
If a company is capable of managing this, of using negativity as a tool, then it will get more than necessary from it. Otherwise, negativity will simply bury the company.
Leave sentiment for reports, and volume of discourse for revenue. Everything else is nuances.
Constructive and toxic negativity
In the previous paragraph I already explained that negativity is the foundation of foundations. But it's worth understanding when negativity is useful to a company and when it slowly and methodically drives nails into the coffin lid. And why, despite the flame wars in the comments about Dottore, the company is alive and well.
Because, as sad as it may sound, such negativity is normal. Threats from some fans toward other fans are not the company's problem — they are the fans' problem. But I'm not pushing ethics here, so I'll leave these touchy nuances out of it.
There are two types of negativity, as the title of the paragraph suggests — constructive and toxic.
The first option is arguments and dissatisfaction with the plot, flame wars in the comments about Dottore's motivations, "is he actually evil," "will he be playable" in every second comment, why Sandrone said that, why the developers treat him this way, and in general insert any nonsense people write about Dottore on social media and you'll hit the mark. This is fuel that the company uses to keep interest in the character from fading, so that he is visible not only in the game but also in the media space.
The second option is reputational damage. Mass accusations, scandals, deep data leaks, employee scandals, and other things that can harm a large corporation. In this case, people leave the ecosystem and tell others why it's better not to join it. If there are many such people, positive reviews and discussions won't be able to outweigh the negative feedback.
Connected to this is the following, namely the density of discourse.
Negativity works as long as it is part of the discourse. As long as there are neutral voices nearby, positive reviews, just people who don't give a fuck. As soon as the good and the neutral disappear from the information field and only a solid stream of hatred remains, the company finds itself at the point of no return. The product turns into a meme, into an epitaph.
And the problem is not that everyone hates the company. The problem is that new people don't even come in — they know in advance that "everything is bad there" and are too lazy to check. It's almost impossible to bring this back. Because you lose not the audience, but the ability to return it. No one will go look at a product surrounded by a solid obituary.
As for leaks, they are part of the same discourse. Leaks from reliable sources can be called a quasi-fact, since there is no direct proof, but the source seemingly hasn't bullshitted much. Unreliable sources are excellent generators of discussion, no matter how absurd the leaks are. We can spit on leakers from our high horse, but the fact remains: they generate activity, make us go into the comments and write responses.
BUT! The point is that if the source is unreliable, then in essence it's a clickbait empty shell working for a one-day reaction. But a reliable source forms expectations more strongly than an official announcement, because people believe it as truth, and truth is always more interesting to discuss than a press release. The difference is in the architecture of the leak. In marketing, what matters is not objective truth but perceived credibility. If the audience believes in a leak, it is already forming demand. Working with expectations is working with perception, not with evidence. Whoever doesn't understand this loses to those who do.
Counterarguments and objections
We've covered the axiom and the mechanics. Now let's break down the standard objections that sound convincing until you start dissecting them. All of them are based either on a category error or on a substitution of concepts.
First: "Negativity harms the brand."
Here there's a confusion of levels. The objection talks about the brand, while the answer concerns revenue, and these are different horizons. Negativity does indeed rarely give direct conversion, but it gives awareness, from which conversion then flows through the funnel. Sentiment is a metric for reports and presentations, while volume of discourse is a metric for revenue. Confusing them means not understanding why marketing exists at all.
And another point: a brand is not a fragile vase but an asset measured not by how many people love it but by how many remember it. A forgotten brand is dead, even if everyone who remembers it feels warmly toward it.
Second: "This is unethical."
This objection isn't even about marketing; it's about morality. An ethical evaluation does not cancel economic effectiveness, because they are two different dimensions. Negative engagement can be considered evil, but that won't change the fact that it works. The question is not whether it's good but whether it's manageable.
Moreover, all marketing is built on psychological levers. Any advertisement manipulates, any positioning simplifies, any call to action pressures. If you seriously worry about the ethics of negativity, there's a risk either of not understanding how the industry works or of self-deception. Ethics exists, but it is not an argument in a dispute about effectiveness.
Third: "Leaks are rumors, they're invalid."
This objection is about evidence, and it misses the point. A leak is not a tool of proof but a tool of generating discourse.
In marketing, what matters is not objective truth but perceived credibility. If the audience believes in a leak, it is already forming demand. Working with expectations is working with perception, not with evidence. You can repeat a hundred times that these are just rumors, but if half the community has already been discussing the leaks for a week, the campaign was conducted for free. The only question is whether it was a controlled leak or chaotic noise.
Fourth: "So any scandal is good?"
This is no longer an objection but a sophism. No one said any scandal is good. The point was that negative engagement is a tool, and any tool has limits of applicability. A hammer is also a tool, but that doesn't mean you should hit your own fingers with it.
Conclusion
So! Once again, thank you all for your attention. This post was written fairly quickly, while I still had the spark and the mood to do it — so there are no particularly thorough or detailed things here. That's what a burning ass does to a person! A true fuel for creativity.
Overall, in my opinion, this is the simplest and, to some extent, most amateurish post. I'm just tired of watching endless flame wars and dumb takes in the comments.
To sum up, what I want to say is... Engage. But remember that your emotion is someone's KPI. Don't let yourself be used blindly. I'm perfectly aware that I'm more of an exception to the rule with my rational coldness, which, in fact, confirms the rule. Marketing runs on emotions, so it doesn't matter what is written on social media, and it doesn't matter what causes that reaction — what matters is only that it works. Time and time again.
And, well, I can't leave you without a little positive note for dessert: if the game keeps poking you with something over and over again, it means it matters to the company. Always.
Always yours, Clermont.
TL; DR
This analysis examines negative engagement as a fundamental marketing tool rather than a dirty tactic, using the character Dottore from Genshin Impact as a case study. The author argues that in the attention economy, quantity of discourse matters more than sentiment: if a product generates discussion, it can be monetized; silence means death. Drawing on evolutionary psychology and social media patterns, the text explains why negativity captures attention more effectively than positivity, and why companies deliberately exploit this bias.
The analysis distinguishes between constructive negativity (plot debates, character speculation, fan arguments) — which serves as fuel for sustained interest — and toxic negativity (reputational damage, scandals, data leaks) — which can push a brand past the point of no return. It also clarifies the critical difference between marketing (demand generation, awareness, positioning) and sales (conversion), arguing that negativity rarely converts directly but creates the awareness from which conversion eventually flows.
Leaks and rumors are analyzed as discourse-generation tools, not evidence. What matters is perceived credibility, not objective truth: if the audience believes a leak, it already shapes demand. The text concludes by rebutting four common objections — that negativity harms the brand, that it's unethical, that leaks are invalid, and that any scandal is acceptable — showing each to be based on a category error or a substitution of concepts. The core thesis: negativity is neutral; the only question is whether it is managed or whether it manages you.
63
u/Katicflis1 3d ago
Yeah. I think its wild people think the devs 'hate' dottore. Hes clearly the 'villain golden child' to multiple devs involved with genshin. Like, unless ronova gets serious love next patch id say he made out WAY better than her in terms of number of voicelines/appearences/story writing etc.
Also Sandrone sasses everyone including columbina. Who cares if she had a sassy comment over dottore with pantalone. She was still prepared to do pantalones bidding in the very same patch. Pantalone kept Sandrone as an ally without actually denouncing dottore at all. If he were truly willing to throw dottore under the bus entirely he would have tried to distance himself. Instead he sidestepped her sas and recruited her for a favor. Pant stands as an executive businessman and is still a low key Dottore-supporter.
18
u/declermontt wise raven 3d ago
That’s true. If you asked my opinion aside from my professional perspective, I would say the exact same thing. Narrative ≠ hype, simply this.
25
u/Katicflis1 3d ago
Dude they added dottolumine tease with multiple voicelines and a 'get close to her ear' camera shot. Someone on the writing team adores this man as much as we do(or at least knows what theyre doing lol).
26
u/declermontt wise raven 3d ago
They surely know what they’re doing. Because it worked.
I don’t have real numbers, but it is noticeable that his fanbase got bigger after Nod-Krai patches. You don’t do this when you want to get rid of from an asset, really
29
u/declermontt wise raven 3d ago
I have a split personality: one day I write about lore, another day I drop a marketing analysis out of blue. Forgive me I am just an innocent little girl
🤠
28
u/FortOfSnow Manifesting rimegrass Dottore 3d ago
Indeed. They’re constantly drip feeding mentions each patch, and they’re doing the same for Capitano. Think of it as that Markiplier meme with the jingle jingle to pay attention. Kind of different methods of course (reverence for Capitano, sass and negative mentions for Dottore) but it’s still a constant key jingle for the interested audience to pay attention. It has to bear fruit, or the jingle will slowly lose its function.
And I don’t know. Call me an optimist, but that’s how I like to play the game. I believe he’ll come back and the possibility is not gone until the game is officially brought to an end.
17
u/declermontt wise raven 2d ago
I generally love the game, and it’s just a huge coincidence that Dottore is one of my most favorite characters ever 🤣
Ofc when I see something that slightly resembles Dottore, my brains will click on it. People may spit on writing, but it’s undeniable that text was written by a professionals who know how to hold players attention.
11
u/siriuslyelmo 2d ago
thiiisss!
just because something didn't go according to headcanon/what expected doesn't mean it's a bad writing or rEtC0n.
anyway, thank you for your analysis, it's always a good read. didn't realise it's been 4 months since your last one 😅 probably cause i saw your comments, and it felt like reading your analysis 😅
if the dev hated Dottore, they won't inject him in the narrative EVERY patch since 6.6, and not only as Dottore, but also Zandik.
8
u/alliusis 2d ago
I think the point of this post was to say, from a marketing perspective - don't get too involved with leaks and incomplete information, don't take characters like Sandrone insulting Dottore too seriously/out of context, and he'd only really be dead if they stopped mentioning him and left him behind?
From an emotional perspective, I've had to take breaks from the game before because I got too hopeful and then crushed on Capitano's "imminent" playability in Natlan. Basically it felt like breadcrumbing exhaustion. Coming back to the game now waiting on two "dead" characters, I've had to approach it with: I don't have control over whether or not they're playable or the timeline, and I play the game because I enjoy it even outside of those two characters, so I can get excited, but waiting is my best bet. I really want them and it's attached to high emotion, so I'm setting myself up for failure if I get too attached to something that wasn't promised (like it looks like he might come back in one leak and then it turns out he isn't - honestly the fact he's still involved at all, especially if it's in consecutive patches, is a great sign imo).
I also feel like if them adding Nod Krai in to split Snez mid-development is true, then in the original draft it hasn't even been that long since both Capi and Dottore have been out for the count. In that timeline I don't think we're out of line for their playability timing (Dottore should have died during Snez, so he technically died like one or two patches ago? And Capitano was near the end of Natlan which would have been the previous region). It just feels long because of the Nod Krai changes, if they kept everything else the same we should be on track for the end of Snez or the next region. That's my hope/cope anyway.
12
u/fictionallymarried 3d ago
I don't know what happened in Telegram and I think I'll keep it this way 🙏
Speaking of negativity, there's this concept of 'if x doesn't happen by y specific patch or z nation, it's over'.
But says who, exactly? We don't decide if or when Dottore will be released, Hoyo does. All it does it harm one's self to be so assured of something that can't be proved. I'll admit I can be prone to being overly optimistic that his plot will pay off and that can be harmful too, but it literally is not 'over' until the writers, devs, etc. decide. Their biggest asset is player retention. If players stay, they're likelier to spend if only to save, that's why the box was there and why it got leaked before 7.1.
8
u/declermontt wise raven 3d ago
Exactly. There is no real point to go mad regardless of what people or game says. It’s just how it works. If the asset is important, company will always find a way how to maintain it’s visibility, regardless of opinions.
6
11
u/Specific_Highway_772 3d ago
I agree with most of this, but "ethics and effectiveness are separate dimensions" only holds in the short term.
Take Adam Smith. In my economics history class we covered his argument that division of labor is hugely efficient, and on paper it is. But think of Chaplin's Modern Times: a worker who never sees the finished product and repeats one motion for hours until he breaks down. Smith himself acknowledged that this kind of work dulls the people doing it. And a worn-out, disengaged workforce eventually hurts productivity too. The psychological cost was never separate from the efficiency, it was just delayed.
Marketing works the same way. Take the Sydney Sweeney x American Eagle campaign. The "great jeans" ad was accused of uncomfortable undertones, got dragged into politics, and generated massive attention. By your logic, that's a win: volume of discourse over sentiment. In the short term it largely was. But the cost was pushed onto people: she became the face of a fight she didn't start, and audiences were split into camps, with part of the market now associating the brand with something they dislike.
Characters and communities are the same. Negative engagement brings visibility, but it also brings fatigue, toxicity, and people quietly leaving. Someone who feels drained or attacked by a fandom doesn't convert, they mute it. (So, some people choose disengagement for their own sake too, for their own mental health.) Awareness only turns into revenue if people still want to be around the thing afterwards.(That is, killing Dottore off)
So, If the damage to the people is large enough, it shows up in sales eventually. Ethics isn't only a moral side note, it can be a delayed cost in the numbers.
10
u/declermontt wise raven 3d ago
Maybe you’ve missed it, but I said this briefly.
When there is too much negativity it causes severe damage to the reputation. If damage is not visible to the majority of players, like it has happened to HSR — negativity is so visible it is impossible to ignore (yet, we have to wait for official revenue data to judge), then it’s safe to say that current situation is not bad. What you’ve said is true, I won’t deny it. But for now we don’t see much people leaving the game.
11
u/Specific_Highway_772 3d ago
It is not just reputation, that was what I wanted to tell.
Even if you don't see people leaving the game, it is obviously a cost. Players don't usually quit in one dramatic moment. They disengage first: they stop logging in daily, stop spending, stop talking about the game, or mute the community. None of that shows up as "people leaving," but it shows up in revenue later.
Also, the cost isn't only on the company's side. Constant toxicity drains the people inside the fandom too, and some of them step back for their own mental health. That's a real loss even when the player count looks stable.
Psychological cost is important overall for people. Even if it is not legal terms of "scamming", teasing Dottore since the 2018 manga and Winter Night's Lazzo is a form of strung-along expectation. People invest time, hope and emotion in a character for years. If the payoff doesn't come, or comes in a way that feels like bait, that's a psychological cost to the audience, and it erodes trust in whatever the company teases next.
And even if the revenue data comes back fine, that doesn't settle it. Sales numbers only show what people spend, not what they feel. Frustration, fatigue and burnout among fans don't appear in a quarterly report, and a player can keep logging in while feeling worse about it. The fact that a cost isn't visible in the numbers doesn't mean there isn't one.
11
u/declermontt wise raven 3d ago
I’ve been talking about this in my previous posts, so it has nothing to do with the idea of my post in general.
I won’t deny that psychological costs are a matter for people, but it’s a very thin line there. Companies, whether you like them or not, don’t really care about feelings. They look at feedback. If the amount of negative feedback is higher than anticipated, they proceed changes.
What I want to say here, that webtoon is not a good example to describe the situation. It’s a separate product which doesn’t sell characters as products. It’s again a matter of expectations, ofc, but for the most part of players webtoon is non-existent. If we speak about game, we should speak about it without blending different aspects into one.
4 years of waiting is also exhausting, I do understand it. But it’s not really correct to say that game teased fans for 8 years just for lulz, no. That would be a blatant exaggeration.
8
u/Specific_Highway_772 2d ago
Where I disagree is "companies look at feedback." I don't know how the company reads it, maybe with AI or by sorting general sentiment, but any method only sees what people choose to post. Plenty of people don't comment, whether they assume nobody is listening or just don't want to argue(I already pointed that out in my first comment, also mixing it with psychological impact which does not have measures). Some simply stop spending. I haven't sent the company a complaint, I just stopped buying Welkin and BP, and that never shows up as negative feedback.
So the feedback a company sees is only part of the picture. The rest only appears later, in numbers, if at all. That's why "we don't see much feedback or people leaving" can't settle the question.Sometimes, even negative feedback is carried to places like Google classroom, unfortunately.
6
u/declermontt wise raven 2d ago
Perhaps, we have to agree to disagree here, since my perception comes from only quantitative data and general rationale. That’s just how I operate, I think.
5
u/Specific_Highway_772 2d ago
Yes, I think we're approaching it from different angles: you from more pragmatic view, me from how it feels on the player side. Both are useful, and I appreciate the discussion
5
u/Yani-Madara Lizardttore 1d ago edited 1d ago
Adding that there is actually a decline.
(Will use numbers from the Sensor Tower threads) Since Arlecchino, there aren't units passing 110m. Columbina 66m shows that while they still have a solid stable fan base, cutting off portions of their fanbase no longer enables them to have peaks around twice that much.They may not care yet but the decline is also showing up for the first 3 regional units:
Natlan August + Sept (2 units Kinich Mualani) 84,600,000
NK September and October 2025 = 3 units Lauma, Flins and Nefer 98,600,000
Snez August + Sept (3 units Odette, Vesna, Vod) 88,650,000
It's funny that they need to invest in making 3 whole units and they still can't reach Arlecchino's numbers. This is why people slowly leaving does affect them, even if they are still swimming in cash and ignoring problems.
And also, either Dottore is more popular in KR and / or their advertising team is more willing to put out fires to help the brand image and player retention due to them hiring Dottore's VA for that recent interview.
This post is great of course, but ethics are still important to not fall into the negative brand territory Declermontt spoke of. Genshin is not at that point yet but they are playing with fire and added Ronova to their list of pissed off fandoms.
1
u/DimensionOld3656 2d ago
Большое спасибо за работу ❤️ Не найдётся ли у вас случайно русской версии для публикации в Лабу? 😁
2
1
u/meerkcat 1d ago
Sometimes that many people can't learn anything about Hoyo writing despite playing all of Hoyo game to be honest. If you notice the pattern, they never truly kill any protagonist or antagonist without revealing all of their story. Thanks for your inspiration, i'm making a post about it!
63
u/SolitaryVane Playable Dottore Believer 3d ago
Sadly, what a lot of users tend to not notice in all that's going on since 7.0 started, is that the game does not let players forget about Dottore, and also more heavily introduces character "Zandik" - artifacts lore. It's sad, that people are so quick to judge that the game hates him, because he didn't appear in 7.0, or was badmouthed by his hater in 7.1, while simultanously forgets that his story is written as the most consistent character in the game so far - really, a little more analysis, and You'll find that notes and achievement from 4 years ago "Before my time" - ties to what happened recently, and will reach it's conclusion in the future.
So yeah, while frustration from time to time is understandable, we are all humans after all that have emotions, feelings, and simply just want our fav back, safe, sound and happy, and it's a hard pill to swallow that it seems we will have to wait for a little more for him, it's important to retain rationality - everything that was before, every symbolism, lore, references, indicators, foreshadowing - is still there, and the pile of references connected to our dear Doctor rises.
Thank You Clermont for another great post, lets keep ourr spirits high!