http://www.gamedaily.com/articles/features/ad-watch-ubisofts-tony-key-on-the-economy-and-marketing-efficiency/

BIZ: From a hardcore versus casual perspective, do the casual games need to get more marketing behind them because those people aren't paying attention to the gaming industry the way the hardcore folks are?

TK: Each target needs its own special marketing campaign, like what we do for the next Splinter Cell... the irony is, yes I can get those guys with PR, but if I want to elevate that title and bring it to the mainstream, I have to get beyond the enthusiast press and create a media driven message on TV. When I'm marketing an Imagine game, the girls are less inclined to reading the press and there aren't a lot of sites centering around girls' video games, but they are watching TV, like on Saturday morning, and there are magazines that they use. So yes, I can go into that market with media dollars and I play heavy in retail because retail is very important for girl oriented games because a lot of customers are going to the store not quite sure what they want to buy. Retail marketing for titles is also there, but it's also very expensive, but on Splinter Cell, the irony is that you're selling these games to 18- to 34-year-old males, the most expensive media market to break into, so I have to spend more anyway to sell games to those guys because less and less they're on [broadcast] TV; they're watching a lot of cable programs so they're fragmented, so I'm not saving money by doing core games. I spend just as much on 'M' titles as I do on anything. Those games are more expensive to make as well, so you need to make sure you sell that game properly.

This seems to refute an argument I've seen asserted a lot on these boards: That marketing a casual game is more expensive than marketing a core game. He does seem to suggest that marketing a casual game isn't especially cheaper than a core game, so marketing might represent a larger proportion of overall game cost compared to development (eg, if a casual game has 1/4 the development cost of a core game, it might have 1/2 the marketing cost).

It's a useful insight into videogame marketing, even if it is a little vague. Ubisoft targets its demographics with more pinpoint accuracy than any other publisher I've seen.

Link

At first glance, the two Ubisoft execs might seem to contradict each other, but nowhere does Detoc actually compare casual marketing costs to core marketing costs. It's not like "marketing, retail space, branding" are unimportant for core games.

The EA example is most likely an outlier. They're betting big on Sports Active because they see Nintendo making tens of millions of unit sales with their Wii Fit campaign. Judging casual marketing costs based on such titles is like judging core titles by Halo 3's marketing budget.

Isn't one issue that is ignored is the fact that QUALITY is a much bigger factor in the sales of core games compared to casual games? So if you spend the same on marketing for both types of games it's going to have a bigger sales growth for the casual as it is for the core gamers because many of them would already be determined by reviews and knowledge of publishers/developers history with previous titles?

Only thing the guy says is that marketing for teenage girls is cheaper than marketing for core gamers...
But far from the majority of casual Wii games actually target teenage girls...
I think it all depends on the target of your game, there are casual that probably are expensive to target ( I would guess teenage girls and stay at home women are cheaper, working men are probably a lot more expensive as you have to show adds during prime time on national networks to get hold of them( spike ain't gonna do it like it does for younger adults men).

I disagree with your statement. Quality is also a very important factor for casual games. However the quality of a casual game can't be measured with review scores. (Reason is that most reviewers don't understand casual games.) The quality of casual games lead to "Word of mouth"-sales. These can be seen as "legs" on the charts.

Well quality is an intangible term. I guess you can say poor graphics, loose controls, ease of mastering, a simplified everything are forms of quality that casual games demand. So I guess they do need quality.  

Your comment shows, that, like most reviewers, you also don't get casual games. The qualities of casual games are:

Graphic with mass appeal: Graphic in casual games can be simple, but it is not a must have. Real life HD graphics are also allowed for casual games. However graphic like in MadWorld or Okami without mass appeal are not allowed.

Simple controls: Casual games must have simple, easy to mention controls. Controls were you have to memorize 20 different button combinations are not allowed.

Ease of Playing: Casual games should have a simple start. If you die within the first 3 minutes, than it is not a very good casual game. However it is allowed, that casual games get more difficult, as they progress.

Local Multiplayer: Every casual game should have a local multiplayer option. (Enough said.)

(There might be more points. I only listed those, who came right into my mind.)