What your brand needs to know in 4 sentences
- Affirmative campaigns work. Nearly 9 out of 10 Brazilian gamers perceive real impact (87.8%) and nearly half of the audience says it changes their purchase decision (61.2%).
- But they’re skeptical about the intent. Only 16.3% believe brands act out of genuine motivation. The audience understands there’s a commercial strategy at play, and that’s fine. They evaluate the outcome, not the intent.
- Minoritized audiences convert 3.48× more. Gamers from minoritized groups (women, Black people, LGBTQIA+, people with disabilities) show a 72.9% willingness to switch brands versus 43.6% of the non-minoritized group.
- Consistency pays off. The brands spontaneously recalled are those that maintain ongoing programs, such as Itaú (Taça das Favelas) and Xbox (adaptive controller). One-off actions are read as opportunism.
- Why this research matters for your business
- How the research was conducted
- Who the 98 gamers are
- What they think about affirmative campaigns
- The sincerity paradox
- The amplified minority effect
- What really predicts brand switching
- Which brands the audience remembers (and why)
- Practical implications for your brand
- Limits of this research
- References
1. Why this research matters for your business
The global gaming market is expected to surpass US$212 billion by 2026, according to Newzoo. In Brazil, 70.1% of the population played some kind of game in 2023, according to Pesquisa Game Brasil. This is no longer a niche. It’s mass consumption.
But it’s a kind of consumption that has changed in nature. An Edelman study back in 2007 showed that 85% of consumers prefer socially responsible brands and that 70% are willing to pay a premium for it. This behavior is no longer news. What still hadn’t been well mapped is how it manifests within the gaming market in Brazil, and whether it actually influences purchase decisions or is just nice words in a survey.
That was the gap this D.Lab Research study set out to fill. Instead of asking “do you prefer responsible brands?” (the answer is always yes), we asked more practical questions: do you feel closer to these brands? Do you believe the intent is genuine? Would you switch brands because of it?
- A clear number for the return on affirmative campaigns among Brazilian gamers.
- An explanation for why the audience is skeptical, and what to do about it.
- Criteria to distinguish an action that will build brand value from one that will draw accusations of opportunism.
2. How the research was conducted
It was a cross-sectional study, observational, with an anonymous online questionnaire. The protocol followed the STROBE guidelines for cross-sectional studies (Von Elm et al., 2007), which is the internationally accepted standard for this type of data collection.
How data collection worked
A Google Forms questionnaire, distributed across Brazilian gamer communities (Facebook, Reddit r/gamesEcultura, Discord). Recruitment was by convenience sampling and snowball. Collection period: January to March 2023.
What was measured
20 questions in total: 10 demographic, 6 on perception and behavior (with Yes/No answers), 1 open-ended question about recalled brands, and 3 structural items. The 6 key questions were:
| Code | What it measures | Question (essence) |
|---|---|---|
| P1 | Brand closeness | Do you feel closer to brands that try to solve problems in your community? |
| P2 | Sincerity | Do you believe these brands act out of genuine concern (and not just commercial interest)? |
| P3 | Trust | Do you trust companies more when they have clear initiatives for minoritized groups? |
| P4 | Perceived impact | Do you believe these campaigns generate real opportunities for the groups they claim to serve? |
| P5 | Empathetic branding | Do you prefer brands that show they understand your experiences and struggles? |
| P6 | Brand switching | Would you switch brands in favor of a competitor with a stronger, proven social commitment? |
Who was classified as a minoritized gamer
A respondent entered the “minoritized” group if they met at least one of these criteria: a gender other than cis man, a race/color other than white, a sexual orientation other than heterosexual, or the presence of a disability. The definition follows Siqueira and Castro (2017).
The statistical tests used (and why each one)
The analysis used six complementary tests, each with a function:
Significance level adopted: α = 0.05. Software: Python 3.12+ (pandas, scipy, statsmodels).
3. Who the 98 gamers in the survey are
The final sample has 98 Brazilian gamers. Most live in urban centers (94.9%), are between 18 and 34 years old (91.9%), and are cisgender men (75.5%). This profile is a good representation of the most active and engaged Brazilian gamer community online, but it’s important to be clear about the limit: young, digitally connected people respond more. The more mature age profile is underrepresented.
4. What these gamers think about affirmative campaigns
The overall read is positive. Four of the five perception questions had more than 67% approval. The standouts were perceived impact (87.8%) and empathetic branding (84.7%). But there’s an important anomaly in the list that I’ll explain shortly.
5. The sincerity paradox
How can 87.8% believe campaigns work but only 16.3% believe the brand is sincere? The answer is: the Brazilian gamer audience has separated the two things. They understand that every brand has a commercial goal. They accept that. What they evaluate is whether the action delivers measurable results. It’s not an assessment of intent. It’s an assessment of impact.
This finding has theoretical support. Porter and Kramer (2006) argue in Strategy and Society that corporate social responsibility generates value even when strategically motivated. What our research adds is the Brazilian empirical evidence: the gamer consumer arrived at that same conclusion intuitively.
If your strategy depends on the audience believing in the “soul of the brand,” you’re losing. The audience has already decided it doesn’t believe. But it is willing to reward brands that deliver results, even knowing there’s a commercial interest behind them.
- Replace the emotional brand film with an auditable impact report.
- Show how much was invested, who benefited, and the measured result.
- Give numbers, dates, the names of partner organizations, verifiable evidence.
6. The amplified minority effect
When we split the sample between the minoritized and non-minoritized groups, the most important difference appears in the willingness to switch brands over social commitment. The numbers:
The most striking difference is in P6 Brand switching: 72.9% in the minoritized group versus 43.6% in the non-minoritized group. That’s 29.3 percentage points. In terms of statistical odds, calculated using Fisher’s exact test, it’s equivalent to an Odds Ratio of 3.48 (p = 0.006).
In business terms: for each non-minoritized gamer willing to switch brands, there are nearly three and a half times more minoritized gamers in the same “ready to switch” group. That’s the real size of the opportunity.
7. What really predicts brand switching
To understand whether this difference is truly caused by minority status or comes from other variables (age, player profile), we ran a logistic regression including these variables as controls. The result is below.
OR = 1 means “no effect.” Above 1, the factor increases the chance. Below 1, it decreases it. Only minority status was statistically significant.
8. Which brands the audience remembers (and why)
36.7% of respondents (36 of 98) spontaneously named brands they consider to have generated real social impact in the gaming market. Spontaneous mentions are especially valuable because they show what actually sticks in the audience’s mind, without the bias of a predetermined list.
- Itaú is remembered for the Taça das Favelas in Free Fire. It has existed for years, has its own name, and produces real champions.
- Xbox/Microsoft is remembered for the adaptive controller for people with disabilities. It’s a product, not a slogan. It changes the user’s life.
- Riot Games is remembered for Valorant Game Changers, the women’s e-sports circuit. It’s infrastructure, not an event.
Brands not endemic to gaming (Itaú, Santander, Boticário) were remembered as often as traditional publishers. This shows that the gaming market is receptive to outside brands, as long as they arrive with concrete action, not a generic film.
9. Practical implications for your brand
Affirmative campaigns in the gaming market are not a symbolic gesture. They are a measurable competitive advantage.
Brazilian gamers are skeptical about motivation (16.3% believe in sincerity), but they are receptive to results (87.8% perceive impact). Invest in actions with measurable, auditable results, not in generic values-based messaging. Every piece of brand communication should answer a simple question: which number did I improve?
With 72.9% willingness to switch brands versus 43.6% in the non-minoritized group, the conversion potential is significantly higher. Cases like the Xbox adaptive controller and Itaú’s Taça das Favelas are references spontaneously cited by Brazilian gamers. That’s the kind of program that becomes long-term brand capital.
The low perception of sincerity indicates that one-off actions are read as opportunism. Brands that maintain ongoing programs (FURIA with Casa 1, Riot with regular fundraising) build brand capital cumulatively. One campaign a year is a waste of budget. A continuous three-year program is an investment.
The most-remembered examples are not advertising campaigns. They are products (the Xbox adaptive controller), infrastructure (Valorant Game Changers), and platforms (Taça das Favelas). Think about where your brand can become part of the experience, rather than just an outside sponsor.
10. Limits of this research
Every study has limits. This one has eight. It’s worth reading carefully before extrapolating the results:
| # | Limitation | Implication |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Cross-sectional design | Does not allow claims of causality. We identified associations, not cause and effect. |
| 2 | N = 98 (the target was 200) | Reduced statistical power for subgroups. Treat it as a pilot study. |
| 3 | Binary items (Yes/No) | Limited granularity. The v2.0 protocol already includes a 5-point Likert scale. |
| 4 | Convenience sampling | May over-represent digitally active, young gamers. |
| 5 | Stated intent | Intent to switch is not the same as actually switching. Purchase behavior needs additional validation. |
| 6 | Binary classification of minority | Simplifies complex intersectional identities (it does not capture nuances between, for example, a Black woman and a white lesbian woman). |
| 7 | No psychometric validation | Limits claims about construct validity. |
| 8 | Brazilian context | Results may not generalize to other cultural contexts. |
This is a pilot study. Enough to generate strong hypotheses and guide initial marketing decisions. Not enough to replace a representative sample study. D.Lab plans a second wave with N = 200 or more and a Likert scale for 2027.
11. References
Champlin, S., Sterbenk, Y., Windels, K., & Poteet, M. (2019). How brand-cause fit shapes real world advertising messages. International Journal of Advertising, 38(8), 1240-1263.
Gray, K. L. (2012). Intersecting oppressions and online communities. Information, Communication & Society, 15(3), 411-428.
Kotler, P., Kartajaya, H., & Setiawan, I. (2010). Marketing 3.0. Wiley.
McConnell, R. (2007). Edelman: Consumers will pay up to support socially conscious marketers. Advertising Age.
Newzoo. (2023). Global Games Market Report.
Newzoo & Intel. (2021). Diversity and Inclusion in Gaming.
Pesquisa Game Brasil. (2023). PGB 2023: 10th Edition.
Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2006). Strategy and society. Harvard Business Review, 84(12), 78-92.
Siqueira, D. P., & Castro, L. R. B. (2017). Minorias e grupos vulneráveis. Revista Direitos Sociais e Políticas Públicas, 5(1), 105-122.
Souza, L., Freitas, A. A., Heineck, L. F., & Wattes, J. L. (2021). Os Grupos de Gamers. Brazilian Business Review, 18(2), 177-195.
Von Elm, E. et al. (2007). The STROBE Statement. The Lancet, 370(9596), 1453-1457.
This report was produced by D.Lab Research as part of our open research initiative. Need an analysis at this level of depth for your business?
Talk to D.Lab →
