Perhaps. But they are not going to buy everything.
Of course not. I don't think they're going to buy anything. But I also think you knew that. I was just following your supposition to highlight how much is out there. If Paizo is competing head-to-head or anywhere close to it, then one has to wonder how much of the market is currently held by Paizo, Savage Worlds, Fantasy Craft, GURPS, etc. cumulatively. There was a time, when D&D first came out in the Seventies, that it was one hundred percent of the market. There are many times since when any gamestore owner would tell you that eighty percent or more of their RPG sales were D&D sales. I am sure there were fiscal quarters where that market share dipped in WW's heyday and maybe a few other times. But despite the brand name recognition, we're barely three years into an edition cycle and things are not good, overall market share seems to be as low as ever, and the product pipeline and staff are being gutted to cut losses.
I'm not sure the move away from the FLGS/Distribution/Publisher three tier model has done them much good either. The focus on pre-selling gift boxes online wasn't appreciated by FLGSs. Diverting the revenue stream to DDI is also something FLGSs aren't pleased to see. Encounters is apparently bringing some bodies into the stores but the sales produced as a result doesn't seem to be changing the outlook. Which takes me to my next point.
And the point remains that actually *being* Dungeons and Dragons brings a 100fold increase in exposure.
Name recognition? Yes, probably. Actual exposure, I wouldn't be too sure it's as one-dimensional as you suggest. There are a number of companies every bit as exposed as D&D, and right beside D&D, everywhere there is D&D. That might be part of why the brand has been diluted. I'd agree with your point if D&D were making itself more high profile, through regular television ads and in a lot more places where no other D&D-like product is exposed, but that's simply not the case. Oh, maybe there's an occasional ad push through a video gaming zine and a bit of product placement in television shows, but other companies have done similar things too. For each D&D on Community, there is a Talisman on The Big Bang Theory example, from what I have seen. And, yes, a non-gaming friend who watches TBBT mentioned that he saw the gang playing a D&D boardgame. Is that more exposure for D&D or brand dilution or both or what? So, to continue.
Even the people who don't think 4E is "D&D" know enough about it to have that opinion. That is because it is D&D.
I think you are making a different argument and using circular logic to try and prove a point I'm not necessarily debating. I'm not personally saying D&D isn't D&D. I am however saying that those who don't think of any particular edition as D&D (whether they think of 4E negatively as a minis/video game, or 3E as rules-bloated or too mechanical, or they think of an older edition as over-written or poorly organized) and find a replacement that they believe to be more like the D&D they desire (Pathfinder, Savage Worlds, a retro-clone), they further dilute the brand by calling what they do D&D even when it isn't branded as such. You seem to be conflating brand recognition with brand strength, but if the sales are going elsewhere, then that is a mistaken impression.
There are great numbers of people who have played D&D but have never heard of Goodman's new game. And yet in 90 seconds of description they could fall into your generalization of loosely considering it "D&D". And yet that wouldn't stop them from never thinking about the game again. And there are also a great many people who are aware of Goodman's game, but won't ever bother to give it a fair shake. It is just one of dozens of "D&Ds" out there and they don't have the time or interest to consider every one.
Might be more appropos to discuss a game with a bit of a track record, like PF or Savage Worlds, or something else not as newly released as DCC. It's sort of cherry picking to use them earlier as a "random" example then use them again to reinforce an additional point to an argument.
But 99% of those people will investigate 5E. They might all hate it and walk away, but they will seek that one out and decide after they have considered it.
Bet you could argue that number up to 100% if you decide the larger group in your example only inludes folks who fit into the 100%.
Anyway, you're arguing something that isn't really my point, and my point is just a correllated point to your point, so many we've exhausted this tangent.
