Need clarification on "No Retailer Links" rule

[Morrus]

Allowing publishers to criticize/complain about the site is okay, but other discussion is out of bounds?

No.

Press releases. And they can link to their sites.

Nobody has mentioned discussion (except for all those people who keep shouting "you're saying we can't discuss stuff!").

would ENWorld have run the story?

EN World didn't run the story. Truth be told, although a big furore happened between a few publishers on the forums, it wasn't all that interesting! There have been far more entertaining arguments.

 

[Vascant]

(Rules changed..lol)

 

[The Sigil]

No.

Press releases. And they can link to their sites.

Nobody has mentioned discussion (except for all those people who keep shouting "you're saying we can't discuss stuff!").

Ah, you are correct. I had to go back and re-parse your post to pick that up.

Originally Posted by ukgpublishing
While we are clarifying, obviously we cannot have links to off site pdf vendors, but can we reference them by name?

Just so I don't step on any toes

For the moment, I'll say no (not in a press release, news item or sig), although I may come back and revise that at some future date. This doesn't apply to general conversation on the boards, of course, where you can say whatever you like.

(Emphasis in Morrus' quote above mine)

Okay, I gotcha - when I first read that exchange, I read:
"can we reference (off site pdf vendors) by name?"
"For the moment, I'll say no."

And I "full-stopped" there. That's my fault, not yours.

I thought that meant some weird new rule that publishers (and only publishers) couldn't mention them at all (which struck me as odd). With the re-reading, it looks as though you're saying (correct me if I'm wrong here) that publishers can't use a link in a press release, news item, or .sig (where, presumably, it is something of an "unsolicited placement" on the site - I'm putting it up without anyone asking for it) - but if some third party were to say in the General Boards, "hey, I was looking at the ENnie nominees and saw this "Buy the Numbers" thingy - what is it and anyone know where I can pick up a copy?" then I would be permitted (if nobody else had already done so; Crothian seems so quick on the trigger to offer up such things it's unreal) to pop into the thread and offer a "hey, I wrote it, glad you're interesed, here's a link to buy it RPGNow." (i.e., in the course of general conversation).

That seems more reasonable than the way I initially read it (though I still think that #1 above applies and simply by telling publishers, "you can't do this here" - even if justified - it's going to ruffle a few feathers... again, despite the hue and cry over the "d20 Standards" I have yet to see any books similar to the BoEF since, so it seems more of a "general principles of no limits on speech" thing than a "hey, we had a book in the works and this ruins it" thing).

It seems to work out to "no unsolicited pimping with a link" - pimping (sans link) is fine (I mean, that's all a Press Release is, really... right?), and solicited linking is fine (if someone asks, I can direct them), if I am reading this right. Is that a fair read?

In addition, talking about/linking to examples of the pros and cons of a competitive site's services, layout, etc. is permitted (because this is not pointing a press release or other "buy this product" type of post in the direction of a competing site), if I am reading you correctly (if I'm not, please let me know).

I also should point out that I agree with several of your points earlier in the thread... while the community that is ENWorld is the happy result of a conglomeration of Eric Noah, ENWorld, Publishers, and fans all kind of "being in the right place at the right time," nobody owes anything to anyone else. Any contributions I may have made to ENWorld (over 2000 of them, and most of them wordy at that) have been amply repaid by driving my modest sales. And I would hope that you feel that the sales you've driven my way have been repaid by my attempt to add something positive (if verbose) to the boards.

Like I said before, I'm not mad, and I'm not stomping away from ENWorld in a huff (I have thicker skin than that). I'm not even one of the blokes that is going to get all up in arms about the "Free Speech" thing (I decided to go from d20 to OGL-only on the bare fact that I'm too lazy to keep abreast of every change to the d20STL - things like required "Players Handbook" wording, etc. just weren't changes I wanted to make to every one of my products every time WotC decided to change things - it was a "laziness" consideration instead of a "Censor" consideration).

Also, I noticed that one of these days I really need to get around to writing more product reviews.

--The Sigil

 

[heapswife]

There's still an extra step involved, so it's almost assured that some sales have been lost despite sales being unified on the back end. It's an undeniable fact of selling on line that more clicks to purchase = decreased sale probability.

Okay... accepting that my involvement with the community is only tertiary, I'm having trouble seeing how enworld developing ways to maintain its self-sufficiency is a bad thing. If you're making a press-release on these forums, it seems to be with the understanding that the group of people you're trying to interest in your product will be registered members of the forums. Since their login for the forum is also their login for the store... doesn't it seem likely that this could actually benefit you?

I mean yes, it's another site you have to petition to sell your product on, and not being a publisher or involved in publishing in anyway other than finding Heap a powder when he needs to deal with things not going exactly as he wants them I don't know what the costs involved in that would be. <shrugs> But, it's just a thought that this might not be as bad of an idea as most of the publishers seem to think it is.

Maybe.

 

[BSF]

Well, at any given minute there are 1000+ people browsing the forums. But many, mny of them are 'guest' accounts. It is possible to read ENWorld without registering for an account.

That's a relatively minor concern in the grand scheme of things I think. I do agree that it is good to have ENWorld moving toward self-sufficiency. I would love to see the site here 5, 10, 20 years from now.

 

[Steve Conan Trustrum]

If you're making a press-release on these forums, it seems to be with the understanding that the group of people you're trying to interest in your product will be registered members of the forums. Since their login for the forum is also their login for the store... doesn't it seem likely that this could actually benefit you?

You're arguing under the assumption that everyone who browses here also wants to shop primarily here. All these members who have been here for years have been using sites other than ENWorld if they've been buying PDFs up until this store opened. If they're a typical consumer, they'll like to shop around for the best price but they'll also like to consolidate their shopping at one location as much as posssible. That means they'd rather shop at one place to get all their PDFs and not get one thing here, one thing at RPGnow and one thing at Drivethru. Sure, people will do it if they have to, but if given the choice most poeople would rather do it all in one go. EnWorld does not have as many vendors as most of the other sites. In fact, some of the vendors who are here and elsewhere don't have their entire catalogues available at EnWorld. There are, really, LOTS of reasons why someone may choose to come to EnWorld and yet decide to shop somewhere else (EDIT: and that goes for any store, not just EnWorld.) Living under the assumption that EnWorld Reader/Community Member also equates EnWorld Shopper is not only an erroneous conclusion for a vendor to make, but it's one that is almost certainly damaging to their business. Add to the fact that if such people browsing this forum were already shopping for PDFs based on any press release I or anyone else posts here, how does it now offer any benefit to still be selling to them but at a new location? Now, I've nothing against the EnWorld store, but the arguement you put forth above is simply not at all inline with actually doing business.

There's also a misconception about the advantage of the login. A typical browser, for the sake of expediency, turns on their cookies and auto password. That means following one click in a press release directly to a product purchase page is only slightly less likely if they were going to, say, Drivethru where they auto login, than it would if they were going to another store. Having one's auto login on at another site you switch to is the same as using the same login here. The people it's most likely to be convenient to are the extremely security aware (people who never leave auto login on) and people who shop from school libraries, Internet cafes, and other public places of the like. And, at this point, it's still very much a trade off until (if?) EnWorld's store gets up to speed with the other vendors out there.

I mean yes, it's another site you have to petition to sell your product on, and not being a publisher or involved in publishing in anyway other than finding Heap a powder when he needs to deal with things not going exactly as he wants them I don't know what the costs involved in that would be. <shrugs> But, it's just a thought that this might not be as bad of an idea as most of the publishers seem to think it is.

Maybe.

Let me ask you this: if you're selling a product--anything, it doesn't have to be a rpg--would you consider it best to be able to diversify your product at different storefronts to spread it out to bigger markets or keep it all in one place? Now, from the perspective of making people aware of that product, what do you think is more likely to do you good: only pointing people to one store or all the stores you offer the product at?

The reason why so many publishers--myself included--is because what's good for EnWorld's self-sufficiency doesn't necessarily mean good tidings for publishers who have to consider a much broader picture that extends well beyond EnWorld. Morrus and I may disagree over the extent of how far this goes, but from our conversation in this thread I definately got the impression that he understood that and recognizes it as a legitimate concern for publishers, even if it isn't a concern of EnWorld's.

 

[heapswife]

I don't think that anyone plans to shop primarily anywhere. Is there anyone who shops exclusively at Amazon for all of their sundry needs, book releated or otherwise? I doubt anyone is going to switch exclusively to the Enworld store, largely because, I doubt that they will carry every pdf which exists on the market. Just as I strongly doubt that RPGnow or Drivethru-rpg do.

Now, my only exposure to purchasing PDFs is through my husband, who shops at many different major storefronts and even a few obscure ones. Patently, he is probably an abnormal user. I just, as a consumer, feel slightly offended that you have such a low opinion of us (consumers) especially in this very specific market. Now, I'm not trying to be elitist, and if I come of that way I apologize in advance. But the person who mentioned before that they conduct market studies in their "day job" are doing so in a random sampling of the population (yes, everyone who has taken a course on research methods, cringe). But in the gaming community what you have is already a skewed sample. You're dealing with the second and third deviation of a standard distribution. You're dealing with professionals, with college-educated, or currently being college-educated individuals. Your entire sample is the smallest fraction of what would normally occur in a random sampling.

The people who come here are more than versatile enough to recognize that you're probably offering your product at RPG now, even if you don't say so. You can never apply the generalities of any study to an obscure, skewed group. It doesn't work. It's bad research application. So what I'm saying is this.... I guess. You are well within your rights to talk about the bottom line if you really think you'll be affected. But have you ever thought that maybe people don't even bother clicking on your link, and if they're interested by the press release might go directly to an outlet they're sure they'll find your product at? I mean really. Either this will work, and Morrus will be happy that enworld becomes self-sufficient, or it won't because everyone is more willing to give their money to RPG now. If your argument is that not being able to link to RPG in your press release HERE will in any way affect your sales... I'm sorry, but that doesn't seem realistic.

Now... at the risk of sounding overly critical, I think, Morrus, that you handled all of this in the worst possible way. There are so many differect tactics through which you could have garnered support for the enworld store from publishers. You could have sold your "product" and idea, and probably had their full cooperation, but instead you chose to take the most alienating and offensive route available. Instead of presenting it as a possible way to increase their sales, or making sure that you kept the enworld store separate from the enworld community, you shot yourself in the foot by legislating behavior that really shouldn't be tied to the community at all. I mean, it's done now, you can't undo the past. But maybe in the future you might consider that you aren't doing this alone, and it's the contributions of everyone that make a community worth being a part of.

 

[heapswife]

Well, at any given minute there are 1000+ people browsing the forums. But many, mny of them are 'guest' accounts. It is possible to read ENWorld without registering for an account.

But are we expecting them to be purchasing or merely lurking? Not to mention I don't hear anyone advocating leaving the storefronts you're already selling at.

 

[Steve Conan Trustrum]

I don't think that anyone plans to shop primarily anywhere. Is there anyone who shops exclusively at Amazon for all of their sundry needs, book releated or otherwise? I doubt anyone is going to switch exclusively to the Enworld store, largely because, I doubt that they will carry every pdf which exists on the market. Just as I strongly doubt that RPGnow or Drivethru-rpg do.

Some people will do it because of how they choose to make their payment. If you have to write out a money order every time you order online, you're likely going to consolidate at one place. People who pay fees on their card or electronic payment method (such as a Paypal account transfer) are also likely to try and consolidate to keep the fees down. And yes, while a typical shopper likes to look around for the best price, their are indeed shoppers who like to stick with one place for various reasons ranging from brand loyalty, laziness (they don't want to go through the bother of setting up a new account), etc.

I just, as a consumer, feel slightly offended that you have such a low opinion of us (consumers) especially in this very specific market.

It's not a low opinion. It's a realistic opinion. My job is observing how customers act and react in a given market so it's safe to say that I see this on a regular basis. Not every individual fits the bill, to be sure, but I think people would be rather shocked to learn some of the more ... unusual ... things that a typical consumer will base a purchase on, or use as a basis to decide upon where to buy. For example, a majority of customers consider a product's appearance to be a larger part of their decision for purchasing personal electronics than actual functionality--they have a habit of turning away from the better product because something else appears better to them. That's not an insult meant to give slight to you or anyone else, but it is a simple matter of fact--most things that a layman assumes about themselves and other people as consumers are blatantly false due to rose-colored glasses of self-bias.

But the person who mentioned before that they conduct market studies in their "day job"

That would be me.

are doing so in a random sampling of the population (yes, everyone who has taken a course on research methods, cringe). But in the gaming community what you have is already a skewed sample. You're dealing with the second and third deviation of a standard distribution. You're dealing with professionals, with college-educated, or currently being college-educated individuals. Your entire sample is the smallest fraction of what would normally occur in a random sampling.

Sorry, but you're making large assumptions here. You're operating under the rather unproven assumption that gamers diverge from the norm in this regard. For your point to stand, you first have to prove that gamers are more likely to be professionals, college-educated, etc. than the random people. Following that, I'd also point out that you're forgetting an important fact: most consumer studies actually break down groups into education and economic demographics so as to be able to compare market penetration across the spectrum and not just in general, as would be the case with entirely random sampling. Knowing that, I can also assure you that in the terms that we've been talking here, such demographics have only a minimal amount of affect on what we're talking about. College-educated and professionals, for instance, are not any less likely to be impulse shoppers.

The people who come here are more than versatile enough to recognize that you're probably offering your product at RPG now, even if you don't say so.

When selling a product, a cardinal rule is never assume your customer will fill in the blanks for themselves as far as product information goes. True that a good many who have been here for a while would likely go "oh, Company X, I seem to recall they sell at Y" but does that extend for the people who don't recognize the company and where they sell, such as would be the case with a brand new company? What about first time buyers who aren't aware of what storefronts are out there selling game PDFs? Again, you're operating under a great deal of assumption as to what a consumer knows, let alone how they'll act, and someone who actually makes money based on what a customer does or does not know is unlikely to want to risk that if they don't have to.

You can never apply the generalities of any study to an obscure, skewed group. It doesn't work. It's bad research application.

EnWorld would be skewed in some respects if I were to conduct research here, true, because they are not representative of the typical gamer. Most will, however, be representative of the typical consumer, in the general sense, for reasons previously pointed out. Keep in mind, being a gamer does not affect one's general purchasing trends or decisions--"gamer" isn't some sort of special consumer awareness training, so looking at people here in this context and saying "but they're gamers!' rather than just accepting them as consumers is a big mistake.

So what I'm saying is this.... I guess. You are well within your rights to talk about the bottom line if you really think you'll be affected. But have you ever thought that maybe people don't even bother clicking on your link, and if they're interested by the press release might go directly to an outlet they're sure they'll find your product at?

Yep, which is why it's a good thing that the largest vendor I sell at has a referencing system so that I can tell how many people buying my product come from here, my own site, RPG.net, etc. While the data isn't 100%, because someone traveling from here could do something to reset this reference data before actually making the purchase, it is valid enough to get a general picture of who is coming from where to make purchases. So no, this information is not coming out of the dark, blindly.

I mean really. Either this will work, and Morrus will be happy that enworld becomes self-sufficient, or it won't because everyone is more willing to give their money to RPG now. If your argument is that not being able to link to RPG in your press release HERE will in any way affect your sales... I'm sorry, but that doesn't seem realistic.

Except actual tracking data provided by customer purchases says otherwise.

 

[Steve Conan Trustrum]

But are we expecting them to be purchasing or merely lurking? Not to mention I don't hear anyone advocating leaving the storefronts you're already selling at.

Consider this: to physical stores provide display cases facing the sidewalk to appeal to the people already in the store or to people passing by or "lurking" outside?

A large part of marketing isn't just selling to an existing customer base--it's displaying an appeal that will grow that customer base.