[UPDATED] DM's Guild No Longer Allows Creator Logos On Product Covers

The Dungeon Master's Guild - the WotC/DTRPG-run storefront where fans can sell their own D&D content - has updated it terms to clarify that creators cannot put their own logos on the covers of their products. The only permitted logo is the DM's Guild logo itself.

​

It should be noted that creators can still put their own logo inside their products. The DMs Guild terms have been updated to reflect this.

Can I use the D&D logo on my DMs Guild title?

The only logo you can use in your title is the DMs Guild logo [found here]

Custom logos and other variations of existing logos are not allowed


​

The policy change, seen in the image above, was (oddly) announced in a private DM's Guild Fan Club Facebook group owned by David Russell. Fortunately EN World member MerricB screenshot some of the replies to questions.

("CCC" means "Con Created Content")
​

The policy will be applied for new products, but will not be enforced retroactively on existing products

DMs Guild is a popular way for fans to sell PDF content in exchange for a 50% royalty on sales of their product, along with an exclusivity agreement, and allows access to settings such as the Forgotten Realms. It's a model which has inspired a number of other publisher-led fan stores from companies like Monte Cook Games, Chaosium, even my own little EN Publishing.

Generally speaking, at a quick glance, most covers don't have much by way of personal branding - sometimes a small logo, or a line name like the Power Score RPG PDF shown below. One of the items below has D&D Beyond branding on it, and it would be interesting to see if the policy applies to that product. However, it does seem like this will make it more difficult for small companies or groups using different authors to build a following on the site; individual authors, on the other hand, should find it easier.

Last year, WotC announced a new policy where they promote a group of ten or so DMs Guild authors; these were called the "DMs Guild Adepts", who they give special attention to in marketing, podcasts, and so on, along with their own special gold branding logo. This was initially promoted as a way of sorting quality product from the thousands of items on the store.

OBS' Jason Bolte commented on the reasons for the change:

"There are a number of reasons for the change, and it’s something we’ve discussed internally for a while now. One impetus is to be consistent across all of our community creation platforms. Another reason is to have clearer rules that we can enforce given our existing resources.

The DMs Guild logo we provide is intended to satisfy a lot of the messaging that others logos would normally do. First, it signifies that the product is a member of the wonderful community that is the DMs Guild. Second, it signals that the product is for the Dungeons & Dragons game. We have provided it to this amazing group specifically for those reasons.

The problem comes with the other branding, which often trends toward copyright infringement or trademark violations. Variations on the Dungeons & Dragons logo, the D&D branding, other DMs Guild logos, etc are common on new titles coming into the site. As we see more and more permutations, the lines get fuzzier and grayer, and it’s difficult for us to keep up and enforce. And since we’re dealing with intellectual property, branding, and trademarks in a retail setting, there are a number of reasons for us to find clear and enforceable rules for creators both old and new.

So those are some of the many reasons a for the change in policy. We are always evaluating the site and watching its evolution, and we will continue to update our policies as the site grows and the community it makes more and more excellent content."

I've added some more information from the private Facebook group, since this information will be useful to anybody who uses the DMs Guild. Answers below are from OBS employees Jason Bolte and Matt McElroy.

• Can a text brand be included? "...yes, text is still fine, as long it does not approach branded text." (I'm not sure what that means).
• Is the logo mandatory? "We’re still heavily encouraging that people use that logo. It’s not mandatory at this time, but we will evaluate that policy as well"
• Does this only apply to community created content, or to Con-Created Content? "It only applies to community created content"
• Are the red "D&D sashes" OK? "I’d say they’re ok as long as they’re not used as branding. Namely, don’t try to emulate or make a spinoff of WotC logos. If you use the sashes as a byline, that should be fine (Written by xxx).... In my estimation, as long as the red sash is not used in a stylistic manner to promote a brand, it is fine. Once you start using it as a brand, then there are issues. If you don’t know if you’re using it correctly, then ask!"
• Is this actually new? "There has never been a time were D&D logos have been allowed on the covers. The only logo that was allowed before today is the same one that was only allowed previously. What we’re attempting to make more clear is that logos like “Bob’s Gaming Company” are not allowed on covers."
• Followup to above: "Basically the rules for community content have always been there. I was just bad at enforcing them and the FAQ wasn’t helpful, it actually made things more confusing. Adventurers League is not part of the community content program and has its own templates, rules and administration."
• About Fantasy Grounds. "FG logo is allowed on FG titles, we’re going to add a section to the FAQ linking to the FG section of the FAQ and clarifying that."

Florian Emmerich asked about the product depicted below. OBS' Jason Bolte confirmed that "If you’re asking about the P. B. Publishing Presents part, then yes, that would be would qualify as what we don’t want on the cover".

[FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT]​

 

[Steve Conan Trustrum]

I feel like my understanding of Paizo's history is a lot different than yours. My impression is that experience with the Dragon and Dungeon mags did far more to propel Paizo than any OGL vs. d20 quibbles.

First off, what you call "quibbles" I call "the actual legal documents that determined how products using WotC's IP at the time were REQUIRED to be published." Those "quibbles" actually sunk a few publishers when they got them wrong.

And Dragon and Dungeon magazines, you say?

Those wouldn't happen to be two magazines entirely identified with WotC brands, would they? Kinda like the only reason Paizo gained any traction with the magazines is because they jumped in with an recognized brand with an established market behind them instead of having to release their own unique brands for their own magazines and then having to build those brands from scratch. Something like that?

And Paizo is making more money off of the OGL and Pathfinder than they did off of Dragon and Dungeon. Ask gamers today what they associate with Paizo, and do you think your most likely answer is Dragon and Dungeon magazines, or Pathfinder?

And now frame those answers in terms of the fact that all three are BRANDS.

From there, consider if the answers would have been the same -- if Paizo would even be the same company -- if they hadn't been able to release Pathfinder product with their own branding on the covers, especially given they would already be limited by the venue through which the product could be release through (one entirely branded towards their strongest market competition.)

Hmmmmmm ... now I wonder if any of that has any relevancy to my point about building brand loyalty for 3pp and how it affects the established audiences they've built behind those brands when they can't display those brands on the key visual for selling their 5e product ...

 

[Steve Conan Trustrum]

Don't forget that it took WotC FOREVER to come out with the srd and license for 4e. And the first license was DoA.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

Except 4e compatible product was already coming out at that point.

They simply weren't branded with what would later become the official logos, license, etc.

But it was there in the market.

I wonder why people don't seem to remember those "unofficially compatible," unbranded 4e 3pp products too well ... ?

 

[Morrus]

And Dragon and Dungeon magazines, you say?

Those wouldn't happen to be two magazines entirely identified with WotC brands, would they? Kinda like the only reason Paizo gained any traction with the magazines is because they jumped in with an recognized brand with an established market behind them instead of having to release their own unique brands for their own magazines and then having to build those brands from scratch. Something like that?

Yeah, as I understand it, it was a unique situation where they got to keep the subscriptions of the magazines and transfer them over to Pathfinder subscriptions. It wasn't so much the brand ("Pathfinder" was new) it was the actual database of customers. A situation which can't ever happen again.

 

[Mistwell]

Because my company's BRAND is important to its BRANDING.

In a store, sure. But the name of the studio in big text IS the most important aspect of branding for that DMs Guild forum, given how incredibly difficult it is to see any other type of branding. So while the brand is important, the claim that the tiny symbol on the tiny image is a meaningful part of the brand for that source of sales seems unlikely to me. And as others have reported in this thread, when they did experiments with their brand symbol and no brand symbol for their products in that forum, it made almost no difference in their sales - and absolutely was completely eclipsed by much more important factors like sales and being highlighted by the site itself and the name of the author/company in the text.

So how do you know the tiny symbol in the tiny image is an important part of your brand for that particular forum...and mind you it's those last three words which are the essence of my argument - For That Particular Forum.

Your brain is a complex thing. It recognizes images like a logo faster than it understands text while scanning through product listings. It will identify and focus on a recognized logo faster than it can make sense of words. So, if you're a satisfied customer loyal to the Misfit Studios brand (for example), you're going to stop scanning when your brain perceives my logo even if you're not making a conscious effort to read the publisher names on a cover.

I literally see NO brand symbols on those tiny images when I scroll down, for ANY company. None. My brain, and others here report a similar experience, ignores them because they are too small. People certainly see the look of the cover overall, so a Dungeon Crawl Classic type cover with the bold solid color and the yellow strip in the upper left and the image centered with as bleed to the right and left is a distinct brand people can see on those covers. But the tiny symbol? Too small to be a brain trigger for most people. It's just not a good forum to display those branding symbols.

Just think of this forum as an example. If you were looking for one of my posts in a long thread, would you more easily identify it if I have, say ... my logo as my account avatar or the (non-searchable) words "Misfit Studios"?

Great example actually. Look at the size of your avatar and now compare it side by side with the tiny image of the cover. Note the cover displayed (the entire cover) takes up almost the same space as your avatar - the ENTIRE cover. So when you see the avatar, do you see a tiny little symbol on it, or just the whole thing and it's color and shape? For me, and I think for most people, they see the shape and color, and don't dwell on a tiny element of it. For your avatar I see the aqua color and the general shape and I see that there are two letters in the shape but I don't even acknowledge what those letters are and I don't even notice there are bits outside the central shape (though the bits are roughly the size of a brand symbol). For mine I am sure people see the brown meatball in the middle and some vague color outside it but they don't look at the detail of those green areas and sure don't look to see if there is some symbol the size of the eye on the meatball. That's what we're talking about here with your brand symbol in those little images. They're just too small to offer an opportunity for brains to identify your brand symbol rather than the cover overall.

 

[Schmoe]

And Dragon and Dungeon magazines, you say?

Those wouldn't happen to be two magazines entirely identified with WotC brands, would they? Kinda like the only reason Paizo gained any traction with the magazines is because they jumped in with an recognized brand with an established market behind them instead of having to release their own unique brands for their own magazines and then having to build those brands from scratch. Something like that?

Absolutely. They were given the keys to an established distribution vehicle with a dedicated fan base, and then did great things with it. That was a huge factor in their success.

Hmmmmmm ... now I wonder if any of that has any relevancy to my point about building brand loyalty for 3pp and how it affects the established audiences they've built behind those brands when they can't display those brands on the key visual for selling their 5e product ...

Snark aside, you have a good point that being able to build brand association between Paizo and the magazines really helped their transition to an independent publisher. I don't think it tells the full story, though, and seriously doubt that WotC is concerned about "the next Paizo" getting its start from DMs Guild.

 

[Steve Conan Trustrum]

In a store, sure. But the name of the studio in big text IS the most important aspect of branding for that DMs Guild forum, given how incredibly difficult it is to see any other type of branding. So while the brand is important, the claim that the tiny symbol on the tiny image is a meaningful part of the brand for that source of sales seems unlikely to me.

Not just in a store.

And a logo is key to advertising and communicating quality, as well as for recognition.

Here's the thing about a logo: it travels with the visuals. So, when someone likes a product on OBS, and they share it socially, that brand travels to whatever social media platform it goes to. No matter what someone writes in their social media post, that brand is right there, in the image. It goes wherever the post goes. It's enhancing brand awareness.

Every single product becomes an ambassador

Do you know what happens if there's no logo?

The product cover goes wherever the social media post goes. The only thing being developed is awareness of that specific product.

And as others have reported in this thread, when they did experiments with their brand symbol and no brand symbol for their products in that forum, it made almost no difference in their sales - and absolutely was completely eclipsed by much more important factors like sales and being highlighted by the site itself and the name of the author/company in the text.

Sure, there are other factors.

But also keep in mind you're talking about all those other factors IN ADDITION to the logo being present. Cover art is extremely important for an impulse buy, for example, far more so than a logo. But for companies seeking out a particular brand?

They also aren't measuring how that branded logo factored into getting people there in the first place.

Also, considering how complex branding is, especially RE-branding, I'll just go out on a limb here and also add that it's likely that they weren't tracking metrics in properly controlled circumstances (e.g., split testing) and analysing their metrics appropriately. Simply because that's the sort of stuff that people who do it for a living struggle with, let alone game publishers who tend not to have business training, let alone marketing training. Because eye tracking studies have PROVEN that logo location on a product or ad affects attention.

So how do you know the tiny symbol in the tiny image is an important part of your brand for that particular forum...and mind you it's those last three words which are the essence of my argument - For That Particular Forum.

Because a customer is a customer is a customer, regardless of where you are buying. Other elements can mitigate outcomes, but they won't change how a lifetime of consumerism has trained a customer's brain to perceive and judge product.

Because are you going to tell me that seeing this:

"PEPSI"

on the side of a product has the same selling power as this:

View attachment 93576

I literally see NO brand symbols on those tiny images when I scroll down, for ANY company. None. My brain, and others here report a similar experience, ignores them because they are too small.

Yes, your brain does see them. It takes them in and absorbs what they mean to you based on previous purchasing experiences even though you don't realize it. Even if the logo is only able to HINT at a shape you'd recognize, your brain will create a subconscious connection. This is a long proven fact that has been explored many, many times, including eye tracking studies.

Your conscious mind doesn't recognize the individual frames inserted as subliminal messages into a film, for example, but your brain can still be influenced by them because it still perceives them and creates memory and meaning associations.

There are entire aspects of advertising and branding that revolve around your brain functioning like this. A simple change of colour to a seemingly inconsequential part of a product can dramatically shift sales.

Any time someone says that they don't notice branding or that branding is unimportant, I like to bring up this story:

I used to work in market research. I was present for a LOT of product testing, got to meet a lot of marketing people, etc. and find out how products were made. One of the clients at the last firm I worked for was Kraft. Kraft owns a lot of stuff. A woman I was dating at the time was a stickler for brands. She would always say that she wouldn't buy "no name" stuff because it was clearly inferior. I told her that the vast majority of "no name" brands are actually manufactured by big brands and sold to smaller companies on a manufacturing capacity rather than a brand licensing capacity. She didn't believe me. One day I was making a no name, ready-to-eat product and she refused to eat it. Her favourite was made by Kraft and she said the no name version was cardboard. Funny thing was, I got the product for free at a focus group where people were being asked to taste test the same two products -- not realizing, as my gf of the time didn't -- that it was the exact same product, except one was manufactured under license by Kraft, sans brand, for another company. EXACTLY the same. Yet my gf, and most of the focus group participants, swore they tasted different and that the Kraft was better.

THAT is the power of branding on the brain. That is why even a subtle implication of a brand that your subconscious recognizes has value to sales.

Great example actually. Look at the size of your avatar and now compare it side by side with the tiny image of the cover. Note the cover displayed (the entire cover) takes up almost the same space as your avatar - the ENTIRE cover. So when you see the avatar, do you see a tiny little symbol on it, or just the whole thing and it's color and shape? For me, and I think for most people, they see the shape and color, and don't dwell on a tiny element of it. That's what we're talking about here with your brand symbol in those little images.

Eye tracking studies show otherwise. Even at small sizes, heat maps show the eye is drawn to logos early on and is often returned to as an exit point because your brain wants to double check its perception even though you're not aware of it happening. This has led to advertising becoming incredibly technical and scientific in the use of shapes, colours, etc. and the psychological affects they have on your unaware perceptions.

 

[redrick]

I'm not a designer, but, as a consumer, this reinforces the idea that DM's Guild is not a place to go to get professional grade content. (Which may or may not be true, but that's been my gut instinct about the site since it first launched, and this reinforces that. I do regularly buy products from independent publishers and designers on DriveThru RPG.)

 

[Steve Conan Trustrum]

Absolutely. They were given the keys to an established distribution vehicle with a dedicated fan base, and then did great things with it. That was a huge factor in their success.

"Huge" is underselling it.

"THE" factor, is more like it.

Independent DnD magazines don't exactly do well, which is what Paizo would have been doing if they were operating under the DnD brand.

Snark aside, you have a good point that being able to build brand association between Paizo and the magazines really helped their transition to an independent publisher. I don't think it tells the full story, though, and seriously doubt that WotC is concerned about "the next Paizo" getting its start from DMs Guild.

When the d20 STL was still around, and there were groups where publishers got together with WotC employees and former employees to discuss it, the fact that products like Pathfinder came out was a big problem. People were creating things with the OGL and d20 STL that WotC hadn't anticipated, including creating competition for their own brands. The reason they released the OGL as royalty-free in the first place was because WotC expected the 3pp market to elevate their own sales and branding. They figured the 3pp market would be free advertising for their own products. That wasn't happening once companies used the OGL to create independent products that didn't even need the d20 STL anymore.

If you think WotC isn't concerned with the "Next Pathfinder" coming along, you've not been paying attention to the market since Pathfinder was released.

Of course WotC is concerned about Pathfinder. It took massive bites out of WotC's core market, to the point where DnD was no longer the big seller in the market it had dominated for 30 years. You don't think that's a problem they keep an eye on?

The entire DMs Guild mechanic is set up to prevent such a thing from happening. It not only requires all products be a monetization channel via royalties instead of being royalty free, but also limits how they can be presented to customers. And now it's preventing 3pp from adding their own branding to the product covers, which is the key selling visual, leaving only their own.

But you still think WotC isn't interested in controlling and limiting the 3pp market to prevent competition with their own brands?

 

[Steve Conan Trustrum]

I'm not a designer, but, as a consumer, this reinforces the idea that DM's Guild is not a place to go to get professional grade content. (Which may or may not be true, but that's been my gut instinct about the site since it first launched, and this reinforces that. I do regularly buy products from independent publishers and designers on DriveThru RPG.)

And this is EXACTLY the sort of perception I'm talking about.

When someone sees brands they recognize, they association previously realized quality with the new product they're seeing. The brand has meaning to them. This is known as brand loyalty, and is important when it comes to customers being willing to try out new, untested product.

No visible brand?

Well then, perceptions shift.

And the DnD brand on its own won't change this perception because it's on EVERY product there. It can't be used as a differentiator if the customer knows this and also knows there's no entry bar to who can sell there.

 

[Schmoe]

When the d20 STL was still around, and there were groups where publishers got together with WotC employees and former employees to discuss it, the fact that products like Pathfinder came out was a big problem. People were creating things with the OGL and d20 STL that WotC hadn't anticipated, including creating competition for their own brands. The reason they released the OGL as royalty-free in the first place was because WotC expected the 3pp market to elevate their own sales and branding. They figured the 3pp market would be free advertising for their own products. That wasn't happening once companies used the OGL to create independent products that didn't even need the d20 STL anymore.

If you think WotC isn't concerned with the "Next Pathfinder" coming along, you've not been paying attention to the market since Pathfinder was released.

I'll admit that I haven't been paying close attention since 4e. I kind of dropped out of the fan community for a while. So I'm certainly interested in learning!

Of course WotC is concerned about Pathfinder. It took massive bites out of WotC's core market, to the point where DnD was no longer the big seller in the market it had dominated for 30 years. You don't think that's a problem they keep an eye on?

The entire DMs Guild mechanic is set up to prevent such a thing from happening. It not only requires all products be a monetization channel via royalties instead of being royalty free, but also limits how they can be presented to customers. And now it's preventing 3pp from adding their own branding to the product covers, which is the key selling visual, leaving only their own.

But you still think WotC isn't interested in controlling and limiting the 3pp market to prevent competition with their own brands?

So, without knowing the full details, I get that. I'm sure WotC will try not to enable another Paizo in the same way, and I know that they're a lot more careful with licensing these days. But do you really think this latest move was because they felt like they needed to do more to hold the 3PP community back? I guess that's the part that has me confused, because I don't see how the recent (pre logo-removal) arrangement was really enabling any big competitors, or even had the potential to do so.