On the marketing of 4E
- Thread starter thecasualoblivion
- Start date
Yes, they violated some basic marketing practices. Violating basic marketing practices can be a very effective marketing practice. See: Dana White.
Perram
Explorer
As with any form of art (and I consider marketing an art, indeed): Yes, you can break the rules, but you better have a really good reason for doing so. And the result better be worth it.
4e's marketing for its launch was not a wild success.
Or are you arguing that it was handled correctly?
Hey, folks? You know, getting in each others faces is really not going to get you anywhere useful.
Beating on WotC for mistakes that have been hashed and rehashed ad nauseum is again, not particularly constructive.
So, let's try phrasing this in a positive mode, hm?
Beating on WotC for mistakes that have been hashed and rehashed ad nauseum is again, not particularly constructive.
So, let's try phrasing this in a positive mode, hm?
BryonD
Hero
For me personally, no.
For the big picture, I think they lost some interest before they got a fair look. And some fraction of that group would have been players in a different universe.
But I don't think it was a huge impact.
I think mostly final choices were made more on the game than the chatter. And the marketing mistakes were in line with the design philosophy, so the ore one liked 4E, the less is bothered them and the less one liked 4e the more it bothered them. The displeasure was biased toward non-fans in the first place.
The end of Dungeon and Dragon (and yes, they are gone, a name does not define a product) may be an exception to this, and may have lost some otherwise happy players. I have no idea how significant that is.
For the big picture, I think they lost some interest before they got a fair look. And some fraction of that group would have been players in a different universe.
But I don't think it was a huge impact.
I think mostly final choices were made more on the game than the chatter. And the marketing mistakes were in line with the design philosophy, so the ore one liked 4E, the less is bothered them and the less one liked 4e the more it bothered them. The displeasure was biased toward non-fans in the first place.
The end of Dungeon and Dragon (and yes, they are gone, a name does not define a product) may be an exception to this, and may have lost some otherwise happy players. I have no idea how significant that is.
JoeGKushner
Adventurer
The real question to me, is does it matter.
And apparently the answer is no.
WoTC will do as it wills.
I remember when they were talking about selling PDFs of the books with some type of code in the physical books for a dollar or two. I could go on about poor product support for the Dragonborn via the miniature line, or PDF support, or any one of other numerous bits but really, is it going to change the way WoTC does business?
No.
And until I and others stop paying for the new material, I expect that WoTC will keep using it's choke hold on the D&D brand to continue to push through what I preceive as piss poor marketing skills.
And apparently the answer is no.
WoTC will do as it wills.
I remember when they were talking about selling PDFs of the books with some type of code in the physical books for a dollar or two. I could go on about poor product support for the Dragonborn via the miniature line, or PDF support, or any one of other numerous bits but really, is it going to change the way WoTC does business?
No.
And until I and others stop paying for the new material, I expect that WoTC will keep using it's choke hold on the D&D brand to continue to push through what I preceive as piss poor marketing skills.
I know who he is and that he's president of and partial owner (about 10%) of UFC, but I'm not aware of his marketing practices at all. Got any of the hows and whys?
Even if he violates 1 or 2 and succeeds, you have to know why, because breaking the rules is an exceedingly risky thing to do. See the ash-heap of business.
4Ed's rollout violated several in short succession. It still succeeded because they attracted a large number of new players- many of whom were not even targeted by the practices in question- largely because of the first axiom of marketing:
Being the first player in a given market is the #1 correlative factor deciding the success or failure of a business.
That's not the sole reason. You still have to manage your brand. But being first is the single most crucial factor.
D&D is the first commercial RPG. It has the name recognition. It has it to such an extent that its name is synonymous with the hobby as a whole.
And with D&D coming off of one of its most successful economic periods, with a product that revolutionized the hobby, only a completely disastrous marketing campaign would have scuttled 4Ed. 3.X was a 600lb gorilla- a successor product was going to be big. The only question was how big.
(Currently, I'd say its about 675lbs.)
Last edited:
thecasualoblivion
First Post
I fully admit the marketing wasn't optimal, but I still think it wouldn't have made much of a difference. Even with perfect marketing, those whose personal preferences weren't catered to by 4E's design still would have been alienated. Very few non-adopters say that they liked 4E but were turned off by WotC's marketing. I've seen it once or thrice, but its very rare.
There were people on these very boards who said they were unlikely to buy 4Ed because of the non-renewal of licenses to Paizo for the magazines, and the cessation of the Dragonlance license, etc. Some even called for a boycott.
The announcement of class & race exclusions was a detriment. From a marketing standpoint, it was a tactic that could only hurt sales. Why? Because that announcement turned off people for whom those excluded features meant their favorite race or class was gone, or that their campaign was non-convertible. By simply staying silent as to those changes, that group - or a portion thereof (esp. those who pre-ordered the books)- would not have known about the unpalatable change until after the product was in their hands. There was, in addition, no indication that for those who viewed these changes positively that it was a selling point. IOW, while they may have liked the racial or class changes, those changes were not a deciding factor in whether they intended to buy the game. More often than not, people cited dissatisfaction with 3.X in general or certain mechanical changes as being more important selling points for the new edition.
And while better marketing may not have converted anyone to 4Ed, it probably would have meant more sales. Those sales would be to people who might have bought the game and still not converted, but for being turned off by the marketing campaign.
The announcement of class & race exclusions was a detriment. From a marketing standpoint, it was a tactic that could only hurt sales. Why? Because that announcement turned off people for whom those excluded features meant their favorite race or class was gone, or that their campaign was non-convertible. By simply staying silent as to those changes, that group - or a portion thereof (esp. those who pre-ordered the books)- would not have known about the unpalatable change until after the product was in their hands. There was, in addition, no indication that for those who viewed these changes positively that it was a selling point. IOW, while they may have liked the racial or class changes, those changes were not a deciding factor in whether they intended to buy the game. More often than not, people cited dissatisfaction with 3.X in general or certain mechanical changes as being more important selling points for the new edition.
And while better marketing may not have converted anyone to 4Ed, it probably would have meant more sales. Those sales would be to people who might have bought the game and still not converted, but for being turned off by the marketing campaign.
Similar Threads
