Modules, it turns out, apparently DO sell

[Azgulor]

How many pages of adventures they have produced does not give us much information on how well they sold, or how much profit they made for them. All we know is that it was enough for them to continue making the products.

True. However, unless Paizo's leadership has been taking stupid pills, it seem highly unlikely that they'd continue to produce (and in such volume) products that don't sell.

Paizo blogs, postings to their forums, etc. have clearly indicated that the APs are their best-selling product. While they may no be the original module format, they're still adventures.

 

[Umbran]

Paizo is a fluke, in terms of success in this industry. Not because they have not worked hard at that success but because there were a number of coincidences that they were able to aptly exploit.

Given the number of companies who have what we'd call major success in the industry (TSR/WotC, White Wolf, Steve Jackson Games, Paizo - others?), over the decades is small, it might be said that they're all flukes.

 

[Azgulor]

Don't get me wrong, Paizo puts out some outstanding work, and for a few years I was a subscriber to their Adventure Paths, but would they be as successful selling adventures if they had not had the exposure they got from publishing Dungeon and Dragon magazines?

The position that adventures sell well for Paizo, does not automagically translate to adventures sell well for everyone that puts out adventures, or even very good adventures. The exposure to the market is in part what made Paizo successful.

Of course, the exposure from Dungeon & Dragon helped. It's also irrelevant. Didn't WotC stand upon the shoulders of 1st & 2nd edition D&D when they released 3e?

Looking at TSR, 1e grew the company & the mismanagement during the 2e days killed it. What came before was no indicator of future success.

The point the OP is making is that, regardless of the circumstances that set up the situation, Paizo appears to be disproving the "accepted truth" that modules don't sell.

Personally, I chalk the "modules don't sell" belief to subjective analysis. True, modules sell to a smaller market (DMs vs. players). They cost less and therefore earn less profit. So for a company like WotC, it doesn't make business sense for them to invest in that vs. rulebooks. For a smaller company like Paizo, it might be a viable business model.

I think that, in typical WotC fashion, when those statements were made they were wisely trying to make their point and move on rather than get ensnared in a debate. My personal belief is the more accurate statement is "Modules don't sell enough for us (WotC) to expend resources on them." It's apparently held true for other companies as well.

Clearly, Paizo disagrees but more importantly, they're showing the lie in the statement. Can every publisher produce Paizo-quality modules? Obviously, no. But is there a market for high-quality modules? Clearly, yes.

 

[TarionzCousin]

Eleven posts in and nobody has misspelled the company name as "Piazo" yet?

Whoa.

 

[Fifth Element]

How many pages of adventures they have produced does not give us much information on how well they sold, or how much profit they made for them. All we know is that it was enough for them to continue making the products.

Modules don't sell as much as rules. Generally, if you invest 10 bucks, you'll get a better return on that if you develop rules and not modules.

These are important points, because I don't think anyone just argues that "modules don't sell" without any context. Of course they sell, it's just a question of whether they sell enough to justify the company making them to make more. And the answer to that depends on the specific company in question.

So it is entirely possible for modules to sell enough for Paizo to make more, while not selling enough for Wizards to continue to make more.

Eleven posts in and nobody has misspelled the company name as "Piazo" yet?

I noticed that too, TaroinzCousin.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

I'm less certain that the generalization that modules do sell is accurate, but I think it can be concluded that a well-supported setting with quality material and a good business model can be successful.

 

[Imaro]

Another issue is that adventures might sell well for Paizo, due in part to their outstanding work with Dungeon and Dragon before those two publications went electronic. However, how well are adventures selling for all those 3rd party publishers for PFRPG?

Paizo is a fluke, in terms of success in this industry. Not because they have not worked hard at that success but because there were a number of coincidences that they were able to aptly exploit.

Don't get me wrong, Paizo puts out some outstanding work, and for a few years I was a subscriber to their Adventure Paths, but would they be as successful selling adventures if they had not had the exposure they got from publishing Dungeon and Dragon magazines?

The position that adventures sell well for Paizo, does not automagically translate to adventures sell well for everyone that puts out adventures, or even very good adventures. The exposure to the market is in part what made Paizo successful.

I sincerely congratulate them because they have done an outstanding job.

Emphasis mine: I just wanted to say that exposure in and of itself is not a good or bad thing, Paizo could have easily fumbled the ball with the magazines and their later adventures... and had a wider audience learn about it because they were connected to Dungeon and Dragon magazine.

I mean honestly D&D has more exposure than any other rpg... yet they're recent adventures have received a lukewarm to chilly reception by many of their own fans... thus supporting the whole "adventures don't sell" meme for WotC... which should probably be changed to ... "Poor and mediocre adventures don't sell, while exceptional adventures sell exceptionally well.", or something like that.

 

[DaveMage]

Also - check out the font size on the Paizo products.

They really, really pack in the content.



My only fear is that their workload may lead to burnout amongst the staff...

 

[DaveMage]

I mean honestly D&D has more exposure than any other rpg... yet they're recent adventures have received a lukewarm to chilly reception by many of their own fans... thus supporting the whole "adventures don't sell" meme for WotC... which should probably be changed to ... "Poor and mediocre adventures don't sell, while exceptional adventures sell exceptionally well.", or something like that.

Well, to be fair, I think some of it is profit targets. Sales requirements at WotC are likely much greater to consider a product "successful" than at Paizo.

Paizo may want sales to show a solid profit, while WotC may demand that sales show a huge profit. No huge profit may = no success at WotC.

 

[Fifth Element]

Well, to be fair, I think some of it is profit targets. Sales requirements at WotC are likely much greater to consider a product "successful" than at Paizo.

Paizo may want sales to show a solid profit, while WotC may demand that sales show a huge profit. No huge profit may = no success at WotC.

That's basically right, but I think it's not a great characterization. It's not necessarily that the profit has to be huge just because they want huge profits. It's a business decision that needs to be made.

It's not enough that a module sells. The question is, does it sell enough to justify the company's resources being invested in it, when they could be invested elsewhere? That's the opportunity cost of a product. You need to consider how much money you could be making with another product in order to determine if making the module is worthwhile.