GAMA's Communications Manager Declares Organization 'Broken'

As reported by ICv2, the Marketing and Communications manager of the Game Manufacturer's Association--a US-based trade organization for the hobby games industry--has resigned her position and described GAMA as "deeply siloed and in many ways, broken."

Formed in 1977, GAMA runs the Origins Game Fair every year, one of the larger tabletop gaming conventions, as well as the industry trade show GAMA EXPO. Additionally, the organization presents the annual Origins Awards for tabletop gaming. The organization provides business support and industry-focused educational programs and includes publishers, retailers, distributors, freelancers, and more in its members.

Amy Lowe joined GAMA in October 2024. In her resignation letter, she made a range of allegations about the organization:

But here's the honest truth: GAMA is deeply siloed and, in many ways, broken.

• Toxic leadership.
• Rampant gatekeeping.
• Insecurity masquerading as control.
• Disrespect toward other staff and members.

I witnessed staff roll their eyes at members, members who literally fund the organization. I saw internal dynamics that were petty, power-hungry, and counterproductive. Then came a restructuring that had me reporting to someone who openly disrespected colleagues and talked s#!% about members.

I've worked in high-stakes environments. I've managed massive campaigns. I've dealt with complex teams. But I refuse to stay in a place that values ego over impact. So, I resigned, two days into the restructure.

When they reached out, ICv2 received a response from John Stacy, Executive Director of GAMA:

Over the past eight months GAMA has nearly doubled its staff to accommodate for our growing association. We now represent almost 1,700 tabletop game companies in three dozen countries. As part of this growth we have taken a hard look at how our staff was organized and made adjustments to better align with our ten year strategic plan for GAMA to be the epicenter of the tabletop industry. While I disagree with her categorization of our staff, we appreciate the brief time she was with us and wish her well in her future adventures.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Show the receipts, or be quiet.

Or maybe she's making a calculated risk about how far she can stick her neck out. It's possible that the receipts would be enough to get her sued for defamation but not enough to save her (you can't defame someone with the truth, assuming that you can prove it's the truth).

I'm not sure we can reasonably ask other people to stick their necks out to our satisfaction, no more, no less. It's her life and her risk.

 

[Nightfly]

We, the the public, have zero right to see their dirty laundry.

As the old joke goes: who is we, kemosabe?

I don't have any right, because I'm not a game manufacturer. But what about the people who are? We probably have some reading this very thread. Don't they have a right to know what this organization is doing in their name? This is a trade association, not a normal private business.

 

[Bill Zebub]

As the old joke goes: who is we, kemosabe?

I don't have any right, because I'm not a game manufacturer. But what about the people who are? We probably have some reading this very thread. Don't they have a right to know what this organization is doing in their name? This is a trade association, not a normal private business.

Then she should have communicated privately to those members of the organization.

 

[kigmatzomat]

Then she should have communicated privately to those members of the organization.

At the point of messaging 1,700 member businesses, it is essentially a public post.

There is no way that some of those members wouldn't forward/post the email on ENWorld or other game news sites. But then it would be hear-say and the story becomes "is it real"? This way it's an authenticated message and the story is "is it factual."

 

[Justice and Rule]

You make a public post like this because other avenues have failed and this puts the organization on the spot rather than letting them smooth things over in private (which is way easier than in public). It also signals to people who might want to report on it to start looking in. Don't understand why someone would be angry at a person pointing out the problems of an organization rather than the organization itself.

 

[Bill Zebub]

At the point of messaging 1,700 member businesses, it is essentially a public post.

There is no way that some of those members wouldn't forward/post the email on ENWorld or other game news sites. But then it would be hear-say and the story becomes "is it real"? This way it's an authenticated message and the story is "is it factual."

Who cares if a bunch of gamers debate whether it's real or hear-say? The organizations who would have received a private message...that is, the only people who actually matter...would know.

This wasn't public-service whistleblowing. It was an unprofessional rant. Even if it's all true.

I will predict that she is going to regret posting that.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Don't understand why someone would be angry at a person pointing out the problems of an organization rather than the organization itself.

I assume you meant "...rather than AT the organization itself."

I would guess the executive director at GAMA is probably pretty angry with her, but I thought his public response did a good job not showing it. I'm not sure who else might be angry with her. But I don't think anybody who learns about this would offer her a job.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Who cares if a bunch of gamers debate whether it's real or hear-say? The organizations who would have received a private message...that is, the only people who actually matter...would know.

Yeah, but that means they can privately respond, too. There's significantly less pressure, especially from the outside. Putting out a public statement feels like it not only indicates the severity of problems (because such a response is very unusual and has the potential for blowback, thus indicating they felt it was necessary despite the risks), but also that it gets outside organizations, like potentially interested reporters and such, to start looking in.

This wasn't public-service whistleblowing. It was an unprofessional rant. Even if it's all true.

I will predict that she is going to regret posting that.

I don't see how it's any different, to be honest. "Unprofessional rant" feels like you are taking it way more personally than the post actually makes of it.

I assume you meant "...rather than AT the organization itself."

I would guess the executive director at GAMA is probably pretty angry with her, but I thought his public response did a good job not showing it. I'm not sure who else might be angry with her. But I don't think anybody who learns about this would offer her a job.

Yeah, but that doesn't really concern me? I'm more confused by you talking about "airing dirty laundry". If someone is making a stand and putting this stuff out there (Which is largely consistent with what has been said before), what exactly is wrong with that?

 

[Bill Zebub]

Yeah, but that means they can privately respond, too. There's significantly less pressure, especially from the outside. Putting out a public statement feels like it not only indicates the severity of problems (because such a response is very unusual and has the potential for blowback, thus indicating they felt it was necessary despite the risks), but also that it gets outside organizations, like potentially interested reporters and such, to start looking in.

I don't see how it's any different, to be honest. "Unprofessional rant" feels like you are taking it way more personally than the post actually makes of it.

Yeah, but that doesn't really concern me? I'm more confused by you talking about "airing dirty laundry". If someone is making a stand and putting this stuff out there (Which is largely consistent with what has been said before), what exactly is wrong with that?

Oh, it has zero effect on me. I'm not personally offended or anything. This has nothing to do with me. I'm just rolling my eyes at this whole "noble whistleblower taking a moral stand" nonsense.

Y'all are just gossiping and pretending it's important citizen journalism.

But, gossip on...

 

[Justice and Rule]

Oh, it has zero effect on me. I'm not personally offended or anything. This has nothing to do with me. I'm just rolling my eyes at this whole "noble whistleblower taking a moral stand" nonsense.

Y'all are just gossiping and pretending it's important citizen journalism.

But, gossip on...

I don't think anyone thinks it's as much a "noble whistleblower" as much as they see value in putting this in the public, rather than trying to hide it or calling it "unprofessional". Just find it very weird to frame it as such when one has no stake in the organization or its reputation, because the only reason you'd do it in private would be for the organization's benefit.