Advertorials with no game content in Dragon

[MKMcArtor]

I guess the question remains, was this in and of itself revenue generating, or in doing something like this you hope that other video game companies will pay to have you pimp their new product in a similar manner?

If it was an ad we would have marked it as such. We will not accept money from any company to promote their products except as clearly marked advertisements. We aren't going to mislead you. That is not in our best interest.

This piece is no different than any other First Watch piece. It's something we thought you guys might be interested in. Apparently we were wrong.

Believe it or not, even we make mistakes sometimes.

 

[Shade]

For exampel, we made Reality Simulations add the word "ad" to their advertisements when their ads started looking too much like comics. That was the ethical thing to do to prevent blurring the lines of ads and editorial. You may now lavish us with praise for making that decision.

That was a brilliant decision, and I'd like to send a case of e-beer your way to share with the Dragon staff.

(I honestly thought it was a new comic for awhile)

 

[Alzrius]

We never once intended the FFXII piece to be a review. We never once called it that. It is a preview.

Could this possibly matter less? This is a semantic difference consisting of exactly one letter. Given that the article was two pages long, and squeezed around a number of screenshots, it wouldn't be much different either way. Whether you call it a review or a preview, both are discussions of the various aspects of the game, with the author writing his opinions about those aspects. Despite what WizarDru said, it does discuss the merits of the game (though it doesn't mention any faults), talking about the graphics, controls, and whether or not D&D players would enjoy it. Those are all qualities found in a review. The only difference here is that this premiered prior to the official release of the game; if the article had released next month, we wouldn't be having a discussion over how to classify it.

And again, this inane sidebar only distracts from (what I feel is) the much more relevant question of why these articles are going to be serialized, but there won't be any D&D mechanical content. Why is it that, in four posts from four different people at Paizo, none of them have addressed this? I don't see why these can't be done exactly like Silicon Sorcery articles, where we're given some material from the game that can be of practical use in tabletop D&D play. There seems to be nothing to lose and (relatively) much to gain from formatting them that way. Is there another aspect to this that we, the readers, don't see? If so, Paizo, please enlighten us! For me, the question of video game articles with no D&D content is the real quandary here, and there's still no clear answer.

 

[jujutsunerd]

I guess the question remains, was this in and of itself revenue generating, or in doing something like this you hope that other video game companies will pay to have you pimp their new product in a similar manner?

At a guess it's six of one, and half a dozen of the other.

I'm hardly an expert on magazine ads, but I do have some experience with it as up until her retirement my mother handled ad sales for several niche magazines (education, history and archaeology) and as it was a family company, I was of course volunteered to assist.

The way I remember it, selling ads (well, the bigger/more profitable ones at least) to companies that weren't already customers usually meant sending them a sample mag or two, and then telling them of the articles in upcoming issues that would work nicely with their products. (Say, if there's an article about the origin of the events portrayed during Mediaval Week in Visby, it could be pitched to local hotels and restaurants, who were otherwise *very* unlikely to pay for ads in an archaeology magazine.)

Nothing so crass as the magazine staff planning for specific ad customers, but then again, the magazine staff were hardly unaware of the ad possibilities implied by certain subjects. And, of course, my mother told them what she had heard from ad clients (actual and potential) on what they wanted to see in the magazine in order for it to be interesting.

Of course, I haven't got a clue how Dragon/Dungeon magazines handle ad sales. I just wanted to exercise my FSM-given right to spout random information onto the internet.

/Jonas

 

[JoshuaFrost]

I think the comments by Josh Frost pretty much admit that it was a paid spot. In which case, it should have been noted as a "preview" not a "review." In the publishing world, these are two different things. A Preview is a marketing tool, a review is a (hopefully) objective look at the pros and cons of a product.

Granted, I have not seen the actual issue so I don't know the exact wording, but if it was plugged as a "review" and paid for, that is a bit unethical in my not-so-humble opinion.

It's unfortunate that my theoretical comments discussed after stating I was "just playing Devil's Advocate" have been taken this far from context.

I will unequivocally state it for the record:

This was **NOT** a paid advertorial. It was written by a Dragon First Watch contributor who has written video game reviews in the past and was paid for by Paizo. No content was cut in order to make this appear.

Give us some credit, folks. If it were an advertorial we'd state that it was.

My comment was attempting to state that this sort of coverage is good for the magazine because it can have the side effect of drawing in more video game advertising dollars. And let's face the facts boys and girls: the video game industry is the BILLION-dollar gorilla in the room. If they want to up their spending on my favorite magazine so that it can get additional quality content AND they're upping it because we're doing a tiny bit more video game coverage, I can't see how that's a bad thing.

Of course, you're all welcome to your opinions and everyone at Paizo listens carefully (and responds carefully) to your concerns. And, yes, I've heard your comments about Silicon Sorcery--they are noted and have been noted by the staff.

In one of the best issues of Dragon I've seen in years (The Horde FR Article, Ecology of the Ogre Mage, Bows & Crossbows, Savage Tidings, Damon Demonomicon) it worries me that because one of my comments has been repeatedly taken out of context that some people are threatening to leave the magazine. Two pages of video game content versus DOZENS pages of the above content? Where's the thread that talks about how awesome this issue was?

Mike's comments above are all good too. (I just noticed he commented.)

 

[Alzrius]

Two pages of video game content versus DOZENS pages of the above content? Where's the thread that talks about how awesome this issue was?

I believe that's this thread.

 

[Shade]

In one of the best issues of Dragon I've seen in years (The Horde FR Article, Ecology of the Ogre Mage, Bows & Crossbows, Savage Tidings, Damon Demonomicon) it worries me that because one of my comments has been repeatedly taken out of context that some people are threatening to leave the magazine. Two pages of video game content versus DOZENS pages of the above content? Where's the thread that talks about how awesome this issue was?

Right here.

 

[smootrk]

You guys at Dragon, Dungeon, and Paizo in general should not get too defensive. It is all just a departure from the norm, and quite possibly a poor decision in a magazine that caters to RPG's (and D&D almost exclusively). Just take the comments, adjust strategies, and move on. Getting overly defensive only fuels the debate, as there will always be folks to take the other side - and loudly at that.

I for one, love the issue otherwise... in fact, I have been diggin' the magazine for some time now. I hope the decision was only a hic-up and not an actual trend, but time will tell. I do believe that, in fact, you are looking for ways to improve the offerings.

Show us how this content improves our favorite magazine, and we will continue to show you our support.

 

[Hjorimir]

It's unfortunate that my theoretical comments discussed after stating I was "just playing Devil's Advocate" have been taken this far from context.

I will unequivocally state it for the record:

This was **NOT** a paid advertorial. It was written by a Dragon First Watch contributor who has written video game reviews in the past and was paid for by Paizo. No content was cut in order to make this appear.

Give us some credit, folks. If it were an advertorial we'd state that it was.

My comment was attempting to state that this sort of coverage is good for the magazine because it can have the side effect of drawing in more video game advertising dollars. And let's face the facts boys and girls: the video game industry is the BILLION-dollar gorilla in the room. If they want to up their spending on my favorite magazine so that it can get additional quality content AND they're upping it because we're doing a tiny bit more video game coverage, I can't see how that's a bad thing.

Of course, you're all welcome to your opinions and everyone at Paizo listens carefully (and responds carefully) to your concerns. And, yes, I've heard your comments about Silicon Sorcery--they are noted and have been noted by the staff.

In one of the best issues of Dragon I've seen in years (The Horde FR Article, Ecology of the Ogre Mage, Bows & Crossbows, Savage Tidings, Damon Demonomicon) it worries me that because one of my comments has been repeatedly taken out of context that some people are threatening to leave the magazine. Two pages of video game content versus DOZENS pages of the above content? Where's the thread that talks about how awesome this issue was?

Mike's comments above are all good too. (I just noticed he commented.)

1) Oustanding issue with great content
2) The article didn't bother me
3) We're not "boys and girls", we're your customers (at least I am as I have subscriptions to both of your publications)

 

[sjmiller]

If it was an ad we would have marked it as such. We will not accept money from any company to promote their products except as clearly marked advertisements. We aren't going to mislead you. That is not in our best interest.

This piece is no different than any other First Watch piece. It's something we thought you guys might be interested in. Apparently we were wrong.

Believe it or not, even we make mistakes sometimes.

Hey, that's actually what I think many people have wanted to hear. They want to know there's a lveel of integrity in how these columns are done. As you well know, appearance is everything. If it appears that you are just "pimping for profit" and nothing indicates otherwise, that is what people are going to think.

You know, we all make mistakes. I am sure you guys had the best of intentions with this. It just seems that you missed the mark. Luckily (?) you have a fan base that will tell you this.