It worked incredibly well actually. WOTC said 4e's initial sales, in the first year, outsold both the 3.0e and 3.5e first year sales. And the sales for both 3.0e and 3.5e blew through all their expectations at the time. So, in sum, it worked well.
Agreed.
The problem with 4e was it didn't appeal to enough people, once they actually did play it. It did not sustain enough of those players who initially tried it out.
I might amend that to, "4e did not keep as many players as they expected it to." The problem could have been in the game, or the expectations, or both. Not knowing much about the expectations, we cannot really say. Given that there's estimates that the subscribers were in the tens of thousands (so, not at all shabby), I have to at least question whether the expectations set may have been unreasonable for *any* game to meet.
But that's not a marketing issue - if it's not a game you like once you try it, no amount of marketing will convince you otherwise.
Agreed.
Now I agree WOTC will do more marketing for 5e than they did for either 4e or 3e. But, I think you're incorrect in saying word of mouth has no substantial impact, or that it did not work well for 4e. I also do not think they will be using the DDI method as the primary means of selling the product - you will see plenty of print with this edition.
Probably correct. I also agree with billd91 - it occurs to me that the drought of 4e products in the run-up to the new edition may be a good thing, as more groups may be more willing to switch over immediately.