Decline of RPG sales

[eyebeams]

Okay, so you've backed off your original claim to one of "straightforward competition", thereby nicely conceding the point while trying to hide the fact.

Glad we got that settled. Thanks!

Justin Alexander Bacon
http://www.thealexandrian.net

I'm curious, Justin: What did you think I was trying to say in the first place?

 

[eyebeams]

eyebeams, what I said about Justin not speaking that way toward other posters applies equally to you and to anyone else. If you cannot maintain a civil discourse, maybe you could take a couple days off?

In all seriousness, I'm not sure what point inspired you to say this. Unless, of course, saying that one shouldn't trust corporate reps doing their jobs unconditionally is tatamount to a personal attack. If it is, that is extraordinarily unfortunate since it basically destroys any critical discourse about WotC.

 

[eyebeams]

As a professional who deals with these sorts of things; since Enron and such: the likelyhood that Charles Ryan is lying or misleading is indeed excessively remote. Beyond remote. Why? Becasue the CFO, CEO and he himself will be legally liable (as in jail time, loosing of professional licenses (CPA, CFA, etc) and personal financial liabity). This also goes without saying the liability (legal and civil) of every officer of that company.

Theoretically, that sounds very comforting. Very theoretically.

But man: I find the idea that the post-Enron world features strictly honest corporate dealings and spin-free public relationships to be extremely silly. Perhaps that is not what you are trying to say, but that would be the natural outcome in a world where Charles Ryan could *not* apply spin to something as vague as the quip, "best year ever." Legally, whether deceit is actionable depends on whether a person could reasonably rely on it in such a manner as to have caused injury.

If Hasbro makes money for an investor but D&D isn't doing what that investor would call its "best ever" business (but another investor could argue was), is there any poential damage at all? Keep in mind that either way, people make money.

If the investor wanted to complain because Chyarles Ryan told some gamers that D&D was doing great and he assumed (despite the fact that Ryan said nothing of the sort) it was because the game was doing great and not because of internal reorganization and liability reduction it actually turned out to be, wwould he be taken seriously?

I'm sure the answer is "maybe," but "maybe" lots of things can happen that don't.

With something like a licensor there's a different story, but (as some may have forgotten), those lecenses already belong to somebody else and will do so for the next long while.

You don’t believe me; than why is it that corps now all have a brand spanking new high level executive position: Compliance Officer (who by the way gets smacked right after the CFO and CEO)?

To maximize profit as safely as possible. Why is it that corporations always tout such basic precautions as examples of aproactive ethical position, but when the screw up, argue that they have no ethical duties outside of the law? Oh yeah -- it's because of that theoretically impossible spin.

 

[SBMC]

Theoretically, that sounds very comforting. Very theoretically.

Really – sounds sort of like a subjective answer to a tangible question.

Again: go the SEC website; take a look at litigations

Additionally take a peek at the AICPA website and see how many CPA’s are getting slapped around.

But man: I find the idea that the post-Enron world features strictly honest corporate dealings and spin-free public relationships to be extremely silly.

Actually I am saying that. The law always included language referring to “misleading” the public and investors; something which could only be overcome by a joint partnership in dishonesty with a “watch dog” organization (the function on CPA’s). Hence Enron

These “cheating things” always went on however it was usually with smaller companies (as they have less scrutiny) and was done for perhaps a single quarter – just to “get by”. However in the wash; if anyone looked close enough they would have found it. Problem is no one did look that close. Now they do

Think about how many companies “restated” after Enron – think about that for just a moment. Why? Because they triple checked everything and did it again (as did the CPA firms). If they found a problem, intentional or not, coming from the CFO or CEO directly or not (as in for example a brand manager fudging a few sales numbers) they restated with all due haste. There were companies that did so (and big ones) even when the number was not material top the company (i.e. no impact to share price or EPS).

Perhaps that is not what you are trying to say, but that would be the natural outcome in a world where Charles Ryan could *not* apply spin to something as vague as the quip, "best year ever." Legally, whether deceit is actionable depends on whether a person could reasonably rely on it in such a manner as to have caused injury.

Actually by making that statement there is language that could force him to prove it – if anyone thought it necessary.

If Hasbro makes money for an investor but D&D isn't doing what that investor would call its "best ever" business (but another investor could argue was), is there any poential damage at all? Keep in mind that either way, people make money.

No – why - because, like I said a lot of pages ago in this massive thread; sales, revenue, profit, etc. define it. There is no middle ground. He would have never said that without a go ahead from legal otherwise already Hasbro would have issued a written statement that it was false. Additionally I would not be even slightly surprised if that language is what will be used in PRINT in the quarterly and annual report of the firm.


And I ask did Charles Ryan say just “best ever year” or did he say “best ever in sales”, “best ever in revenue” or “best ever in profit”, “best ever year sine 19xx”, etc., etc.

If the investor wanted to complain because Chyarles Ryan told some gamers that D&D was doing great and he assumed (despite the fact that Ryan said nothing of the sort) it was because the game was doing great and not because of internal reorganization and liability reduction it actually turned out to be, wwould he be taken seriously?

Irrelevant question when you are talking about investments; however the cash was made it was made. And again I ask: did Charles Ryan say just “best ever year” or did he say “best ever in sales”, “best ever in revenue” or “best ever in profit”, “best ever year sine 19xx”, etc., etc.

I'm sure the answer is "maybe," but "maybe" lots of things can happen that don't.

How can you be sure? You don’t know enough about corporate governance outside of what any layman would.

With something like a licensor there's a different story, but (as some may have forgotten), those lecenses already belong to somebody else and will do so for the next long while.

And exactly what does this have to do with anything? Most companies in the RPG market are not publicly traded and thus anything they say publicly is irrelevant.

To maximize profit as safely as possible.

err…what is the function of a company again? Oh ya to make money! I forgot about that. Oh but let me complain about everything corporations due then get ticked when my 401k goes down in value.

Why is it that corporations always tout such basic precautions as examples of aproactive ethical position,

err…because it is. Just as Stop signs, yield signs, traffic lights, lines on the road, etc. Are proactive precautions for driving on the road.

It is true – pre Enron perhaps not so much – now it is so.

but when the screw up, argue that they have no ethical duties outside of the law?

Because they actually don’t – and neither do you or I or anyone else. However reputation can suffer from such stances (i.e. as in Arthur Anderson going out of business, Exxon’s spill cleanup fiasco in the 8o’s (which still effects it today), etc.). If people are ticked at a company they don’t buy their products; clear and simple – to many iterations have proved that.

And if you got a speeding ticket that was questionable in nature (real or perceived) would you go to court to fight it? Most would (if the cost is high enough that is)

Oh yeah -- it's because of that theoretically impossible spin.

How is it a “theoretically impossible spin” to claim no duties outside the law when it is true? There is no theory about that – it is fact.

To be honest this is like a baby in a lion pit here – you are trying to think up ways of circumventing the knowledge of people who know exactly what they are talking about. I would never try to tell a NASA scientist how to build a better rocket but I would tell him other business related things and he should listen.

 

[eyebeams]

Really – sounds sort of like a subjective answer to a tangible question.

Again: go the SEC website; take a look at litigations

Additionally take a peek at the AICPA website and see how many CPA’s are getting slapped around.

OK. Some companies are in litigation for some things. It amazes me that anyone would believe this magically ensures their honesty, unless of course, they were ideologically devoted to corporations. Hm -- and it's your job, you say?

Actually I am saying that. The law always included language referring to “misleading” the public and investors; something which could only be overcome by a joint partnership in dishonesty with a “watch dog” organization (the function on CPA’s). Hence Enron.

You're speaking from a position of incredible optimism, in my view.

The fact is that post-Enron accountability measures are aimed mostly as boards and financial statements, such as the rules for outside board members and the cooling of period to ensure independence. Charles Ryan is not making a financial statement beyond saying that the D&D brand is driving more profit than it did before.

These “cheating things” always went on however it was usually with smaller companies (as they have less scrutiny) and was done for perhaps a single quarter – just to “get by”. However in the wash; if anyone looked close enough they would have found it. Problem is no one did look that close. Now they do

Sure. That's why energy companies are testifying under oath right n . . . oh, wait, they aren't. Oops!

Think about how many companies “restated” after Enron – think about that for just a moment. Why? Because they triple checked everything and did it again (as did the CPA firms). If they found a problem, intentional or not, coming from the CFO or CEO directly or not (as in for example a brand manager fudging a few sales numbers) they restated with all due haste. There were companies that did so (and big ones) even when the number was not material top the company (i.e. no impact to share price or EPS).

Charles Ryan cannot be fudging sales numbers because his statements say nothing of how many SKUs ae being moved. Making money hat can be categorized under a brand is not the same as moving SKUs. In fact, it is difficult to construct a scenario in which he might be lying, because his statements are materially vague.

And I ask did Charles Ryan say just “best ever year” or did he say “best ever in sales”, “best ever in revenue” or “best ever in profit”, “best ever year sine 19xx”, etc., etc.

Nobody really seems to want to find this out s much as believe that it means that more PHBs are selling than ever.

Irrelevant question when you are talking about investments; however the cash was made it was made. And again I ask: did Charles Ryan say just “best ever year” or did he say “best ever in sales”, “best ever in revenue” or “best ever in profit”, “best ever year sine 19xx”, etc., etc.

Actually, it is relevant to us, because details about what it means help determine why things are in their current shape.

How can you be sure? You don’t know enough about corporate governance outside of what any layman would.

You don't know anything about the business of gaming outside of what a layperson would. It seems we're even, except of course that it's easier to educate yourself about corporate governance than the business of a specialized niche hobby.

And exactly what does this have to do with anything? Most companies in the RPG market are not publicly traded and thus anything they say publicly is irrelevant.

It has nothing to do with that. Licensors are a special case because they rely on the value of somebody else's property. This means that false representation of the property can damage them (i.e. Activision vs, Viacom).

err…what is the function of a company again? Oh ya to make money! I forgot about that. Oh but let me complain about everything corporations due then get ticked when my 401k goes down in value.

That is not really an ethical position beyond basic egoism.

err…because it is. Just as Stop signs, yield signs, traffic lights, lines on the road, etc. Are proactive precautions for driving on the road.

You are arguing that the equivalent of these things in corporate governance will always work now. That's . . . super.

Because they actually don’t – and neither do you or I or anyone else. However reputation can suffer from such stances (i.e. as in Arthur Anderson going out of business, Exxon’s spill cleanup fiasco in the 8o’s (which still effects it today), etc.). If people are ticked at a company they don’t buy their products; clear and simple – to many iterations have proved that.

No, they haven't. The idea of hand-off market correction is a joke. Exxon never suffered a year where they lost money do to the Valdez. From LTCM to the less-known companies involved in Enron (RBC conspired with them to conceal losses and were not punished), the trend has been that only massive malfeasance can have consequences for individuals. And that's without getting into the Butcher of Bhopal . . . yet somehow, you think that a bank (RBC) that concealed billions in losses for Enron can get off scot-free while talking about D&D cannot even be phrased to put a company in the best light. This defies credulity.

And if you got a speeding ticket that was questionable in nature (real or perceived) would you go to court to fight it? Most would (if the cost is high enough that is)

Well, no, they don't, because the cost isn't high enough. That speaks directly to the issue, really.

How is it a “theoretically impossible spin” to claim no duties outside the law when it is true? There is no theory about that – it is fact.

You misread. You are saying that it would be impossible for Charles Ryan to say anoytjing without spinning it to look good. You are simultaneously asking for an unwarranted degree of trust and, of course, denying that companies should actually have to be any more trustworthy than the letter of the law defines. This is a contradiction.

To be honest this is like a baby in a lion pit here – you are trying to think up ways of circumventing the knowledge of people who know exactly what they are talking about. I would never try to tell a NASA scientist how to build a better rocket but I would tell him other business related things and he should listen.

Nothing of the sort. I'm talking about making the most positive statements possible without drawing legal penalties. It is not "circumventing" anything to present those in the best light, even if it means not discussing certain particulars.

 

[BryonD]

You're speaking from a position of incredible optimism, in my view.

Perhaps. But he is much closer to accurate than you are.

I can speak from personal experience that Sarbanes Oxley has greatly impacted the way companies present their financial data.

You can call them all sorts of names, anything you want to.

They like making a lot of money and they are not going to screw it up. And in the current climate it has very little to do with how good the people are. The are working in their own self interest.

Not this this wild tangent is really all that relevant.

If your only "evidence" to support your dispute of WotC and Mongoose doing very well is general defamation of all industry, completely lacking in specifics, then case dismissed and you lose.

 

[eyebeams]

Perhaps. But he is much closer to accurate than you are.

I can speak from personal experience that Sarbanes Oxley has greatly impacted the way companies present their financial data.

Charles Ryan isn't giving you any financial data.

You can call them all sorts of names, anything you want to.

Who am I calling names, again? It really amazes me how much people read into this stuff. I mean, people are reading all kinds of hostility toward WotC while, of course, reading all kinds of specific information into a set of relatively vague statements *from* WotC.

They like making a lot of money and they are not going to screw it up. And in the current climate it has very little to do with how good the people are. The are working in their own self interest.

Sure.

If your only "evidence" to support your dispute of WotC and Mongoose doing very well is general defamation of all industry, completely lacking in specifics, then case dismissed and you lose.

Where exactly did I ay that they weren't doing well? Look over the thread. Cite the post.

It is good to know what this is really about, though: political agendas with no place in this forum (like the pro-corporate propaganda espoused as "knowledge" earlier) and a burning esire to believe that, no matter what, RPGs are doing great.

These kinds of views are, like other articles of faith, not amenable to reasonable discussion, so I see no reason to talk about them further.

 

[SteveC]

It is good to know what this is really about, though: political agendas with no place in this forum (like the pro-corporate propaganda espoused as "knowledge" earlier) and a burning esire to believe that, no matter what, RPGs are doing great.

These kinds of views are, like other articles of faith, not amenable to reasonable discussion, so I see no reason to talk about them further.

While that may be your assessment, that is just an opinion, not an objective fact. What I have seen here (and, this is just my opinion) is on the issue of what Charles said, you believe that what he said could very likely just have been corporate doublespeak. What I and others have said is that it would be very unwise for him to make such statements in a public forum.

Does that mean that you're not right? No, he might very well have been speaking that way. However, given the fact that no further clarification was made, it is unlikely to be the case. Is it impossible? No, certainly not, but it is unlikely. In the post Enron world, there have been many changes to the way businesses have been forced to operate. Some of them, to my mind, have even been overreaction and are downright silly, but, like it or not, the world has changed. Did all of these corporations suddenly become "good" in D&D terms? Of course not.

So we really are having three different discussions in this thread:

One: is there a decline in RPG sales?

Two: are companies like WotC and Mongoose lying when they say that they're increasing in sales and doing fine?

Three: If someone from a company that is publicly traded makes statements in a forum like ENWorld, can they become accountable for them?

My answers to these three questions:
One: Yes.
Two: No.
Three: Yes.

The third question is really the most off-topic, so that's the one we're debating the hottest. Perhaps we should stick to one and two?

Let me add a question four to this mix (and this will be the question that cares):

Is there a fundamental difference in the market between the companies that are distributed in traditional retail versus those who are only marketed the RPG channels?

I would say "yes" to this one, because it puts everything in this and other threads I have been reading recently into perspective.

Companies that are being distributed through traditional book chains and have proper distribution with companies like Amazon are doing well. Those that don't aren't.

Comments?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

On question 4:

Any company that increases its availability to consumers increases its odds of success. That's business 101.

If your normal distribution channels are not providing sufficient income for you to succeed, you need to improve/expand your distribution and/or examine the viability of your product. That's business 102.

For a variety of reasons, traditional distribution channels for RPGs are not cutting it anymore for many RPG companies.

RPG companies must adapt or die.

 

[Turjan]

Is there a fundamental difference in the market between the companies that are distributed in traditional retail versus those who are only marketed the RPG channels?

I would say "yes" to this one, because it puts everything in this and other threads I have been reading recently into perspective.

Companies that are being distributed through traditional book chains and have proper distribution with companies like Amazon are doing well. Those that don't aren't.

Comments?

Well, I obviously agree, because that was my interpretation of the numbers that we have up in post #327. I used the example of Green Ronin for a company that struggles because of their difficulties to get seen in book chains or on amazon. And Patrick Lawinger said something about the book trade and RPG companies before that.