Dragon #305 Am I just getting old?

[blackshirt5]

BYW - I read the little Gary Gygax essay in every article and I swear that Gary and his buddies gamed purely to screw with each other absolutely as much as possible.

Isn't that how you're supposed to run the game?

 

[WayneLigon]

I'm closing in on 40.

I don't have a problem with either the advertisements or covers in Dragon. Since Dragon is almost always stocked with the computer gaming magazines, the cover blurbs might get some kid that only knows D&D through the computer game to pick it up.

Don't have a problem with Confrontation miniatures. Of the very few that have some part of the breast exposed - those being barbarians, so I think we can kinda expect that. Just don't care.

Avalanche Games covers? I'm of two minds about it. It does indeed seem like they're reaching for that late adolescent/early college market but as I seem to remember, the largest segments of our hobby is 15-17, then 20-23?

 

[Barastrondo]

True, but I think stupid ads should be punished.

I don't have the issue in question, but who exactly is being punished? IIRC, the Confrontation ads in Dragon of late have been ads run by one of their American distributors; Brookhurst, I believe.

Confrontation is put out by Rackham, a French company that doesn't sell direct to the US (to my knowledge); Brookhurst, Fantization and New Wave are all distributors that carry the line. I kind of doubt that Rackham is the company soliciting the ad space in Dragon, since that's not what their primary market (European wargamers) reads.

So isn't a boycott of all "Confrontation" stuff to protest one of the distributors' ads kind of missing the point? They're expensive miniatures, sure, and it's okay to have an excuse not to spend extra money on the pewter addiction, but that just strikes me as kind of a shoddy excuse.

 

[Psion]

So isn't a boycott of all "Confrontation" stuff to protest one of the distributors' ads kind of missing the point? They're expensive miniatures, sure, and it's okay to have an excuse not to spend extra money on the pewter addiction, but that just strikes me as kind of a shoddy excuse.

I haven't seen the ad to decide if it is in bad taste or not. But if it is, there is certainly enough minuature suppliers and manufacturers out there to fill my needs. If it comes down to a choice of someone who annoys me with an ad and someone who doesn't, I'm certainly not going to reward the person who has chosen to annoy me... that will just encourage them. I only have so much say in what goes on in the market, and how I expend my money is entirely my right and privledge.

 

[Default Name Player]

Re: Re: Re: Dragon #305 Am I just getting old?

I just wish they would show some intelligence and put ads like that INSIDE the magazine instead of on the back cover.

Advertising-wise for magazines, the cover positions are specifically purchased at a premium price. Positions like the back cover, inside front cover, and inside back cover generally have their own individual prices, and are generally purchased in advance because they are considered premium positions.

The only other recourse is for Dragon to turn away the vendor from advertising in that position, which sets a bad precedent if the advertising copy/graphic isn't blatantly offensive (ie. outright nudity).

Hence, Dragon wouldn't put that ad inside the magazine because the vendor is specifically paying for the back cover position.

 

[Gez]

I thoroughly agree with what everyone said there. First, I'm not getting younger, despite all my attempts at finding erroneous spatiotemporal vertices; and then, to protest some obscure French company who give breasts to its female miniatures, I will instantly stop to buy Dragon Magazine.

Which won't bother me that much, since the magazine is unavailable outside of subscription for me.

However, now I'm interested in these Rackham figs. Maybe they'll make me younger ?

 

[JacktheRabbit]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Dragon #305 Am I just getting old?

Advertising-wise for magazines, the cover positions are specifically purchased at a premium price. Positions like the back cover, inside front cover, and inside back cover generally have their own individual prices, and are generally purchased in advance because they are considered premium positions.

The only other recourse is for Dragon to turn away the vendor from advertising in that position, which sets a bad precedent if the advertising copy/graphic isn't blatantly offensive (ie. outright nudity).

Hence, Dragon wouldn't put that ad inside the magazine because the vendor is specifically paying for the back cover position.

Dragon could just as easily say sorry you may have purchased the back cover but your ad does not qualify for that position.

Then the company in question can either change the ad or get a partial refund and have their ad placed somewhere else in the magazine.

 

[Hand of Evil]

My problem with it, is that it has become standard operation procedure to use 'sex sells', just look the computer game market. Don't get me wrong, I like sex but it is becoming the answer to all things in marketing. Tie it to sex and it will sell, it is not even witty, cute, or well done, just in your face.

It is also very one sided.

Oh, I feel the same way about violence.

Sorry, starting to rant.

 

[Barastrondo]

If it comes down to a choice of someone who annoys me with an ad and someone who doesn't, I'm certainly not going to reward the person who has chosen to annoy me... that will just encourage them. I only have so much say in what goes on in the market, and how I expend my money is entirely my right and privledge.

I certainly don't mean to say that you don't have that right. I'm just pointing out that if Brookhurst takes out an ad that a customer deems tasteless that says "Hey, we're one of the places you can get Confrontation in America," it's more appropriate to target Brookhurst as the person creating the ad you don't like than to target Rackham.

Speaking as a White Wolf employee, I wouldn't want somebody boycotting our stuff because a local game store started promoting our goods with a questionable ad campaign. If the issue of "protest" enters into it, I'd rather have somebody choosing to buy or not to buy our stuff based on what we as manufacturers do, not what somebody affiliated with us does.

Otherwise, we're all stuck boycotting D&D 'cause we don't like Hasbro, neh?

 

[Kahuna Burger]

True, but I think stupid ads should be punished. All other things being equal, if there is an alternative to a product, I will buy the product that does not pollute the airwaves. I, for example, will not buy any of that herbal essences shampoo.

YES!!!

Ads that make me absolutly crazy to the point where I won't buy the product on principle :

Those old powerbar commercials from the radio. "Oh I'll just have a powerbar and do X." ugh.

Old Navy - That woman with the glasses, nuff said.

Tomb Raider - its a cover not an ad, but the principle is the same.

Luckily there aren't as many traumatic ads fresh in my mind since I have less mass media exposure these days.

Kahuna Burger