Dungeon #99 - Is the end near?
- Thread starter Erithtotl
- Start date
Sad....
I hope this was not directed to some of the posters that were trying to express their issues they are having with your product (Dungeon). I really, really like your product (Dungeon) and I was willing to pay the $8 for your book every 2 months. Now I did not use everything, but there was enough that I could use that made the magazine a value to me. But now you are asking me to pay $14 every two months with less product I could use.
I do not hate you or anyone of your staff, but I am a very dissatisfied customer. Am I asking you to bend over backwards to please me? No. But I wish you would address those people that are telling you nicely our displeasure in the same way that you would want to be addressed if you were the customer...
I hope this was not directed to some of the posters that were trying to express their issues they are having with your product (Dungeon). I really, really like your product (Dungeon) and I was willing to pay the $8 for your book every 2 months. Now I did not use everything, but there was enough that I could use that made the magazine a value to me. But now you are asking me to pay $14 every two months with less product I could use.
I do not hate you or anyone of your staff, but I am a very dissatisfied customer. Am I asking you to bend over backwards to please me? No. But I wish you would address those people that are telling you nicely our displeasure in the same way that you would want to be addressed if you were the customer...
BryonD
Hero
Re: Sad....
I'll second this.
I mean, even to the complainers that are over the top in their dissent, a more professional response would be better received.
Add in that Pazio seems to lump everyone who complains in any way into a single category of "haters" and it becomes hard to be sympathetic.
dsfriii said:
I'll second this.
I mean, even to the complainers that are over the top in their dissent, a more professional response would be better received.
Add in that Pazio seems to lump everyone who complains in any way into a single category of "haters" and it becomes hard to be sympathetic.
Lazybones
Adventurer
Sigil's comments articulated my sentiments precisely. I subscribed in the early days (approx. issues #8-25), and found the old "style" much more useful and appealing than the current "flashy" presentation laden with added bits that aren't core to Dungeon's original mission.
And I don't hate the mag or anyone associated with it, nor do I share the feelings of the more... aggressive posters on this issue. I just don't like the way that the magazine has evolved.
And I don't hate the mag or anyone associated with it, nor do I share the feelings of the more... aggressive posters on this issue. I just don't like the way that the magazine has evolved.
I also agree with damn near everything The Sigil said. The only thing that I can't see happening is the reduction in Ads. Fine, well and good, they have to cover their costs somehow and I don't mind the ads so much.
The suggestions to change paper type, cut down on color artwork and reduce the page count for Poly are all great ideas, IMNSHO. While there seems to be an even mix of people who read it for Poly, I would suspect that the majority subscribed for the content in Dungeon. Reduction in quality AND quantity is what disturbs me. Yes, there have been some very well-written and thought-out adventures of late, but these are quickly becoming the exception, not the norm. The addition of what I would consider "filler" is contributing to perceptions regarding quality and quantity. An occassional critical threat or two does no harm, but when every single issue has 2 AND the page count for Poly fluctuates between 40 and 60 pages every month, this lowers the utility of this magazine. And I would put forth that no one is reading this magazine for the sake of an interesting read. Both Dungeon AND Poly readers are doing so to obtain content for use in their games. Once again, my not-so-humble opinion.
My comments are not intended to "slam" any individual or the magazine itself. I've enjoyed the content of the magazine for years, but now find myself seeing a lack of useful content. Coupled with the price increase, I'm beginning to see it as a poor return on my investment. I would suggest that Caesar stop, listen and heed our concerns, lest he find that Dungeon/Poly no longer remain viable (which it sounds as if is the case anyway). Failure to do so forces us to vote with our wallets, which is the last thing that we want to do.
--Dan
The suggestions to change paper type, cut down on color artwork and reduce the page count for Poly are all great ideas, IMNSHO. While there seems to be an even mix of people who read it for Poly, I would suspect that the majority subscribed for the content in Dungeon. Reduction in quality AND quantity is what disturbs me. Yes, there have been some very well-written and thought-out adventures of late, but these are quickly becoming the exception, not the norm. The addition of what I would consider "filler" is contributing to perceptions regarding quality and quantity. An occassional critical threat or two does no harm, but when every single issue has 2 AND the page count for Poly fluctuates between 40 and 60 pages every month, this lowers the utility of this magazine. And I would put forth that no one is reading this magazine for the sake of an interesting read. Both Dungeon AND Poly readers are doing so to obtain content for use in their games. Once again, my not-so-humble opinion.
My comments are not intended to "slam" any individual or the magazine itself. I've enjoyed the content of the magazine for years, but now find myself seeing a lack of useful content. Coupled with the price increase, I'm beginning to see it as a poor return on my investment. I would suggest that Caesar stop, listen and heed our concerns, lest he find that Dungeon/Poly no longer remain viable (which it sounds as if is the case anyway). Failure to do so forces us to vote with our wallets, which is the last thing that we want to do.
--Dan
Nikchick
Explorer
MerricB said:
I'm glad Johnny responded to this thread. What he laid out here regarding the Dungeon/Polyhedron are not entirely unique to Paizo. They're the same conditions and constraints faced by every game publisher out there. It's a credit to everyone at Paizo that Dungeon Magazine continues to exist at all. I'm constantly amazed at the quality of work these guys are putting out. The Paizo staff are the best in the business, and I firmly believe that if they can't make a viable D&D/D20 magazine, no one can. (As someone who had stints with both White Wolf Magazine and Adventures Unlimited Magazine, I feel well qualified to say that.)
Just wanted to pop in and give a little love and support to the Paizo folks in general and Johnny Wilson in specific. It doesn't get any better, Paizo is the cream of the crop.
Nicole
Brown Jenkin
First Post
Johnny is right to some degree. A more civil and articulate expression of what we want is needed, not just complaints about what is wrong. So here goes nothing.
Look at your core mission, what is the purpose of Dungeon magazine. I have always as a customer viewed it as providing adventures and adventure ideas to the D&D community for a great price. I have not had an issue so much with quality, although I will admit that I don't like every adventure but then I don't expect to as long as I like most of them. The issue that is coming up for me though is quantity which is related by price to whether it is a value or not. When the magazine starts providing adventures for the same price per page of adventures as non-advertising supported supplements then I have to start thinking about what to spend my money on when I would rather support your magazine as the obvious best value.
The question then becomes for me what cost saving measures am I willing to accept to achieve that. As a prospective customer who wants to purchase your product again I am willing to do without some of the extras such as color and glossy paper. If its an issue of keeping the magazine running then by all means feel free to go back to the old B&W days. As for ads I don't mind them and understand the need for them. I would be perfectly willing to have a magazine with 50% ad space as long as the content is still there. You have pointed out that smaller circulation results in some advertisers choosing only to purchase in the larger Dragon. Is it possible to bundle ad space in Dragon/Dungeon with a discount so that like airlines a seat sold at half price is better than the seat not being sold at all. Another issue you raised with having separate magazines was that the mailhouse/distributor charged you monthly whether you were monthly or not. How about separate monthly magazines then. You could charge 4.99 a month for 40 pages of adventures + as many ad pages as you can sell (plus you get the coveted back cover to sell again). This would give us as many pages of adventures as we are getting now but at price that is between the 94-97 rate and the current 98-100 rate. Poly could also be sold separately on a monthly basis for 4.99 as well and advertising could still be bundled. While this may result in slight loss of subscription revenues compared to the joint issues (you previously stated in another thread that the subscriber bases were about equal with a 50% overlap) you may end up with a larger subscription base as Dungeon and Poly readers both start getting a magazine that is focused on what they want. Combine this with going back to Black and white non-glossy and there may be a profit again.
Another thing I would suggest is something that the company I work for does on a bi-yearly basis with its magazine. Include a readership survey in an upcoming issue. It will cost some money but it will help determine what your readership really wants. Do they want larger or smaller adventures. Is color important to them. Is the reader mail important. Do they want dungeon crawls or non-linear town adventures or both. What are their demographics. All sorts of questions can be asked and proper decisions can be made off of it. While some reasonable suggestions and possible problems can be gleaned from the internet and its self selected sample on the message boards it is only with a true readership survey that you can get a real representative sample of how all your readers really feel. If this is done and the majority of readers want something that I don't care for that is fine with me, but decisions about the future of the magazine should be based on what the readers really want.
Look at your core mission, what is the purpose of Dungeon magazine. I have always as a customer viewed it as providing adventures and adventure ideas to the D&D community for a great price. I have not had an issue so much with quality, although I will admit that I don't like every adventure but then I don't expect to as long as I like most of them. The issue that is coming up for me though is quantity which is related by price to whether it is a value or not. When the magazine starts providing adventures for the same price per page of adventures as non-advertising supported supplements then I have to start thinking about what to spend my money on when I would rather support your magazine as the obvious best value.
The question then becomes for me what cost saving measures am I willing to accept to achieve that. As a prospective customer who wants to purchase your product again I am willing to do without some of the extras such as color and glossy paper. If its an issue of keeping the magazine running then by all means feel free to go back to the old B&W days. As for ads I don't mind them and understand the need for them. I would be perfectly willing to have a magazine with 50% ad space as long as the content is still there. You have pointed out that smaller circulation results in some advertisers choosing only to purchase in the larger Dragon. Is it possible to bundle ad space in Dragon/Dungeon with a discount so that like airlines a seat sold at half price is better than the seat not being sold at all. Another issue you raised with having separate magazines was that the mailhouse/distributor charged you monthly whether you were monthly or not. How about separate monthly magazines then. You could charge 4.99 a month for 40 pages of adventures + as many ad pages as you can sell (plus you get the coveted back cover to sell again). This would give us as many pages of adventures as we are getting now but at price that is between the 94-97 rate and the current 98-100 rate. Poly could also be sold separately on a monthly basis for 4.99 as well and advertising could still be bundled. While this may result in slight loss of subscription revenues compared to the joint issues (you previously stated in another thread that the subscriber bases were about equal with a 50% overlap) you may end up with a larger subscription base as Dungeon and Poly readers both start getting a magazine that is focused on what they want. Combine this with going back to Black and white non-glossy and there may be a profit again.
Another thing I would suggest is something that the company I work for does on a bi-yearly basis with its magazine. Include a readership survey in an upcoming issue. It will cost some money but it will help determine what your readership really wants. Do they want larger or smaller adventures. Is color important to them. Is the reader mail important. Do they want dungeon crawls or non-linear town adventures or both. What are their demographics. All sorts of questions can be asked and proper decisions can be made off of it. While some reasonable suggestions and possible problems can be gleaned from the internet and its self selected sample on the message boards it is only with a true readership survey that you can get a real representative sample of how all your readers really feel. If this is done and the majority of readers want something that I don't care for that is fine with me, but decisions about the future of the magazine should be based on what the readers really want.
The Sigil
Mr. 3000 (Words per post)
I do carp a lot, because I haven't seen much evidence to indicate Paizo is listening to me, but I think it's also definitely worth the effort to point out in a relatively nice manner where I think things can be improved.King_Stannis said:
I don't carp because I hate Dungeon or Paizo or Johnny. I carp because I think, "come on, guys, I *know* you can do better.... because I've seen you do better and I liked it when you were doing that." It's not a negative thing done just to be negative, it's negativity born out of disappointment in (as I see it) a failure on their part to live up to the great potential they have.
Since that hasn't worked, I figure I'll try some positive critiques... maybe they'll respond to that better than when I'm grousing at them.
When I make a carping comment, that's why... because I expect better from Paizo... and I expect better because I know they have the capacity to do better and I hate to see their awesome potential wasted.
--The Sigil
Last edited:
Similar Threads
