Dungeon #99 - Is the end near?
- Thread starter Erithtotl
- Start date
Sholari
First Post
Ghostwind said:
Who really knows whether the disappointed Dungeon customers on this website form a representative sample of the Dungeon subscriber base? However, there is always the old adage that for every customer that takes the time to complain there are seven more than customers that walk away silent, and I've seen a lot of people that aren't very pleased with the direction Dungeon has been going in.
At the very least they probably should do a little market research to see what the consumer base really does want out of a Dungeon magazine. My guess is there are two very disparate groups of consumers (pro-Dungeon vs. pro-Poly) that a being forced together with some subset (maybe 30%) that finds value in both magazines. They aren't going to know this until they find out a little more about their consumers through more extensive research.
Assuming that Dungeon magazine is a type of product the ACE matrix is a useful tool for unlocking the full spectrum of relevant product attributes. It can be purchased here on the Internet...
http://harvardbusinessonline.hbsp.harvard.edu/b02/en/common/item_detail.jhtml?id=96305
Once they have broken down the product into relevant product attributes, they should use a statistical technique known as conjoint analysis to evaluate which product features are more important to their consumers and which product features are less important. Conjoint evaluates what tradeoffs consumers make between product attributes and boils product features down to rating points that can be compared to each other. In other words, it might help to determine whether full color is more important to magazine purchaser than quantity and quality of content. It can also help with pricing, determinging price sensitivity, and determining properly categorizing customers. They can probably find some PhD student good enough in statistics who could volunteer to help them out with this. An overview of conjoint analysis can be found here...
http://www.surveysite.com/newsite/docs/conjoint-tutor.html
Anyway, those are my two cents. I hope at the very least this might help a little to make better business decisions.
coyote6
Adventurer
Publishing Dungeon on the web would cut printing costs, but it would also likely kill advertising revenue. Companies aren't going to pay as much to advertise in a PDF magazine as a print mag. It would also force a reduction in price (I certainly wouldn't pay the current rate for a PDF magazine). Less income would mean less money to pay contributors, which would in turn mean lower quality, which would lead to less sales (which also would mean even less advertising money, if any).
I suspect it would be non-viable; at best, Dungeon would survive as an amateur magazine, not unlike the many that already exist (which, IME&O, rarely manage to be as good as a fair issue of Dungeon).
Some random musings:
- Multiple people have suggested splitting Dungeon and Poly, even after Johnny Wilson explained why that isn't feasible. Why is that?
- From what publishers have said, Art Counts when it comes to sales, so there are undoubtably people that would drop Dungeon if it went back to B&W. I don't know how big a percentage of sales go through bookstores & the like, but it may be that going B&W would lead to those sales disappearing (because the stores or their distributors wouldn't pick up the mag at all). So that might not save that much money, overall.
- Historically, as I understand it, adventures don't make a lot of money, at least not as much as sourcebooks. The most obvious reason for this is simple numbers: adventures are bought & used by GMs, and there are fewer GMs than there are players. D&D 3e presumes 1 GM for four players; that means that the potential audience for any one adventure is 1/5th the size of the pool that might buy a new sourcebook or core rule book.
The same factor applies to Dungeon. Unfortunately, the set of possible buyers may be too small for an adventure magazine to survive on.
- Combining Dungeon & Dragon -- well, that might make a bit more sense, but it would engender at least as much bitching as the current setup. People who don't like Dragon would complain about having Dragon in their Dungeon; people who don't like Dungeon would complain about the Dungeon in their Dragon; and people who like both would still complain, because there would be less Dragon than before, and probably not as much Dungeon, either. (And wait 'til the theme issues include theme adventures. Verily, the wailing will be heard on Olympus.
)
D20 Weekly just closed up shop; it may be that Dungeon (and Dragon) may inevitably share the same fate.
I suspect it would be non-viable; at best, Dungeon would survive as an amateur magazine, not unlike the many that already exist (which, IME&O, rarely manage to be as good as a fair issue of Dungeon).
Some random musings:
- Multiple people have suggested splitting Dungeon and Poly, even after Johnny Wilson explained why that isn't feasible. Why is that?
- From what publishers have said, Art Counts when it comes to sales, so there are undoubtably people that would drop Dungeon if it went back to B&W. I don't know how big a percentage of sales go through bookstores & the like, but it may be that going B&W would lead to those sales disappearing (because the stores or their distributors wouldn't pick up the mag at all). So that might not save that much money, overall.
- Historically, as I understand it, adventures don't make a lot of money, at least not as much as sourcebooks. The most obvious reason for this is simple numbers: adventures are bought & used by GMs, and there are fewer GMs than there are players. D&D 3e presumes 1 GM for four players; that means that the potential audience for any one adventure is 1/5th the size of the pool that might buy a new sourcebook or core rule book.
The same factor applies to Dungeon. Unfortunately, the set of possible buyers may be too small for an adventure magazine to survive on.
- Combining Dungeon & Dragon -- well, that might make a bit more sense, but it would engender at least as much bitching as the current setup. People who don't like Dragon would complain about having Dragon in their Dungeon; people who don't like Dungeon would complain about the Dungeon in their Dragon; and people who like both would still complain, because there would be less Dragon than before, and probably not as much Dungeon, either. (And wait 'til the theme issues include theme adventures. Verily, the wailing will be heard on Olympus.
)D20 Weekly just closed up shop; it may be that Dungeon (and Dragon) may inevitably share the same fate.
Yeah, you make some great points. I wonder how much of Dungeon's revenue comes from advertising? Could they afford to take the advertising hit if they reduced their printing costs significantly?
If they did go the web/PDF route, then they might gain some advertising revenue from website ad space, though not too much I would imagine.
Then you have the whole problem of printing PDF's. That can get expensive if you want to print in color.
I guess I'll just keep my fingers crossed.
If they did go the web/PDF route, then they might gain some advertising revenue from website ad space, though not too much I would imagine.
Then you have the whole problem of printing PDF's. That can get expensive if you want to print in color.
I guess I'll just keep my fingers crossed.
Maggan
Writer for CY_BORG, Forbidden Lands and Dragonbane
Color vs B&W
A couple of things...
1. Dropping color would most certainly alienate companies wanting to place ads in Dungeon/Poly. Drop the color, and you also drop all ads for computer games and such. They aren't likely to produce separate B&W ads just for Dungeon.
2. I think many want to separate Dungeon and Poly, just to feel that they have one magazine to focus on. Even though it might not be a viable business proposition, I would like them to be separate magazines, because... well, because I would like them to. i'd probably buy both, but then it would be my own choice. That's it, I think, at least for me.
3. Combining Dragon, Dungeon and Poly and creating a powerhouse RPG mag, probably wouldn't work. The success of Dragon is it's focus on D&D, and extensions to D&D. And the fact that most of it is a good read for players and DMs. And adding Dungeon content to Dragon would not make Dungeon readers happy, because then they would probably only get the one adventure every month, at the same time as Dragon readers would be unhappy because there would be 20 pages they couldn't read. And adding Poly content would make Dragon readers unhappy because it aint D&D. So we're not likely to see a combination of Dragon/Dungeon/Poly that will solve the preceived problems adressed in this thread. Although they might pull it off if they made Dungeon into a bimonthly feature in Dragon, and Poly into a quarterly bonus magazine.
4. Business analysis. Paizo has access to the best tool to analyze the success of the changes made: sales data. This way, they can see if the changes they make are bad or not, and if they are having the desired effect. I would gladly give someones elses left arm to see that data, and I hope Paizo puts it to good use.
5. In six months we will know who was right. Because then we will see if this really is the end for Dungeon. And then the critics can post links to their posts saying "I told you so, but you wouldn't listen!". If the end for Dungeon is not here in six months, this was just another of many "this is the end for X" threads, and probably not the last. And then we can start arguing about why Dungeon died, or as it may be, why it didn't die.
Cheers!
M.
A couple of things...
1. Dropping color would most certainly alienate companies wanting to place ads in Dungeon/Poly. Drop the color, and you also drop all ads for computer games and such. They aren't likely to produce separate B&W ads just for Dungeon.
2. I think many want to separate Dungeon and Poly, just to feel that they have one magazine to focus on. Even though it might not be a viable business proposition, I would like them to be separate magazines, because... well, because I would like them to. i'd probably buy both, but then it would be my own choice. That's it, I think, at least for me.
3. Combining Dragon, Dungeon and Poly and creating a powerhouse RPG mag, probably wouldn't work. The success of Dragon is it's focus on D&D, and extensions to D&D. And the fact that most of it is a good read for players and DMs. And adding Dungeon content to Dragon would not make Dungeon readers happy, because then they would probably only get the one adventure every month, at the same time as Dragon readers would be unhappy because there would be 20 pages they couldn't read. And adding Poly content would make Dragon readers unhappy because it aint D&D. So we're not likely to see a combination of Dragon/Dungeon/Poly that will solve the preceived problems adressed in this thread. Although they might pull it off if they made Dungeon into a bimonthly feature in Dragon, and Poly into a quarterly bonus magazine.
4. Business analysis. Paizo has access to the best tool to analyze the success of the changes made: sales data. This way, they can see if the changes they make are bad or not, and if they are having the desired effect. I would gladly give someones elses left arm to see that data, and I hope Paizo puts it to good use.
5. In six months we will know who was right. Because then we will see if this really is the end for Dungeon. And then the critics can post links to their posts saying "I told you so, but you wouldn't listen!". If the end for Dungeon is not here in six months, this was just another of many "this is the end for X" threads, and probably not the last. And then we can start arguing about why Dungeon died, or as it may be, why it didn't die.
Cheers!
M.
Beazel
First Post
2 cents
I have been a subscriber since Dragon #60. This puts me before the time of Dungeon, so I have gotten that since #1.
I consider the two issues of Dungeon I get now across any two months to be the equivalent of one "old issue" of Dungeon since that's how often I used to get it.
#82 - 91 pages (this is MY page count, which stops at the last page of the last of the adventure content) with 4 adventures, 3 of which were top notch
#83 - 94 pages with 5 adventures, only 4 were useful
#84 - 144 pages with 5 adventures, all superb, especially The Harowing (one of the best Dungeon adventures of all time), and Demonclaw, and The Dying of Light -- overall maybe the best Dungeon ever RE: content quality
#85 - 95 pages with 3 adv (2 of them really good) and 1 side trek
#86 - 111 pages with 4 worthless adv; page count jump, quality DIP!
#87 - 134 pages with 5 adv, including the superb adv Glacier Season; plus a CD of 2 adv (albeit not so good)
#88 - 107 pages with 4 adv, 2 of them pretty good
#89 - 104 pages with 5 adv including the great Headless
#90 - my issue is suddenly bulky, for Poly is on the scene. I don't like Poly. It's worthless. I have never gotten anything useful from it. It wastes my time. The Dungeon side is all I care about, and that has 104 pages with 4 imaginative adv and 1 crit threat. The inclusion of Poly was overall not an issue. (heh pun)
#91 - 109 pages with 4 adv (including the always lovable Challenge of Champions), 2 crit threats, and 2 side treks. It was pretty meaty, though overall not the best material I have seen.
#92 - 106 pages with 3 adv (including the great Razing of Redshore, and Interlopers of Ruun-Khazai), plus 1 crit threat and 1 side trek
#93 - 100 pages with 3 adv (including the good Storm Lord's Keep), 1 crit threat, and 1 side trek
#92 - 92 pages with 4 adv (one really good), 2 crit threats, and 1 side trek; page count dip again -- seems like the days of #86-#93 are over; we are back to pre-#86 counts
#95 - 97 pages with 3 adv (including the not-so-mature-it-needed-to-be-sealed Porphyry House Horror), 2 crit threats, and 1 side trek
#96 - 88 pages (huh?) with 3 lame adventures, 1 crit threat, and 1 side trek; what happened to my Dungeon? Where was the quality... the pages...? This is THREE lame issue in a row; six months of dribble.
#97 - 115 pages with 3 adv (including the start of Shackled City - GREAT IDEA), 1 crit threat, and 1 side trek; ok, this was a better 2 months than last issue
And now we must combine issue to truly compare them. I would not mind receiving 1/2 the content twice as often.
#98/99 - 128 pages with 3 adv (including Shackled City #2), 2 crit threats, and 2 side treks
The first pair don't seem so bad, and that's all we have to go on. #100 is a special case, not to be repeated any time soon. I'll skip comparisons to that one.
In summary, I think it's possible I am receiving 1/2 the content of the previous year but twice as often, so I am ok with my Dungeon subscription for now. Then again, I wish it were the quality and quantity of the #84 and #87 days, with 5 imaginative adventures each. I have not been affected by any price changes, and you have to expect inflation over time anyway. I wish Poly were killed though if that would lower the price. As I said, Poly's worthless.
So... here is what you do...
*Kill Poly.
*Lower the price.
*Set the page count (by MY standards, stated above) to 60-ish per issue
*Publish 2 adventures per issue.
*Publish one of the following per issue:
...*1 side trek and 1 crit threat
...*2 critical threats
*1 map of mystery.
*Keep the full-page artwork that faces each adventure. Art is often as good as content to me.
*Include "aids" more often then you do now (I scan them and print them with a color printer, as more and more readers/DMs probably do these days)
--Bob
I have been a subscriber since Dragon #60. This puts me before the time of Dungeon, so I have gotten that since #1.
I consider the two issues of Dungeon I get now across any two months to be the equivalent of one "old issue" of Dungeon since that's how often I used to get it.
#82 - 91 pages (this is MY page count, which stops at the last page of the last of the adventure content) with 4 adventures, 3 of which were top notch
#83 - 94 pages with 5 adventures, only 4 were useful
#84 - 144 pages with 5 adventures, all superb, especially The Harowing (one of the best Dungeon adventures of all time), and Demonclaw, and The Dying of Light -- overall maybe the best Dungeon ever RE: content quality
#85 - 95 pages with 3 adv (2 of them really good) and 1 side trek
#86 - 111 pages with 4 worthless adv; page count jump, quality DIP!
#87 - 134 pages with 5 adv, including the superb adv Glacier Season; plus a CD of 2 adv (albeit not so good)
#88 - 107 pages with 4 adv, 2 of them pretty good
#89 - 104 pages with 5 adv including the great Headless
#90 - my issue is suddenly bulky, for Poly is on the scene. I don't like Poly. It's worthless. I have never gotten anything useful from it. It wastes my time. The Dungeon side is all I care about, and that has 104 pages with 4 imaginative adv and 1 crit threat. The inclusion of Poly was overall not an issue. (heh pun)
#91 - 109 pages with 4 adv (including the always lovable Challenge of Champions), 2 crit threats, and 2 side treks. It was pretty meaty, though overall not the best material I have seen.
#92 - 106 pages with 3 adv (including the great Razing of Redshore, and Interlopers of Ruun-Khazai), plus 1 crit threat and 1 side trek
#93 - 100 pages with 3 adv (including the good Storm Lord's Keep), 1 crit threat, and 1 side trek
#92
- 92 pages with 4 adv (one really good), 2 crit threats, and 1 side trek; page count dip again -- seems like the days of #86-#93 are over; we are back to pre-#86 counts#95 - 97 pages with 3 adv (including the not-so-mature-it-needed-to-be-sealed Porphyry House Horror), 2 crit threats, and 1 side trek
#96 - 88 pages (huh?) with 3 lame adventures, 1 crit threat, and 1 side trek; what happened to my Dungeon? Where was the quality... the pages...? This is THREE lame issue in a row; six months of dribble.
#97 - 115 pages with 3 adv (including the start of Shackled City - GREAT IDEA), 1 crit threat, and 1 side trek; ok, this was a better 2 months than last issue
And now we must combine issue to truly compare them. I would not mind receiving 1/2 the content twice as often.
#98/99 - 128 pages with 3 adv (including Shackled City #2), 2 crit threats, and 2 side treks
The first pair don't seem so bad, and that's all we have to go on. #100 is a special case, not to be repeated any time soon. I'll skip comparisons to that one.
In summary, I think it's possible I am receiving 1/2 the content of the previous year but twice as often, so I am ok with my Dungeon subscription for now. Then again, I wish it were the quality and quantity of the #84 and #87 days, with 5 imaginative adventures each. I have not been affected by any price changes, and you have to expect inflation over time anyway. I wish Poly were killed though if that would lower the price. As I said, Poly's worthless.
So... here is what you do...
*Kill Poly.
*Lower the price.
*Set the page count (by MY standards, stated above) to 60-ish per issue
*Publish 2 adventures per issue.
*Publish one of the following per issue:
...*1 side trek and 1 crit threat
...*2 critical threats
*1 map of mystery.
*Keep the full-page artwork that faces each adventure. Art is often as good as content to me.
*Include "aids" more often then you do now (I scan them and print them with a color printer, as more and more readers/DMs probably do these days)
--Bob
baseballfury
First Post
I like Dungeon/Poly the way it is. I like the fact that it's color, I love the mini games, and I would be very disappointed if Poly was killed.
I don't feel that I absolutely must use everything in the magazine or it's "useless." Will I run Spelljammer from that mini game? No, probably not, but it was a good read and I might pull some ideas out of it. Same goes for Dungeon. I mean really, how many of you guys bitching about Poly run every single adventure in Dungeon?
I don't feel that I absolutely must use everything in the magazine or it's "useless." Will I run Spelljammer from that mini game? No, probably not, but it was a good read and I might pull some ideas out of it. Same goes for Dungeon. I mean really, how many of you guys bitching about Poly run every single adventure in Dungeon?
pogre
Legend
I wish Dungeon was viable just as a D&D adventure magazine, but clearly it is not. A magazine useful only to DMs is going to be tough to sell on the scale of Dragon.
If Poly saves Dungeon then old timers like me can just treat it as a big advertisement to generate more revenue.
There are limits to what I will suffer to get a few good adventures out of Dungeon, but I can honestly say Paizo is no where near it.
It does help when they explain their situation. They don't have to do that, and I appreciate it.
It seems like D&D itself is losing some steam - it's only natural secondary products like Dungeon would suffer some as well. I hope 3.5 reinvigorates the whole scene.
If Poly saves Dungeon then old timers like me can just treat it as a big advertisement to generate more revenue.
There are limits to what I will suffer to get a few good adventures out of Dungeon, but I can honestly say Paizo is no where near it.
It does help when they explain their situation. They don't have to do that, and I appreciate it.
It seems like D&D itself is losing some steam - it's only natural secondary products like Dungeon would suffer some as well. I hope 3.5 reinvigorates the whole scene.
Ghostwind said:
Yes, that'd stop me getting Dragon, no doubt.
I buy Dungeon magazine because it gives me adventures. In the past year, I've used several adventures and sidetreks from its pages, and have been very happy with it.
If those adventures are presented in a magazine my players will buy, then they are of no use to me.
Cheers!
Similar Threads
