*shrugs*
I've said it before and I'll say it again...
The major paradigm shift that needs to occur in the Paizo offices is the following:
Dungeon is not competing with magazines. Dungeon is competing with other published adventures/modules. This means Dungeon should be designed around the same general philosophy as modules, not magazines.
I often hear Paizo compare costs of Dungeon vs. Adventure modules (you get 112 pages for $7 with us, versus 32 pages for $10 with the other guys). But they don't seem to realize the implications of this argument... as a "module/adventure," the layout and format of Dungeon absolutely sucks (sorry for the choice of words).
Who are the primary consumers of adventure modules? DMs. I don't know about other DMs, but when I run a published adventure, I like to photocopy the pages (or just write on the module itself) and put copious notes of changes, tweaks, etc. into the margins. I use the margins to keep track of hit points in battle, wounded monsters when the party withdraws, etc. In other words, a well-crafted module has sufficient "white space" to allow the DM to tailor it to his own campaign (note that I'm not advocating a huge amount of white space, but there does need to be some, and a one-inch margin does a great job). Dungeon does not have the requisite white space to do this (instead favoring full-color, dark borders that turn dark gray to black when photocopied), and thus is poorly laid out for an adventure module. Furthermore, the glossy paper removes any chance I might have to make notes in pencil on the pages of the module itself.
So the choice of media - glossy paper - and the choice of layout - no margins - make Dungeon a BAD adventure module in terms of production values (this is no reflection on the quality of the writing).
Similarly, the maps, while gorgeous in full color, need to either be provided in black and white or to "transform" well when copied (most DMs want to make notes on the maps, too).
Proposed Solution:
Dungeon needs to drop the full-color glossy page interior format in favor of Black & White, non-glossy pages with white space in the margins.
Immediately, I hear, "but that knocks down potential advertising revenue!"
Yes, it does. But it also drops production costs
significantly. I don't have access to the numbers, but I wouldn't be surprised if the drop in production cost more than offset the loss of potential advertising revenue (since most advertisers will be less-inclined to advertise in B&W and will pay less than they will for full-color advertising even if they do advertise).
Which leads me to a second point... Dungeon is a poorly designed "adventure module" because it has glorious full-color artwork inside and an abundance of advertising.
First of all, let's address the issue of full-color artwork in a module. While it looks nice, it is (a) expensive and (b) usually unnecessary. A small amount of strategically placed artwork is needed every once in a while to break up the monotony of a sea of text, but B&W art does just as much to break it up... and for a lot less money. Furthermore, the only true "need" for artwork in a module comes in the form "player handouts..." and most of the art currently in Dungeon isn't player handouts.
As the ads go, I don't know about you, but don't usually see ads in the middle of modules I buy in the store (I may see an ad for a company's upcoming product on the last page or two, but NOT in the middle of the adventure itself). Ads are a detriment to the gamer. However, eliminating ads entirely may hurt Dungeon's revenue streams too greatly.
I don't know Dungeon's present circulation, but I would not be surprised if it were at least 10,000... which is more "built-in" customers than you see for pretty much any product out there except for the Core Rulebooks. And since many of these are direct subscribers, there is one less "middle man markup" than you see on modules (where you must pay the FLGS owner, the distributor, and the producing company - I believe Paizo uses a distributor, but that still knocks out the FLGS from the equation on subscriptions). That, to me, means that Dungeon has a lot more going for it in terms of potential profitability than a "standard adventure module" - it has more customers than any module (meaning economies of scale can knock down the production price) and there are fewer middlemen taking a "cut" of the cover price (meaning a larger percentage of the cover price should wind up in Paizo's pocket)... and that's just on "sales," to say nothing of advertising revenue.
Why do I bring the preceding up? Because it tells me that if any "non-magazine" company can turn a profit producing adventure modules, Paizo should be able to turn a profit with ease. Further, Paizo *should* be able to be turn a profit without needing advertising revenue, and thus should be able sustain the "hit" in advertising dollars it would take should it go to B&W. They have a certain guaranteed customer base (the subscribers), they have more market penetration than any module adventure producer is going to see, and they have fewer "middlemen" taking bites out of their profit.
Thus, as I see it, there can be only two explanations for Paizo's claims that Dungeon isn't profitable:
1.) Paizo is spending too much on production. They are doing this because they are thinking too much like a "magazine" and not enough like an "adventure module producer" - and their decisions thus incur costs unneccessary to compete in their market niche (e.g., glossy full-color interior pages).
2.)
Nobody can turn a profit in publishing adventures, period - not even a company with an advantage in pre-sales (subscriptions), market penetration, name recognition, scale (bringing production costs down), fewer middlemen, and lower shipping rates (bulk postage rates).
I find #2 a bit untenable... which leaves me with only conclusion #1.
I may be very wrong. This is just my perception. But Poly or no Poly, I think Dungeon is trying to conform to the wrong paradigm and without some significant wholesale changes in the way they think, they are doomed to failure because they can't get out of the "magazine" mindset - and because of that mindset, they make decisions that are unnecessarily expensive and not conducive to "adventure module publishing company."
This is a problem to a lesser degree with Dragon, as well, but that's for another thread.
--The Sigil
