EN World GameStore Closing

[mythusmage]

That's where I got lost. OBS will already be drawing more income than any one publisher. The royalty increase has been justified, in part, by the supposed growth of the market to follow that will absorb the lost revenue to publishers. How then does the same arguement not stand against OBS when reversed? The lost revenue certainly strikes against the individual publisher more than it does OBS, who has its fingers in every publisher's pie.

And OBS will be getting increased commissions overall from the increased sales. Under their scheme they would get $3.50 from one $10.00 sale. Under my scheme they would get $4.00 from two $10.00 sales. If more sales means more revenue for the publisher, even with the increased commission; then more sales means more revenue for OBS, even with a lower commission.

True, OBS would also get more revenue with the higher comissions, but lower commissions makes OBS more attractive as a vendor. More publishers, more traffic. More traffic, more sales. More sales, more exposure.

Don't forget, PDF publishing is a young business, it will grow. Revenue will grow with it as more and more people turn to PDFs for their book purchases, and as more and more people turn to home or POD printing. My long term goal here is to make PDF selling and purchasing more appealing to all concerned.

 

[Umbran]

This shows that any marketing/advertising money spent would be more efficiently spent by the publishers, not the site

Technically, no. It says that in the past, the total money the site has spent has been less effective than the total spent by the publishers. But until we know what those totals actually are, we cannot speak to relative efficiency. Unfortunately, we are unlikely to ever see the aggregagte spending by publishers, so we'll probably never see a good measure of the efficiencies.

Spent properly, the site should be able to make use of economies of scale and venues of marketing and advertising unavailable to individual publishers. The publishers, on the other hand, should be able to be more agile and carefully targetted. Thus, the optimum brobably lies with some combination of spending by each.

 

[RangerWickett]

(although we have to make 30% extra sales, having gone from 0% to 30%).

Actually, since they're taking a 30% cut, we need to increase sales by 42.86% to break even. We're making 7/10 of our previous profit, so we need to sell 10/7 in volume.

I think I would be more comfortable if only two of the stores had merged, instead of all 3. Maybe we should blame too much cyberpunk, but my gut makes me wary of megacorps. OBS certainly isn't an actual megacorp, but they're the big dog now. I know the guys in charge aren't bad people, but I just haven't been convinced yet that reducing competition between sales venues is actually good for the industry.

I'm not opposed to it, but I just haven't made up my mind yet. If I were in a position where I was the sole proprietor of a company, I think I too would be displeased with the sudden change, particularly when coupled with the commission increase. Like someone already said, sure there has been a fair 30-day notification, but during those 30-days some folks might not want to support the company.

I'm going to wait and see if somehow OBS fits into a millenial world-government conspiracy, or if we'll actually double our sales and all find true love in the next few months. I'm hoping for the second.

 

[jgbrowning]

Technically, no. It says that in the past, the total money the site has spent has been less effective than the total spent by the publishers. But until we know what those totals actually are, we cannot speak to relative efficiency. Unfortunately, we are unlikely to ever see the aggregagte spending by publishers, so we'll probably never see a good measure of the efficiencies.

True. There is the chance that the advertising spent by the site could be dollar-per-dollar more effective than advertising by the publishers. I'd hesitate to say so given previous information concerning the general disatisfaction with prior site advertising programs.

Thus, the optimum brobably lies with some combination of spending by each.

Indeed. I work to advertise my company and they get a % of my sale because of it, they work to advertise their site and they get a % of every sale because of it and currently the relationship has been a 50/50 one. Perfect.

My concern is I'm not sure why I'm suddenly supposed to provide them an additional 9% of my sales to help fund their advertising when after 4 years of advertising the resulting return rate is still 50/50 site/publisher. Given past performance, I don't think their adversiting choices are going to become more effective just because they're using my money to do it.

joe b.

 

[catsclaw227]

Quick question, and it may have been addressed already in the previous 6 pages, but will my store credits be combined into a single credit? At least this way, I will get more bang for my buck.

 

[BryonD]

but I just haven't been convinced yet that reducing competition between sales venues is actually good for the industry.

It isn't automatically good for the industry.
But having someone else come in and take away the owner's ability to do what they want with their companies would be quite bad for the industry.

Also, the owners all appear to agree to want to do this. Thus they expect better returns down the road this way than they expect if they had stayed separate. If their expectations play out (and by no means is this ever an asumption), then it will be good for the industry, which in the long run will be good for the consumers also.

 

[pawsplay]

As an aspiring publisher, I find the news a little troubling. However, I hope the endeavor is successful. If OBS makes a healthy profit, that means a healthier PDF market, which drives the demand for new products, which helps publishers and writers. If sales are not up to to snuff, though, I hope OBS has the good sense to relent to royalty levels at which small publishers were making a decent profit.

 

[Wolv0rine]

It isn't automatically good for the industry.
But having someone else come in and take away the owner's ability to do what they want with their companies would be quite bad for the industry.

Also, the owners all appear to agree to want to do this. Thus they expect better returns down the road this way than they expect if they had stayed separate. If their expectations play out (and by no means is this ever an asumption), then it will be good for the industry, which in the long run will be good for the consumers also.

And (for the purposes of your arguement alone) I refer you back to Microsoft on this issue. You seem to be unaware that such things can happen, and do happen. I'm not saying 'The govt needs to jump in here on this' or anything so silly, I'm merely addressing your arguement, which is failing to take this into account.

 

[rpghost]

And (for the purposes of your arguement alone) I refer you back to Microsoft on this issue. You seem to be unaware that such things can happen, and do happen. I'm not saying 'The govt needs to jump in here on this' or anything so silly, I'm merely addressing your arguement, which is failing to take this into account.

If you want to get all technicall and such... a privatly owned company (which we are) CAN NOT be a monopoly and the government cannot step in to break it up or any such thing. So the FTC or any of those things someone suggested above have no relavence here.

James

 

[madelf]

It's not one-day's notice. The royalty change doesn't take place for a month. That is the standard notice required for such changes as indicated in the contract, and is the level of notice wihch has been used in the past.

Objecting to the increase is fair enough; but be aware that full notice has been given.

No. I don't feel that it was adequate notice.

The contract I signed was with RPGnow. Although I haven't pulled it out to double check, it was my understanding that ANY changes to that contract (not just rate changes) required 30 days notice. I'm also pretty sure that contract didn't include a provision for sticking my products on the DTRPG site.

I was given a day's notice that my products were going to be appearing on DTRPG. They are there now, and I'm still not sure how I feel about that (rate hike issues aside). I didn't fail to list my stuff on their site out of laziness, I had reasons for choosing not to list there. I was not given enough time to consider whether those reasons were still of importance to me, or of sufficient importance to outweigh the benefit of being with the combined store, yet my products are there. I wasn't given the option to decline in advance of the move.

If I should decide in the next day or two that I do not want to go with OBS after the 30 day delay on the rate hike, I also cannot simply remove my products from DTRPG while maintaining them on RPGNow until I can choose another outlet and change all my links, etc. I'm forced to have my products on both sites, or neither, until I make other arrangements.

If I had been given 30 days notice prior to these changes, I would have had time to think this over, decide how I wanted to proceed, and could have taken action in an orderly manner prior to the move. I wasn't given that opportunity. I think I should have been.

So I think the "one day's notice" accusation is quite appropriate.