ENnies: Publisher feedback and suggestions sought on the future of the ENnies

[jaldaen]

I think the ENnies are a potential benefit to everyone involved (the gamers, ENWorld, and the publishers). They could (and do) drive massive amounts of traffic to ENWorld's site.

For the publishers to get use from the awards in a business sense, they're going to have to recognize the reality of the marketplace. Awards that tip their hat at the successes from a year ago aren't really of value to publishers. By the time a year has passed, the marketplace has already decided whether the product has value or not.

Hmmm... perhaps there might be some happy middle ground here... instead of a quarterly ENnies which would certainly dilute the awards meaning...

What if we had year round judging where the judges announced one ENnies nominee for each quarter and then at the end of each year choosing one or two "wildcard" products to add to the annual ENnies ceremony.

This would do two things which I think will help both the ENnies and the publishers...

1) It will keep people (fans and publishers) engaged with the ENnies all year round while not diluting them.
2) Publishers who win the quarterly nomination of the ENnies would be able to advertise such when it matters most to them by putting the ENnies logo on their site and perhaps on their products (by ordering ENnies stickers or some such that can be placed on the physical product). This added benefit may encourage them to enter and even accept some of the monetary burden of the ENnies (i.e. by shipping directly to judges, nominal entry fees, and/or the designer dinners and other suggestions made by Pramas and Dextra).

There are downsides to this approach...

1) This is a major change to how things were done in the past and may not agree with everyone especially since you could have a relatively weak quarter where things that normally would not make the cut are given the nomination. A relatively strong quarter is partially addressed by the wildcard idea, but it may not be enough.
2) A lot more work for the volunteer ENnies staff and judges as you will have to keep judges on year round and they will have to meet multiple deadlines throughout the year,
3) If publishers are not sending product directly to judges then you will also have to gather and distribute products on a quarterly, if not monthly basis.

I'm sure there are other downsides, but I've got to get some work done today so I'll leave it there for others to debate the merits and downsides to this approach.

Have a Great Day!

 

[Dextra]

The Shipping Issue
-it costs me about $7USD in postage and packaging to mail out a single book. Multiply that by six, it's $42. Based on those numbers, here are a few suggestions/options (I'd like to see more judges & publishers wade in on what they think)
1. $50 Entry fee for the first book, $25/subsequent submission. Send all of the copies to one location, the central place will handle the rest, including letting the publisher know when the book has been received, and sending out the individual copies to the judges. Minimal pain in the butt factor for the publishers, but a little more cash outlay, considerable PITA factor for the judges. How

After some discussion with my sweet baboo, he pointed out that it costs closer to $5 to ship a book within the US. Then I thought that if one of the judges could be convinced to allow his/her home to be the staging area, then we'd only need to ship out four copies to the other judges. So that flat entry fee could be brought down.
Instead, twould only need be $30 for the first book, $10/additional submission.
So if a publisher only submitted one product, it'd cost them $30 to enter it. If they submitted three, it'd cost $50.
Massive pain in the butt factor for the poor judge with a basement full of books, but it certainly would reduce the "jumping through hoops" factor of having to ship to multiple locations, and would help subsidize the event.

 

[Dextra]

How about auctioning off signed copies of their products? Maybe even celebrity auctions. For example, a George RR Martin autographed copy of A Game of Thrones RPG or boardgame.

Or charity auction of original artwork? How much $ is required anyway?

For this past year, iirc, shipping the products and buying and shipping the trophies cost just under $1K.
If we were to furnish a booth and do any promotional work, we'd need to double that, and that would provide for a only half-assed advertising effort- but it'd be a start.

 

[d20Dwarf]

Hmmm... perhaps there might be some happy middle ground here... instead of a quarterly ENnies which would certainly dilute the awards meaning...

What if we had year round judging where the judges announced one ENnies nominee for each quarter and then at the end of each year choosing one or two "wildcard" products to add to the annual ENnies ceremony.

This system does nothing to address the publishers' concern that the ENnies do nothing to drive sales. Even quarterly awards will be a stretch, but at least the sales guy could call the distributors and say "hey, xx just won an award, would you like to take a few more?" while such a thing is even possible.

What really needs to be done is to get *distributors* to recognize the awards, or get their input on whether or not *any* award will drive them to take more of a product. I have my own thoughts, but would love to know theirs.

 

[Dextra]

I like the idea of a quarterly nomination plus wildcard(s), but it would mean the publishers would have to ship the product directly to the judges, which seems to have become an issue.

Suggestion for a cheap start to keep some publishers happier:
-update the ENnies web page to include the winners (and lose the "Join us at GenCon to see who the winners are" line). Maybe include some pictures of the ceremony & winners
-include a link to each nominated publisher's web site, that way they're getting additional exposure, so a nomination means at least some additional publicity for them.

Unless you're an electronic publisher, chances are a nomination or win won't mean additional sales of that individual product. But with the additional push put on in marketing and advertising the ENnies that's coming up, at least it might make a difference for products from the same publisher. If the only reason a publisher wants to get involved is because they want to increase sales (of an already dead product by the time the nominations would be announced- even if the quarterly model was used), then I agree, there's no point. If however a publisher wishes to receive the accolades of his/her peers and fans for a job well-done, then the ENnies should keep on keepin' on.

 

[Jim Butler]

However, do you not feel that a quarterly system as you've suggested would dilute the ENnies? There'd be so many of the things given out every year that it'd be unusual not to have won one.

I don't believe it would dilute the ENnies. In fact, I think it would make the process of choosing what are truly the best products more manageable.

As it stands now, the Judges (and the gaming public) are asked to look back at the 800 or so products released over the last year and choose the one they think is best for each category. That's a huge number of products to even look at, let alone pick up and read.

Moving the awards to a quarterly system makes for a selection that's more easily managed, yet keeps the excitement of building up to the Gen Con ceremony. Each quarterly winner automatically makes it into the running for the yearly ENnie award given out at Gen Con.

EN Publishing is a revenue stream for the site; it is necessary. I try to keep it as much in the background as I can, but if server fees are to be paid, the site must raise money. In essence, you're suggesting removing a revenue stream and replacing it with a drain - that's not something I can do. This site struggles as it is.

It's an unpleasant side to running what is, essentially, a fan site. One day, as you grow, you have to do these things or disappear. That said, EN Publishing is a pretty darn small little venture - it is hardly up there in the ranks of many of the people posting to this thread, including your own company.

That is certainly one way to look at it. But given the effort involved in creating new products, marketing and distributing them, and then selling them to consumers, you might be better off just taking cash from publishers rather than trying to join them. What happens to those products that end up losing money--does ENWorld have to support those losses?

I agree with you that ENWorld must adapt to survive and thrive in the new world. I also admit that even if EN Publishing disappeared off the face of the earth that publishers wouldn't return to advertise in droves.l.. that will take time. But I still believe that's the best option for ENWorld's future.

 

[HellHound]

That is certainly one way to look at it. But given the effort involved in creating new products, marketing and distributing them, and then selling them to consumers, you might be better off just taking cash from publishers rather than trying to join them. What happens to those products that end up losing money--does ENWorld have to support those losses?

No. E.N.World never pays a penny towards E.N.Publishing.

That E.N.Publishing pays towards E.N.World just shows that the site does not maintain itself currently. E.N.Publishing is a legally distinct company from E.N.World - it is a registered partnership in the province of Ontario that is owned 50% by Russell Morrissey and 50% by M Jason Parent. The terms of this partnership are quite firm, and E.N.Publishing covers all it's own expenses, and net profits are shared between the owners - Russell then takes his share and uses it as needed (such as on this website, or for paying for food and shelter), just as I do (also on necessities and the annual GenCon trip).

As for what happens when E.N.Publishing products end up losing money, I'll tell you when one does. As it stands, eve our one 'problem child' product turned a profit in the long run. Regardless, E.N.Publishing will cover the losses, not E.N.World. E.N.Publishing has never required a monetary contribution from either of its partners in the past, nor do I expect that it will in the future.

 

[Pramas]

This system does nothing to address the publishers' concern that the ENnies do nothing to drive sales.

I know this is a big concern of Jim Butler, as he's brought it up many a time in the debates about the Origins Awards, but for me it's a non-issue. I will certainly use award wins to market my products and my company, but I don't feel that awards owe me additional sales. A lack of extra sales does not diminish the awards, or make them any less worth striving for. I appreciate the ENnies for what they are: the recognition of quality work by a great community. If that's all the ENnies ever are, that'd be fine by me.

 

[Vigilance]

I know this is a big concern of Jim Butler, as he's brought it up many a time in the debates about the Origins Awards, but for me it's a non-issue. I will certainly use award wins to market my products and my company, but I don't feel that awards owe me additional sales. A lack of extra sales does not diminish the awards, or make them any less worth striving for. I appreciate the ENnies for what they are: the recognition of quality work by a great community. If that's all the ENnies ever are, that'd be fine by me.

Pre-Post Disclaimer: This isn't a snarky jab at big companies in general or Green Ronin specifically. I am as big a fan of GR as anyone (maybe bigger) and think they deserve every single accolade.

That said, its easier for a bigger company to gain a benefit from the awards as they stand imo. For a company like Green Ronin or Malhavoc, the cost of entering the awards, even if increased, would not be enough to sting or hurt the bottom line.

Further you have a realistic expectation of winning, year after year, which increases your already trememendous visibility among your customers.

Now let's dial it down to a company say, of RPGObjects' size. The cost of entering the awards was felt by us this year, and after three years of being nominated, we havent won.

Further, Jim's point about the awards marketing value was very strongly brought home to me earlier this year when I realized only a small percentage of ENWorld regulars knew about our company.

As a company for whom PDFs are an important part of our business model we had at least been telling ourselves that Ennie nominations strongly helped that side of the business.

Chuck

PS Before someone else says it: I *know* we are responsible for our own market presence or lack thereof.

And we spend as much money as we can on marketing. Review copies and ennies submissions are part of that money.

However, if even ENWorld regulars are not becoming aware of us after regular participation on these boards and a history of ennie nominations... we have to examine where to spend the limited cash we have for marketing.

 

[RangerWickett]

Mr. Butler, I don't want to side track this thread, but I would be interested in discussing your opinion of how E.N. Publishing's presence on this site affects the value of ENWorld to you as a publisher. If you'd be willing to send me an email at RangerWickett@hotmail.com, I'd like to see if we can address your grievances without interfering with E.N. Publishing's business. I certainly wasn't aware that we were stepping on anyone's toes, and if there is a problem, I'd hope we could find a way to please everyone. This same offer of discussion applies to anyone who feels there's any sort of conflict of interest raised by E.N. Pub's presence.


On the topic at hand, I'm intrigued by the quarterly ENnies idea. I still heavily am in favor of all the publishers providing pdf samples of their products so that when we have voting people will be able to see what all the competition is.

I'm also in favor of, whenever the voting ultimately takes place, giving everyone two votes -- the primary choice gets 1 vote, the secondary choice gets a half vote. This prevents negative ballot-stuffing (which is possible by giving 1s under the current system), and lets people support multiple books if they liked them.

So . . .

Quarter 1: May to July
Quarter 2: August to October
Quarter 3: November to January
Quarter 4: February to April

Vote for judges in April each year. Each quarter, the judges pick one product in each of 12 categories, and these awards are given out without a popular vote, being announced within a month of that quarter's end. Then in June the next year, in each category the four winners from the quarters, plus up to two 'wildcard' or 'merit' or 'lucky' products, go up for popular voting. The results are announced at GenCon, with a big celebration.

At GenCon we can add one or two extra categories -- such as best D20 monster, best D20 sprocket, etc. I'm not sure if those would be judge-chosen or popular-vote items. And we might want a peer award, a product that was not a quarterly ENnie winner that is chosen by those who did win quarterly ENnies. Hmm. It's a thought.

This sounds intriguing. Outside the box thinking. Good.

But alas, I must sleep now.