Fear!

[barsoomcore]

All I'm saying is that both Paizo and Wizards staff are on record as saying those two magazines were LOSING money when being published alone. So if your idea of why the magazines were combined is true, then Erik Mona (among others) is a liar. I prefer to believe that you are incorrect, though I admit I have no data to suggest either possibility is true.

 

[barsoomcore]

Here are Erik Mona's exact words on this subject:

At the time Polyhedron was combined with Dungeon, neither magazine was making a profit, and both would surely have been dead within a matter of months if they had not been melded together. Adding the Poly subscribers to the Dungeon base helped the overall circulation of Dungeon significantly, and the new d20 System focus of Polyhedron brought a new brand of reader to the magazine. A year later, both magazines are doing better financially, with more people regularly purchasing, reading, and enjoying them than ever before. Truly, it is a great era for the universe.

The original post

So believe what you like.

 

[RodneyThompson]

There's no doubt in my mind that what Erik says is true. Polyhedron and Dungeon probably couldn't survive independently, then or now. That doesn't mean I can't wish for a non-D&D d20 Magazine. And I think if you really got the support of the fans of games like Spycraft, Stargate SG-1, Star Wars, Mutants and Masterminds, d20 Modern, etc. you'd have enough of a combined fan base for a pretty solid magazine. Organizing such an endeavor would be complex to say the least.

 

[ledded]

All I'm saying is that both Paizo and Wizards staff are on record as saying those two magazines were LOSING money when being published alone. So if your idea of why the magazines were combined is true, then Erik Mona (among others) is a liar. I prefer to believe that you are incorrect, though I admit I have no data to suggest either possibility is true.

Whoa whoa whoa Barsoomie, calm down a bit. I'm not calling anybody anything.

I don't doubt that the mags were losing money, but I do doubt that this was the whole story, and that Paizo based very much of their part in it on the love of the genre or concern in providing content to those who wanted it. I was just trying to look beyond the spin, and the press announcement kinda stuff, to get a glimpse at what it behind it by suppressing my naiveté for a few moments.

So if I take what you are saying to be accurate, and I'm full of poo, then they were losing money *just* because nobody was buying them, and after they combined everybody jumped up and down and suddenly started snapping them up because it was the coolest thing since sliced bread. None of that could be attrbutable to the increased exposure and interest in that sector of the gaming market during that time which made a focus shift and re-invention feasible. The increase in profits was in no way related to the reduction of costs that come with longer production runs of a single mag, potentially less staff, management/editorial consolidation, or any reduction in overhead or increase in efficiency stemming from consolidation of the resources dedicated to 2 seperate entities. It had nothing to do with reducing competition for advertising space between the 2 entities within nearly the same genre, where a combination maximizes the advertising dollar and effectively reaches *both* target audiences for effectively half the cost to the advertising customer.

Which, if you look beyond the brief marketing nature of it, is precisely what Erik Mona's post says from a business perspective. Change focus, consolidate resources, reduce costs... more profit.

Could they have been managed better seperately so that they could have made money? I don't know, and don't really care. I like the combination personally, and the shift in focus. I like it now, though like many, many others would really like to see more non-D&D content.

But to think that the daddy of these magazines (not necessarily their editorial staff, mind you, but the guys they answer to) takes your thoughts or needs into their decisions and weighs them carefully is at best naive. They are simply there to make money, and if publishing magazines about The Worlds Most Interesting Dog Feces would do it, you can bet they would scrap your beloved mags in a second to switch that way. The editors, unfortunately, are given the unpleasant task of saving the mags they love and explaining it in a nice sunshiney way that wont make all the kids cry.

Sure, I paint it a bit harsh because I'm not a big fan of Paizo themselves (I tend to get that way about a company that kills my favorite gaming magazine, rips me off for the remainder of my subscription, then doesnt come through with the promised content in other mags, and the majority of what they publish and make the most money off of is pop-culture tripe IMO). But people were discussing many reasons why the mags were organized the way they were and why there wasnt more d20 non D&D content, and that's part of the reason why. There just isnt money in it for them to step outside of the mainstream pop-section of the genre, so they need to keep it as vanilla and bland as possible to reach the largest number of people. So no, unless a ton of people start spending a *lot* more money on non-D&D d20 in such a way that it can be easily measured and quantified by non-gamer accounting types, I don't think you will see companies like Paizo even remotely attempting to entertain the slightest notion of it. People should be glad they get what they do now; there's simply a lot MORE D&D'ers than non-D&D d20 people, and they are serving up their stuff to whoever has the biggest wallet and cutting their losses on the rest.

My whole point is, man, I was *agreeing* with you from an admittedly much more cynical standpoint, and then you go and imply I'm calling someone a liar. Tsk tsk dude, read between the lines already.

 

[barsoomcore]

Yeah, okay, I kinda blew up there.

*takes three or four big deep breaths*

Sorry about that.

I guess from my point of view, the "Big Moneybags Who Doesn't Care About Anything But The Bottom Line" is just as naive as the "Everyone Wants To Hug Each Other". People go into business for all sorts of reasons -- but very, very few people are in any aspect of the publishing business because they want to make buckets of money. Because by and large, there aren't buckets of money to be made printing stuff and shipping it to people who want to read it. If you want to make quick bucks, publishing ain't the business to be in.

That said, the idea that successful business owners don't consider the thoughts and needs of their customers is even more naive. They won't do everything every customer ever asks them to do, of course, because that's flat-out impossible, but anyone running a business that they have any interest in maintaining over the longer term HAS to listen to their customers. Successful businesses have one thing in common: really happy customers.

Lots of people run businesses under terms they know perfectly well aren't optimal -- because they love what they do. And lots of businesses run that way are perfectly successful. They don't make huge whacks of cash, but the people running them DO make enough of a profit to keep at it, and they get to spend their time on stuff that matters to them. I couldn't possibly speculate on what sort of people run Paizo -- but like I say, very few smart people go into publishing because they want quick bucks.

I never said anything about whether or not combining the magazine was the cause of the later success -- all I wanted to make sure was clear was that the people closest to the data (who are also the people with the most reason to want to paint the truth in a certain light, I'll grant you) are saying something very specific -- both magazines were losing money. It seemed to me (and I have to admit, that reading your post now, I'm not sure why -- you don't seem to be saying this at all anymore, but boy I sure THOUGHT you did ) that you were saying the magazines probably WERE viable enterprises as they had stood.

My apologies. Not sure what happened there - having kind of a crazy bad day at work, I guess. I'll go post enthusiastic comments in your storyhour, how's that?

 

[ledded]

There's no doubt in my mind that what Erik says is true. Polyhedron and Dungeon probably couldn't survive independently, then or now. That doesn't mean I can't wish for a non-D&D d20 Magazine. And I think if you really got the support of the fans of games like Spycraft, Stargate SG-1, Star Wars, Mutants and Masterminds, d20 Modern, etc. you'd have enough of a combined fan base for a pretty solid magazine. Organizing such an endeavor would be complex to say the least.

Theres no doubt in my mind either, taken from his perspective. I doubt that either could have survived with the same level of quality people came to expect under their existing form; publishing a nice high-quality glossy magazine is neither easy nor cheap. And I dont doubt that Erik and his staff made a lot of hard decisions and agonized long hours over how to make things good for everyone that depended on him to give them the content they desired. I also happen to think they did a good job of it, with a very few minor exceptions, and was able to save the mags for people to enjoy, even made them better in some areas IMO.

I also doubt that any of the bean-counters up the line at Paizo gave a rat's-patootie about anything he went through, as long as his staff made the bottom line work. And apparently they did.

Not to say they are bad folks or anything like that (I am sure it's quite the contrary), but quite simply they are running a business, and the purpose of a business is to make money.

Too bad they couldnt go the same for Star Wars Gamer, huh?

Yeah, I'd like to see a non-D&D d20 mag too, but because of the monumental complexities involved I doubt you will even if there was a way to prove you could do it and make a decent buck.

 

[ledded]

Yeah, okay, I kinda blew up there.

*takes three or four big deep breaths*

Sorry about that.

No problem, I apologize for being a conspiracy-harboring raving cynical smart-*ss.

I guess from my point of view, the "Big Moneybags Who Doesn't Care About Anything But The Bottom Line" is just as naive as the "Everyone Wants To Hug Each Other". People go into business for all sorts of reasons -- but very, very few people are in any aspect of the publishing business because they want to make buckets of money. Because by and large, there aren't buckets of money to be made printing stuff and shipping it to people who want to read it. If you want to make quick bucks, publishing ain't the business to be in.

Very true, though I personally do still believe that the truth is a lot closer to The Bottom Line than Big Hugs... hey, do you work at your current job just because you love it? What if you didnt need money at all, would you still do the exact same job just for personal fulfillment? Unfortunately, not many people can say yes to that, and I envy those who do.

That said, the idea that successful business owners don't consider...<snip>

For the most part I agree, but I have just worked for so many companies serving as the person who has to implement management policy into something truly useful for their end users, and so many times have I seen the higher-ups make stupid decisions and fail to listen to the guys on the front line just to serve their own ambitions, notions of grandeur, or short-term monetary bottom line. I admit that I come to expect it from nearly most corporate entity to some degree or another. So my cynicism may be annoying, or even off base sometimes, but a lot of it is sadly based off of personal observation, which I admit could just be my bad luck.

And I do feel that Paizo personally stiffed me for about 15 bucks in the SW Gamer fiasco, mainly because they weren't really willing to take the time to look into my subscription records or the credit card statements I faxed them. That pretty much convinced me that they didnt really give much of a hoot about the average gamer, especially when I wrote the fella I was working with and, when telling him that I would cancel my subscription to Dragon and Dungeon both if they didnt work at least try to work with me, his reply was along the lines of "well, you have to do what you have to do". So I did

I never said anything about whether or not combining the magazine was the cause of the later success -- all I wanted to make sure was clear was that the people closest to the data (who are also the people with the most reason to want to paint the truth in a certain light, I'll grant you) are saying something very specific -- both magazines were losing money. It seemed to me (and I have to admit, that reading your post now, I'm not sure why -- you don't seem to be saying this at all anymore, but boy I sure THOUGHT you did ) that you were saying the magazines probably WERE viable enterprises as they had stood.

No, you didnt, I guess I just sort of assumed that a little myself, huh?

And no, they weren't really viable and both were in dire need of an injection of new thought and direction like some of the better changes in Dragon around that time period. Could a re-org or transfer to a smaller shop done it better, keeping them seperate but maybe sacrificing quality, or keeping close to the same quality but lowering costs enough to be happy with a meager profit? Maybe, but who knows.

My apologies. Not sure what happened there - having kind of a crazy bad day at work, I guess. I'll go post enthusiastic comments in your storyhour, how's that?

Like I said, we both get worked up about a passionate subject on occasion, and I dont think that's a bad thing. It's not like you called me names or said my haircut was funny (it doesnt look funny, does it?)

But still feel free to post something nice in my SH if you like it, I'll definitely drop by the stewardesses the next time there's an update.

And I'll also try to turn off my long-windedness for a while.

 

[barsoomcore]

hey, do you work at your current job just because you love it? What if you didnt need money at all, would you still do the exact same job just for personal fulfillment?

That's one question, to which the answer of course is "If I'd do it for free, I wouldn't call it a job."



But there's another question, which is, "Given that you require money, are you going about getting it in the optimal fashion?" Clearly, running software development teams is NOT the most efficient way to acquire money. If I'm JUST getting money at my job, then why aren't I an accountant? Or a salesman?

Well, because I, like most others, try to find a balance between doing what I love and paying my rent. I NEED my job to offer me a certain amount of satisfaction, in addition to the paycheck, or else I'm miserable. I think most peole are the same. Even people who run businesses.

my cynicism may be annoying, or even off base sometimes, but a lot of it is sadly based off of personal observation, which I admit could just be my bad luck.

On the other hand, at least it's always well-expressed! And for all I know it's perfectly justified in the case of Paizo -- I don't know anything about the folks what run that company. But pissing off a customer by refusing to work with them -- sheesh. See, if I'm running a company, and a customer says, "Hey, you owe me $15," and I can at least verify that he's not a total flake, heck, give him the money! Then he goes to his buddies and says, "Those guys at Paizo are screwing up my magazine, but they're okay folks," and I've got more customers than I did before.

Bad customer service is my number-one peeve. I'd be choked, too. I mean, it's not the money, right? It's just the attitude. It's the sense that as a customer, you don't matter. Which, just to be a LITTLE argumentative (now that we're getting along so well) is not good business practice. It's sure death for any business, in any industry, and it's not a practice that SMART business leaders engage in.

Like I said, we both get worked up about a passionate subject on occasion, and I dont think that's a bad thing. It's not like you called me names or said my haircut was funny (it doesnt look funny, does it?)

Hair's fine, dude. But those Underoos...

But still feel free to post something nice in my SH if you like it, I'll definitely drop by the stewardesses the next time there's an update.

Deal. On my way...

And I'll also try to turn off my long-windedness for a while.

Don't do that! Then I'm the weirdo who won't shut up!

Okay, posting to SH.

 

[BryonD]

Maybe nobody on this thread has been down this road before, but the word from both Paizo and Wizards has been 100% consistent since day one:

Neither Dungeon nor Polyhedron were successful magazines on their own. Both were losing money. Combining the two was a last-ditch effort to avoid cutting both from the face of the publishing world.

We listened to customers who told us that they want core materials, not world materials. That they buy DUNGEON magazine every two months at a rate twice that of our best selling stand-alone adventures.

At some point they started up with the Dungeon was losing money line and they have undoubtly stood by it since. But it was by no means "DAY ONE".

I still believe that Poly is unsustainable on its own and the story is marketing spin to help it to feed off DUNGEON. And if you REALLY go back to day ONE, you find evidence to support that.

Regardless, my opinion has not changed. My voice is nearly meaningless in this debate, and that is exactly how it should be. Paizo owns both magazines and I do not begrudge them in any slight manner the right to publish in whatever form they choose.

I just will not buy a product that I find not to be worthwhile.

 

[ledded]

<snip>

Well, because I, like most others, try to find a balance between doing what I love and paying my rent. I NEED my job to offer me a certain amount of satisfaction, in addition to the paycheck, or else I'm miserable. I think most peole are the same. Even people who run businesses.

Well, I think my problem is that I used to love what I do, and got good at it, and now the thrill is gone, yet I'm still good at it but not much else. At least, not anything that pays, you know, like, money. So I spend my day working feverishly so I can save up a few moments to write a few things and post on the boards

<snip>It's the sense that as a customer, you don't matter. Which, just to be a LITTLE argumentative (now that we're getting along so well) is not good business practice. <snip>

Which is why they got cordoned, possibly unfairly, into the corral of uncaring corporate slobs.

Hair's fine, dude. But those Underoos...

hey Hey HEY! Just *what* do you have against Sponge Bob? Huh? Who lives in a pineapple under the sea! Square and yellow and porous is he!

Deal. On my way...

And thanks for posting something nice.

Now if you *really* want to see how crazy I am, check out the miniatures thread to see how my multiple caffeine-induced psychotic disorders manifest themselves in gaming materials.

Don't do that! Then I'm the weirdo who won't shut up!

Heh heh. But wait, that would make me....

aw, crap.

Heh. Um, yeah.