Funny Email From a Publisher re. Reviews

[Martin]

It's Natural 20 Press, isn't it? <grin>

[edit=clarification]

 

[Khan the Warlord]

OK, I know who it is now.

And with only a small, $20 donation to my PayPal account, you can too!



And yes, it was a surprise.

 

[Ghostwind]

My research keeps coming back to a pdf publisher but my gut feeling is that it is someone publishing print and not pdf...

 

[AaronLoeb]

I feel your consternation, Morrus. I had this happen to me a lot in the past from computer game companies -- though not to this extreme a degree. When I was at Next Generation, we once posted the first review of a game that everyone was expecting to be the game of the year -- and it was an utter dog. We kicked it around, called it names, made fun of its parents, etc. The PR guy ended up leaving a message on voice mail accusing us of severe bias and saying that his company would never support Next Generation ever again as we were clearly insane.

Then everyone else reviewed the game and also slaughtered it. He never followed through on his threats.

The truth is, people get really upset about negative reviews, and they have some good reasons. Sometimes they've worked for years on a product and it hurts to have a critic just tear it to pieces in 600 words. But that's the game you play, and one just has to accept it as reality. All that said, it is really rare for someone to determine they'll no longer support a publication. It's poor form -- especially to try to go to war with a pub as large as yours.

The main concerns for me, were I in their shoes, would be backlash from readers (they've gotta know it's going to get ugly when you reveal who they are) and backlash from the other publications they list in their letter to you. If I were an editor for GamingReport.com, I'd take pretty serious umbrage at the implication inherent in the letter -- that GamingReport's reviews are for sale in return for free stuff, so publisher XXXXXX will continue to support them.

With an attitude like that, XXXXX may find itself in a complete review blackout. That can't be good for business.

AJL

 

[Morrus]

If I were an editor for GamingReport.com, I'd take pretty serious umbrage at the implication inherent in the letter -- that GamingReport's reviews are for sale in return for free stuff, so publisher XXXXXX will continue to support them.

I hadn't thought about that - but you're right. That email does imply negative things about other sites which I'm sure aren't true. Were I running one of those sites, I would be pretty upset.

 

[Ghostwind]

Morrus-

Perhaps you should forward the initial letter, your response, and their response to each of the other sites mentioned. It would be very interesting to know their response. Interesting enough, the same company also refuses to deal with my site after a not so favorable review... (Yes, I've figured it out).

 

[Umbran]

I am curious what the rationale is behind not simply saying who it is. They have obviously chosen to take a stand, I see no reason not to disclose that stand publicly.

As has been mentioned by others, the fact that one person at a company says a thing is not necessarily reason to paint the whole company with that brush.

ColonelHardisson asked, "Why is someone who obviously is 'in the know' or in a position of authority with that company sending out such e-mails if that isn't the company's position? " The answer could well be that one person there is a putz. While somebody seems to be acting in an unprofessional manner, a single e-mail is not really sufficient evidence to say the whole company is such.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Logically, it would follow that the publishing company in question would be the one with a 3.5 review average and 5 total reviews of their products.

Not at all a safe leap of logic, Watson.

Morrus only referred to reviews from ENworld staff (two 4s, one 3, and two 2s). There could be any number of reviews from fans mixed in there, and it could be spread among any number of products.

Err, not to mention the fact that 4+4+3+2+2 / 5 is 3.0, not 3.5...

The only safe way to know without jumping to unfortunate conclusions is for Morrus to tell us.

Wulf

 

[Buttercup]

Good Lord! Their stance is really disturbing. In my professional life, I've been receiving review copies of books for years, and never has any publisher even hinted that the free copies construed any sort of contract. They give you the book, you write what you think. Period. Suggesting that free copy=bribe for good review is just not done.

If this is not some sort of mistake, then once Morrus spills the beans, I won't be purchasing any more of their products, no matter who it is. I hope it isn't one of my favorite companies, because that would suck. Nonetheless, I really can't give money to a company that thinks it is reasonable to purchase good reviews.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

As has been mentioned by others, the fact that one person at a company says a thing is not necessarily reason to paint the whole company with that brush.

ColonelHardisson asked, "Why is someone who obviously is 'in the know' or in a position of authority with that company sending out such e-mails if that isn't the company's position? " The answer could well be that one person there is a putz. While somebody seems to be acting in an unprofessional manner, a single e-mail is not really sufficient evidence to say the whole company is such.

I'll agree, to a point. However, many d20 companies are rather small, so this may be the stance of one of the main people, perhaps a CEO. If so, then the company is, indeed, unprofessional. Doesn't mean everyone working for them is.