Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="fearsomepirate" data-source="post: 8237668" data-attributes="member: 7021420">As someone who has worked for gigantic corporations almost my whole life, they are rarely, if ever, petty and vindictive on an institutional level. That tends to be tiny company behavior, e.g. the FLGS down the street from me that sabotaged itself because the owner personally had a grudge against Warhammer.What they are is extremely conservative, often to the point of bewildering stupidity. I am willing to bet money that the Dragonlance situation has little to do with personal emotions, and everything to do with some of the most boring lawyers and product managers you can imagine discussing the implications of having an intellectual property that you legally control, on paper, but which the market largely regards as somebody else's.If I'm a corporate product guy, Butcher bailing is a huge red flag. It says, yeah, we legally own Dragonlance, but we really don't control it. Not really. Someone else does. The fact is that Weis &amp; Hickman can screw up our plans just by not participating. They don't even have to say anything, and people we hire and make contracts with bail on us. It's our brand! They're not our employees! But due to consumer perception, they're still basically in control. Consequently, producing Dragonlance product has uncontrollable downsides for us because someone we can't fire, end a contract with, or otherwise end a relationship with retains the power to destroy the value of our brand because market perception is, regardless of what the papers say, is that its their brand.Doesn't matter that Hickman &amp; Weis didn't really go out there and try to screw up WotC. The problem is that they could. They have that power.&nbsp; It means that engaging with the Dragonlance brand has downside risks we can't control, and we hate that.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="fearsomepirate, post: 8237668, member: 7021420"] As someone who has worked for gigantic corporations almost my whole life, they are rarely, if ever, petty and vindictive on an institutional level. That tends to be tiny company behavior, e.g. the FLGS down the street from me that sabotaged itself because the owner personally had a grudge against Warhammer. What they are is extremely conservative, often to the point of bewildering stupidity. I am willing to bet money that the Dragonlance situation has little to do with personal emotions, and everything to do with some of the most boring lawyers and product managers you can imagine discussing the implications of having an intellectual property that you [I]legally [/I]control[I], [/I]on paper,[I] [/I]but which the market largely regards as somebody else's. If I'm a corporate product guy, Butcher bailing is a huge red flag. It says, yeah, we legally own Dragonlance, but we really don't control it. Not really. Someone else does. The fact is that Weis & Hickman can screw up our plans just by not participating. They don't even have to say anything, and people we hire and make contracts with bail on us. It's our brand! They're not our employees! But due to consumer perception, they're still basically in control. Consequently, producing Dragonlance product has uncontrollable downsides for us because someone we can't fire, end a contract with, or otherwise end a relationship with retains the power to destroy the value of [I]our [/I]brand because market perception is, regardless of what the papers say, is that its [I]their[/I] brand. Doesn't matter that Hickman & Weis didn't really go out there and try to screw up WotC. The problem is that they could. They have that power. It means that engaging with the Dragonlance brand has downside risks we can't control, and we hate that. [/QUOTE]

Verification