Important change of policy from RPGNow

[DPG Darrin]

Re: 2 cents...

In other words, before you complain, put yourself in the shoes of RPGNow.com and draft me a policy that (A) allows RPGNow.com to draw revenue in order to maintain operations and (B) doesn't annoy the customer. You will find that based on the premises you started with, the two goals are mutually exclusive.

Instead of complaining and moaning about how evil RPGNow.com is, why don't you instead provide them with a viable alternate solution. I'm pretty sure that if you did so, they would give it a long, hard look. It's easy to say, "this sucks" - it's harder to say, "here's how to improve it."

--The Sigil

OK, I said that I was done commenting on this, but I maybe I do have something constructive to add to the conversation. First I'm going to clarify what I feel are the main issues at stake here from our point of view, and then I'll propose a hypothetical solution. This is the same solution I would have proposed had there been some communication on this subject in the first place.

First of all, my main qualms with this policy are that:
(1) we have a great deal of free game related material on both of our sites. This material is incorporated with our sites and amounts to one of several parts of our own marketting efforts. If customers can't access the sites, they can't get a full picture of what we are about, and are therefore less likely to mak a buying decision in our favor. Yes, I do fully appreciate the fact that they can do a search and get there on their own, but if the link isn't provided, how do they know that its worth their time?
(2) I think that an issue of equality between clients exists here. If the publisher with an E-com site of their own is not as prominently featured on the site (and not having a link equates to prominence), then they are working at a disadvantage, and is unlikely to make as many sales from this outlet (refer to point 1).
(3) and this is the part that really got under our skin... the policy seems to reward publishers that use RPGNow exclusively as a distributor. Sure, I can understand that using them exclusively secures their position in the market place, but it also makes too large of a chunk of the market dependant upon them. This also (based on the wording of the email we received) looks very much like a strongarm tactic used by an up and coming e-tailer to get a monopoly (or something approaching one) in this market. So, these 3 considerations added together left us with the definite feeling that this was a marketplace that was not friendly to us.

I feel that these are valid concerns, and the fact that we weren't included in any discussions is why this had to turn into a public issue. On the other hand, I do understand the concern that their site starts acting like a very heavily funded referral service. I also fully agree that if a publisher is doing nothing to call attention to themselves and then that same publisher cuts their main advertiser out of the loop, there is an issue that needs to be addressed.

My solution involves leaving the link to the publisher, but then tracing the source of each sale generated on the publisher's e-com site. If the customer linked in from RPGNow, or any other E-tailer that carries our products, then we would work out an agreement where they are paid a pretty hefty cut of the sale to make up for the customer not purchasing from them. It might require honesty on the part of the publisher, or at the very least, turning over a portion of the server logs. Arrangements of this nature are made all the time between e-tailers and their affiliates. This would be a solution where the two companies act as partners as opposed to jealous lovers, and everybody would win in the end.

Now, I am finished commenting on this issue.

 

[RPGRealms]

Re: Re: 2 cents...

(1) we have a great deal of free game related material on both of our sites. This material is incorporated with our sites and amounts to one of several parts of our own marketting efforts. If customers can't access the sites, they can't get a full picture of what we are about, and are therefore less likely to mak a buying decision in our favor. Yes, I do fully appreciate the fact that they can do a search and get there on their own, but if the link isn't provided, how do they know that its worth their time?

The same way they would when they buy something from their FLGS? They either buy it on the recommendation of someone else, or based on the perceived quality of the back text and the overall production and look of the item.

If you think the terms for using RPGNow are bad, try getting a printed product distributed. They take a LOT more off the top, and they don't link back to you either...

 

[Alejandro]

Why doesn't RPGNow simply charge for the service of linking back to a publisher's shopping-enabled website? Wouldn't that be a win-win for both, and convenience for the consumer as well?

 

[The Sigil]

Re: Re: 2 cents...

First of all, my main qualms with this policy are that:
(1) we have a great deal of free game related material on both of our sites. This material is incorporated with our sites and amounts to one of several parts of our own marketting efforts. If customers can't access the sites, they can't get a full picture of what we are about, and are therefore less likely to mak a buying decision in our favor. Yes, I do fully appreciate the fact that they can do a search and get there on their own, but if the link isn't provided, how do they know that its worth their time?

This is a valid concern on the part of the publisher... you know that if an RPGer wants to do research, it's a good idea to show him all the extras. This is a reason that a link would be good, and one presumes that providing such a link will increase sales. It is one argument for keeping a link, though I believe that alone it does not outweigh the argument for removing the link (that the inconvenience of returning will deny RPGNow.com a given sale).

(2) I think that an issue of equality between clients exists here. If the publisher with an E-com site of their own is not as prominently featured on the site (and not having a link equates to prominence), then they are working at a disadvantage, and is unlikely to make as many sales from this outlet (refer to point 1).

I follow your reasoning; it stands to reason that without a link the publisher will make fewer sales from RPGNow.com. My question would be, "but does he make fewer overall sales?" IOW, if not getting me a link "costs" me, say, 25 sales at RPGNow.com per month BUT those 25 people find my site on their own and buy from me, does that change the total number of sales I get. Yes, you may get fewer sales at RPGNow.com, but the real question is, "does it affect your overall sales from all outlets?" I don't know if there CAN be a definitive answer to that one.

(3) and this is the part that really got under our skin... the policy seems to reward publishers that use RPGNow exclusively as a distributor. Sure, I can understand that using them exclusively secures their position in the market place, but it also makes too large of a chunk of the market dependant upon them. This also (based on the wording of the email we received) looks very much like a strongarm tactic used by an up and coming e-tailer to get a monopoly (or something approaching one) in this market.

I agree that the policy does seem to reward publishers who use RPGNow exclusively. I am not so sure it is a strongarm tactic to gain a monopoly, however - it seems to me that it may just as well be interpreted as, "in order to maintain viability, we have to do this or we will go under." As far as a monopoly goes, I don't think the wording is sufficiently strong to warrant that - if the wording was, "if you carry your products elsewhere, we won't carry your products at all," I would see your point. As it is, I think it is a little less harsh.

So, these 3 considerations added together left us with the definite feeling that this was a marketplace that was not friendly to us.

I can't dispute that this was your feeling - after all, I can't tell you how to feel.

I feel that these are valid concerns, and the fact that we weren't included in any discussions is why this had to turn into a public issue. On the other hand, I do understand the concern that their site starts acting like a very heavily funded referral service. I also fully agree that if a publisher is doing nothing to call attention to themselves and then that same publisher cuts their main advertiser out of the loop, there is an issue that needs to be addressed.

So you are trying to see both sides of the issue. Not surprising - you have always shown a great degree of level-headedness and reasonableness.

My solution involves leaving the link to the publisher, but then tracing the source of each sale generated on the publisher's e-com site. If the customer linked in from RPGNow, or any other E-tailer that carries our products, then we would work out an agreement where they are paid a pretty hefty cut of the sale to make up for the customer not purchasing from them. It might require honesty on the part of the publisher, or at the very least, turning over a portion of the server logs. Arrangements of this nature are made all the time between e-tailers and their affiliates. This would be a solution where the two companies act as partners as opposed to jealous lovers, and everybody would win in the end.

And, look what we have, a proposal for a solution. *applauds* Good job, Darrin! I hadn't even thought of this one, myself, but it seems reasonable (even if a little more effort is required on everyone's part).

Would this be the perfect solution? Who knows? But at the very least, we have a proposed solution rather than just griping. That's why I don't worry too much about Darrin's complaints - he is trying to open discussion rather than flamewars.

Now, I am finished commenting on this issue.

Until I'm not, so am I.

--The Sigil

 

[Cergorach]

@ Sigil:
*Chuckles*
Yep, you showed the flipside of the coin. But IMHO you left something out, namely what tactics there are to sell products to customers.

1.) A store that just sells products, doesn't provide any 'extra' services (extra information, etc.). These kind of stores rely on competative pricing and/or exclusivity.
2.) A store that sells products, but provides 'extra' services (such as customer support, extra information, etc.). These kind of stores rely on pleasing the customer and depend on the customer loyalty to comeback for more.

I've been told that there's no such thing as customer loyalty, i think there is. As i look around the site of RPGNow.com i think that it's falls under the first catagory. Thus, yes your ideas are corect for RPGNow's current situation (i don't really feel any loyalty to RPGNow)...

It really depends what kind of business profile you use, my personal preference is to use the personal approach.

I didn't put creative in 'brackets' for nothing ;-) And yeah it was partly meant to get a reaction from the people at RPGNow.com. And guess what, it worked ;-) Dubious tactics? Not really, IMHO.

I'm personally for a more 'hands on approarch' to webrelated stuff. I can understand if people find it more trouble than it's worth, but that's when they have to pay other people and have to abide by their rules/whims. Btw, i to have a day job that makes it possible to read such long posts and actually reply to them (i just wish those annoying users would stop calling me ;-)

I already gave a very good idea (just not any details on how to execute it, but if you want to know, i'm available for consulting work ;-). Ah... Ok... You can use PHP/MySql to generate pages specifically tailored for your customers. Thus when a customer comes from RPGNow.com you can only display links back to RPGNow.com for that customer. You can use cookies (with an expirery date) to track the users, and give them the same display if they come back later to the site (thus showing them the link back to RPGNow.com again). It would take a bit of doing on th part of the publisher, but it's still a way to keep the best of both worlds...