In light of recent events by Avalanche Press (Company bashing not desired)

[Darrin Drader]

Well, I've had a negative review before that I didn't agree with, but I didn't do this. I ranted a bit, which I admit was wrong. Heck, I'm strictly a freelancer now, so I'm happy to put that little incident in the past completely.

Anyway, I've never been overly interested in Avalanch's product line, so I have never bought any in the past, and this type of over the top behavior kind of discourages me from giving them a chance in the future.

I also am against any product where the hype is bought rather than earned. It really doesn't matter if its a movie, a book, or and RPG supplement. I just can't support that type of mentality.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

I'm confused. I have posted a review here, and I didn't get the product for free. In fact, I always assumed that most reviews here did not involve the reviewer getting the product for free. Am I mistaken?

You're not mistaken, and I suspect you'll still see reviews of Avalanche products here from fans.

What you won't see is reviews by the staff reviewers of ENworld, whose reviews meet the "professional" standard and are thus accorded a great amount of weight by the patrons of ENworld.


Wulf

 

[Eosin the Red]

call me bitchy, but when i read the news my first instinct was to go to the boards they mention, sign on as a member and post the message just so the people over there who dont also come here would know what avalance press thinks about those boards.

One of the sites is down, one is a magazine, and one I frequent fairly often. I did send them a link to the thread in meta and stated that to me it meant that Avalanche believes that they have purchased the reviews on that site. I don't believe it was bitchy, they have a right to know what Avalanche has implied about their site.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

I saw this before you edited it; I just wanted you to know I wasn't commenting on anyone else's stance; I was just saying that I had another stance than some that I've seen.

Sorry, Colonel. I didn't actually think you were. That sentence changed three times as I rethought what I wanted to bother saying. Initially, there was additional reference to your comparison of Avalanche covers to Heavy Metal. I took that out, but didn't realize until after I posted that I had neglected to remove your name from that paragraph.

Dangers of posting quickly and not previewing before you post. I didn't mean to put words in your nouth, and that's why I edited it so quickly when I noticed it.

 

[jgbrowning]

One of the sites is down, one is a magazine, and one I frequent fairly often. I did send them a link to the thread in meta and stated that to me it meant that Avalanche believes that they have purchased the reviews on that site. I don't believe it was bitchy, they have a right to know what Avalanche has implied about their site.

Thanks, i'm always hesitant about jumping into a situation like a bull and stepping all over subtle relationships. Thanks for letting them know...

joe b.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

Many thanks to Wulf for so appropriately fielding Mistwell's question. You hit it right on the head. To me, the staff reviewers here get weighted approximately 10x over anyone else. That's not blind loyalty to the site. That's based on comparing the content as I can preview it in the store to their review and consistently saying to myself, "Wow. That was spot on."

Now if only I could find movie and fiction reviewers I agreed with half as often. I'd waste less money on entertainment.

 

[BigFreekinGoblinoid]

No vote here, as I have never bought an Avalanche product, so I cannot "continue" to be a customer.

I can definitely see Avalanche's point in not providing anymore free product if they really feel they are likely to receive a poor review by doing so, but they really slipped on the banana peel here by sending an email about it. They could have just stopped sending them. The message I am reading between the lines of the email is that THEY are not real confident in the quality of their work...


Personally, I have no problem with the artwork on their covers, except that I have not been real impressed by them. As far as getting me ( male - 30ish - squarely in the target demographic ) to look inside based on the cover - it worked ( don't hate me Dragongirl, I repect women, really I do! ) but I did not really like what I saw in the first couple releases, and have been given no reason to look at anything further, assuming that they are all similar in form and quality.

 

[The Sigil]

I think Meepo hit it in his letter, but it bears re-iterating.

To me, at least, the reviews at ENWorld are valuable because they are as unbiased as possible (each of us has our own biases, our likes and dislikes, so nothing is totally unbiased). More to the point, because of the minimal bias involved, I can trust that these reviews have integrity. Why is this important? It is important because I know that the "benchmarks" or "standards" on which the review is based are consistent from review to review.

There is a vast difference between a REVIEW and an ADVERTISEMENT in my mind. I expect that a company will "pick and choose" quotes from its most favorable reviews with which to promote a product when advertising it. I expect advertising to gloss over flaws.

Heck, I could even understand a publisher who says, "because you continually blast our products, we will not furnish any more because we would prefer no press to negative press." What bothers me about this is that the statement is instead worded to the effect of "you owe us a good review." That is what irks me.

There is a difference between selectively releasing material to reviewers that you know will give you high marks because they are pre-disposed to like the kind of material you do. It is another thing entirely to expressly state, as they have, that some sort of exchange ought to be involved wherein anyone who receives a free copy from them ought to give a good review.

That's where I have a problem. I have a problem with a company that expressly tells reviewers that they somehow "owe" the publisher a good review. That they implicated other sites also bothers me because even if the other sites are indeed impartial, it stands to reason that the casual observer will think, "hmm... these guys must have agreed to the express statement that free product = good review. There is no integrity there, so I can't trust these sites."

The efficacy of reviews is based on trust between the reviewer and the readership that the review will be a fair, unbiased (to the best of the reviewer's ability) review that will point out strengths and weaknesses based on a consistent set of criteria. The reader, who grows familiar over time with the reviewer's criteria, can then make better judgements on whether or not the book is a worthy purchase (in some cases, the reader may even think, "since I disagree with this guy's ideology, anything he reviews as bad is probably worth picking up" or vice versa). The reader becomes familiar with the reviewer's style and learns which parts of the review are relevant to his or her own tastes and views and should be given appropriate weight.

However, as soon as there arises suspicion that a review is unfair and biased and that the criteria for pointing out strengths and weaknesses changes based on whether or not the reviewer was sent a "Review Copy", there is a significant problem. Because the reader is unsure of the consistency "benchmarks" for review, he is unsure as to the worth of the review in terms of beinga able to help him judge products sight unseen and spend his dollar wisely.

I am not naive enough to think that a certain "culling" of who receives review copies doesn't occur among companies... but I am reasonably certain that written demands for a good review do not accompany most review copies. It is for both this unethical stand (in the express demand for a positive review) and for the implication or dishonesty and associated undermining of the integrity of other reviewers (which may or may not be justified) that Avalanche receives censure from me... and my wallet.

--The Sigil

 

[Adlon]

Well, here goes my nickel....

I must admit, having NEVER even seen an Avalanche product, and having one of our staff members at Mortality point me to this thread, I'm at LEAST very curious to see some of their product.

That in itself is a form of advertising, no?

Just a different line of thought.

What I dont like, is the way they cut off this site, due to reviews that did not meet their standards. It may be thus in different industries, but, we're not looking at other industries, we're looking at the d20 industry. And, in the d20 industry, ALL of the publishers out there are competing for our dollar. And 98% of the current publishers are having their products reviewed here at ENWorld, and all of those are taking their lumps adequately when a review is less than shining.

I totally disagree with their reasoning.

But, again, with my different look at this: I want to go see an Avalanche product now, moreso than before this. Which means I'm curious, where before, I was also put off by their cover art. I like naked or near so women just like the next guy.

But I dont feel it belongs on a d20 product that teenagers would go buy. Like my kids. That, alone, has kept me NOT interested in seeing their products.
But, this hoopla has made my stance change. JUST to see a product or two.

Once done, my PERSONAL feelings will be to put it back on the shelf, because I feel strongly enough about HOW they presented their new policy, and their dig at ENWorld, that I dont want their product.

They could have tactfully changed their policy, and let it hit home on its own merit. They could have even said that they will no longer be sending ENWorld reviewers free copies, with no reason, just that it is now thus.

My reasons for speaking up, which is out of character for me when dealing with publishers, is HOW they went about it, and again, the dig at ENWorld. And the fact that free copies should equal good reviews.

Oh well, what can you do. But, I'm sure that I'm not the only one who has not seen an AP product, and now wants to at least see one or more...

All due to this and related threads.

But, as I said, once I see it/them, back on the shelf they go..

/me drives through now.

 

[Umbran]

I don't like the idea of reviewers giving good reviews in exchange for anything, or that companies send out copies for just that purpose. I especially dislike it when a company makes that assumption openly.

Oh, you'd prefer they do it in the shadows?

There's nothing unethical about having an expectation.

It is unethical to attempt to buy a good review, yes. But Avalance did not actually take any action not taken by other publishers. They sent out free copies of materials for review, just like the others. They didn't ask for preferential treatment. So what have they done that is unethical?