MeepoTheMighty
First Post
Larry Fitz said:
[hijack]
I really enjoyed Broadsides.
[/hijack]
In light of recent events by Avalanche Press (Company bashing not desired)
- Thread starter Khan the Warlord
- Start date
- Status
[hijack]
I really enjoyed Broadsides.
[/hijack]
Dragongirl
First Post
Crothian said:
I will clarify my answer. I don't think ANYTHING can make this better for Avalanche other than time. Hense, my other answer of several years of being good little boys.
Fast Learner
First Post
I don't feel the apology sent changes anything, both for reasons already mentioned and because:
1. The theoretical apology didn't address the problem, and
2. Marcelo Figueroa is the last person who should have sent an apology for the company. Instead the President/CEO of the company should have apologized and simply stated that "Mr. Figueroa's statements in that email do not reflect the position of Avalanche Press. We believe that unbiased reviews are a cornerstone of publishing and are essential to its survival and success. Please accept our apologies for any implication otherwise, and our apologies that may have inadverdantly cast anyone in a negative light." Or words to that effect.
This half-assed apology for acting like an idiot didn't do anything to put Avalanche in a better light or attempt to rectify the situation.
1. The theoretical apology didn't address the problem, and
2. Marcelo Figueroa is the last person who should have sent an apology for the company. Instead the President/CEO of the company should have apologized and simply stated that "Mr. Figueroa's statements in that email do not reflect the position of Avalanche Press. We believe that unbiased reviews are a cornerstone of publishing and are essential to its survival and success. Please accept our apologies for any implication otherwise, and our apologies that may have inadverdantly cast anyone in a negative light." Or words to that effect.
This half-assed apology for acting like an idiot didn't do anything to put Avalanche in a better light or attempt to rectify the situation.
Larry Fitz
First Post
Careful there Meepo, don't make Dragongirl shoot the thread, she might miss....
Thanks, by the way, it likes you too..... I confess I was more on the inspiration than perspiration end of Broadsides! Though I certainly did some extensive testing of the Naval Combat Rules. As a sailor myself I still believe that Sea Legs and Balance are two entirely seperate skills. Dexterity helps with both, but in the end your average D&D burglar is NOT going to hang on to his lunch in rough seas just because he can walk a tightrope. I've yet to meet anyone else who sails that disagrees with me.
I would like to second the idea that apologizing because EnWorld wasn't the review site that gave them the bad reviews is immaterial. In fact it then lumps Enworld in with the GamingReport and others that they implied did give them good reviews because of the free product, which is ludicrous. I do not believe that any self-respecting reviewer is "selling" their opinions for product. Think about it,
Publisher: "Give our mediocre products good reviews and we'll keep sending them to you."
Reviewer: "Oh boy, so as long I deceive the public into buying one or two of your mediocre books, thereby losing any credibility I have, I can keep getting free copies... of your... um... mediocre books... that I ... um... don't use anyway... because they're ... well.... mediocre..... hmmmmm...."
I believe an apology is owed to all parties concerned and also that a big party should be thrown in New York (maybe at Sardi's or Smith and Wollensky's) and all the reviewers and writers of all other d20 products should be invited and there should be a lot of the models for their cover art there... ok maybe they should just apologize and go about their business and wait for all of us to get tired of the subject....
Larry Fitz
Instigator
Founder of BADA (Bothered About Dragongirl's Aim)
Member of BADD (Bothered About Disposable Dragons)
Thanks, by the way, it likes you too..... I confess I was more on the inspiration than perspiration end of Broadsides! Though I certainly did some extensive testing of the Naval Combat Rules. As a sailor myself I still believe that Sea Legs and Balance are two entirely seperate skills. Dexterity helps with both, but in the end your average D&D burglar is NOT going to hang on to his lunch in rough seas just because he can walk a tightrope. I've yet to meet anyone else who sails that disagrees with me.
I would like to second the idea that apologizing because EnWorld wasn't the review site that gave them the bad reviews is immaterial. In fact it then lumps Enworld in with the GamingReport and others that they implied did give them good reviews because of the free product, which is ludicrous. I do not believe that any self-respecting reviewer is "selling" their opinions for product. Think about it,
Publisher: "Give our mediocre products good reviews and we'll keep sending them to you."
Reviewer: "Oh boy, so as long I deceive the public into buying one or two of your mediocre books, thereby losing any credibility I have, I can keep getting free copies... of your... um... mediocre books... that I ... um... don't use anyway... because they're ... well.... mediocre..... hmmmmm...."
I believe an apology is owed to all parties concerned and also that a big party should be thrown in New York (maybe at Sardi's or Smith and Wollensky's) and all the reviewers and writers of all other d20 products should be invited and there should be a lot of the models for their cover art there... ok maybe they should just apologize and go about their business and wait for all of us to get tired of the subject....
Larry Fitz
Instigator
Founder of BADA (Bothered About Dragongirl's Aim)
Member of BADD (Bothered About Disposable Dragons)
madriel
First Post
Crothian said:
I don't know how they can fix this situation, but they really need to correct their attitudes towards the rest of the D&D community.
It's their right to decide who gets a free copy of their products for review. I would take someone off the list in their place if I felt they were giving unfair reviews. It's a shame that they're too thin-skinned to accept an unfavourable review.
They've brought the authenticity of their reviews into question. While there are freebie-whores out there, I believe the majority of reviewers pride themselves on giving an honest and informed reviews of products.
An apology to all the reviewers involved is irrelevant but necessary. Avalanche is going to have to show people that they've learned from this.
Khan the Warlord
First Post
Crothian said:
Simple.
Easy.
Tell us the truth. And after that, try a legitimate apology.
1. If the e-mail was directed at Simon Collins and EN World, then simply ADMIT it. If this is the case, then give an apology.
2. If Steve Creech was really the one that the e-mail was about, then ADMIT it, as opposed to "some other person with the first name of Simon" and such. The quotes he used mirrored Steve's own (but butchered a tad), and an apology should be made to Steve.
3. Admit the fact that this representative dearly wanted positive reviews when offering free review copies. It is clear in the first e-mail that this was the case. The second e-mail attempts to refute this, but then hints that a degree of censorship should be used with reviewers that get free copies. Either way, juat admit what was meant in those e-mails and don't dance around it.
4. While you're at it, try and listen to your customers that are sick of the covers you produce. Granted, the few thousands of members here won't have a great impact on your sales with their wallets, but our opinions to our gaming groups, friends, and hobby stores will carry far. Why not listen to the desires of your customers?
I'm not wanting AP to jump through hoops -- I just want honesty. At *some* point in the second e-mail, a lie was told (maybe not every statement was a lie, but at least *one* was), and admitting to one's mistake is the _best_ way to fix a problem. The four things I listed above won't require blood, sweat, or tears -- just truth and simple business logic.
Any man and any company that can come to the public, admit the truth, and then truly apologize is one that I will forgive in an instant and have a certain amount of respect for.
Ghostwind
First Post
I appreciate the support from this community on this matter (especially from Larry and Khan). While it's still not substantiated that my review was the one that was the subject of AP's "misunderstanding", I do want to point out that when I initially wrote and posted the review on April 23rd, 2002, AP did receive a copy of that review. At no time did they ever respond back with a communication disputing the review or even informing me that they would no longer provide copies for review. Until this issue with Simon and EN World, I had not given it much thought beyond a couple of follow-up inquiries that were never answered. Clearly, AP feels my review slams them and that by their very comments, I was not entitled to write such a review since I was freely given the product. This is the part of the whole argument that is troubling and one that AP has not addressed with the letter of apology to EN World.
If AP does not wish to provide review copies, that is their decision and I am cool with that. However, I will never under any circumstance allow my review to be biased in a favorable way just because I received a free copy to review. It is also interesting to note that AP is the only publisher to take offense with my reviews out of the many I have reviewed (and several of those have less than favorable reviews). Some have communicated with me privately about the review and I have changed reviews based on conversations that corrected errors or misconceptions, but AP has never done this.
So what should be done by AP to correct the public opinion about their way of doing business? A simple clarification and apology that directly addresses their review policy would be in order and is not too much to ask in my opinion. I won't go into the can of worms regarding their covers...
If AP does not wish to provide review copies, that is their decision and I am cool with that. However, I will never under any circumstance allow my review to be biased in a favorable way just because I received a free copy to review. It is also interesting to note that AP is the only publisher to take offense with my reviews out of the many I have reviewed (and several of those have less than favorable reviews). Some have communicated with me privately about the review and I have changed reviews based on conversations that corrected errors or misconceptions, but AP has never done this.
So what should be done by AP to correct the public opinion about their way of doing business? A simple clarification and apology that directly addresses their review policy would be in order and is not too much to ask in my opinion. I won't go into the can of worms regarding their covers...
Fred Delles
First Post
I'd just mention the covers mostly because of the message it brings to this community. It is an almost-proven fact that it ridicules some men and offends (or at least ridicules) women. I mean, AP seems to think that "we are all male geeks without dates, who need a real turn-on for this book, even when it is unrelated to the material inside!" If that is their view of PR and caring for the d20 customer, NO WAY am I ever buying their products.
To say "never judge a book by a cover" wouldn't go far enough into what I say. Save the $$$ from good (but UNRELATED) sexy women on covers and put it in more historical research or a bit more content. As critical-thinking gamers, we are smart enough to go beyond the cover. This is NOT mass-market.
BTW, I saw a survey on the demographics of AP's customers. Out of 200 (yes, two hundred) gamers, only ONE is female. A whopping 96 percent of gamers (odds are, they're wargamers) are 24 or older. And most should have dates at that time, so getting some d20 cheesecake will only mean a slap on the face by their girlfriend.
Of their d20 products, one-third most often use "The Last Days of Constatinople", which, IIRC, is the only book (at that time) that DID NOT have a scantily-clad woman on the cover. That is proof that they seem to put the book cover over content in recent products.
It's no surprise that AP's d20 line seems to be hurting.
The survey URL: http://www.avalanchepress.com/febmar02_results.php
Edit: Here's the URL for the AP cover "fashion show": http://www.enworld.org/nutkinland/fashion/plate001.htm
To say "never judge a book by a cover" wouldn't go far enough into what I say. Save the $$$ from good (but UNRELATED) sexy women on covers and put it in more historical research or a bit more content. As critical-thinking gamers, we are smart enough to go beyond the cover. This is NOT mass-market.
BTW, I saw a survey on the demographics of AP's customers. Out of 200 (yes, two hundred) gamers, only ONE is female. A whopping 96 percent of gamers (odds are, they're wargamers) are 24 or older. And most should have dates at that time, so getting some d20 cheesecake will only mean a slap on the face by their girlfriend.
Of their d20 products, one-third most often use "The Last Days of Constatinople", which, IIRC, is the only book (at that time) that DID NOT have a scantily-clad woman on the cover. That is proof that they seem to put the book cover over content in recent products.
It's no surprise that AP's d20 line seems to be hurting.
The survey URL: http://www.avalanchepress.com/febmar02_results.php
Edit: Here's the URL for the AP cover "fashion show": http://www.enworld.org/nutkinland/fashion/plate001.htm
Last edited:
- Status
