Liz Schuh on Dragon/Dungeon moving to the web

[sjmiller]

blackberry's, cell phones, and other hand held devices can go where ever you go. If the DI accomidates those types of devices then you will be able to take it with you.

Those all have small screen and big costs. I do not own a blackberry, cell phone, or handheld device for accessing the internet. They are outside my financal range. A magazine, which I can hold in my hand and access even in tunnels, is much easier to read, and cheaper.

 

[Raven Crowking]

It's the way you're presenting it - based on a CBC expose, you're implying that a huge number of companies crock the news this way. Then you imply that WotC has done so. With no proof whatsoever. Correlation does not equal causation, RK. It's just taking another cheap and unfounded shot at the company, something ehich everyone has seen far too much of in the past few weeks.

In any case, it's irrelevant to the statements that were made, since there's no proof it was done, just speculation on your part.

Incorrect.

(1) Not "based on a CBC expose". Correlation does not equal causation. This is just another cheap and unfounded shot at me. I mentioned the expose because it might be of interest to others. I also mentioned my own, direct experience.

(2) A conspiracy would require not only that "a huge number of companies crock the news this way" but that they do so with some form of collusion. The fact is, many companies present their advertisment as news (or, in some cases, "informational messages") both because advertising follows different regulations and because consumers tend to be more trusting of ads delivered in this manner. For example, in the U.S. and Canada, it is illegal to advertise for a prescription medicine. However, it isn't illegal to produce an "informational message" or provide content for a news outlet.

(3) Since at least the early 90s, the average number of reporters per news outlet has been steadily declining as these outlets rely upon content providers.

(4) ICv2 editorial policies include

Advertisements on ICv2 will be clearly distinguishable as such.

ICv2 will print no press releases (except our own) verbatim--we will always try to provide some measure of analysis or perspective. ICv2's occasional press releases, giving information on news of note about ICv2, will be clearly labeled as such.

ICv2 will indicate the source of our information whenever possible.

In case of error, we'll update the site as quickly as possible, including corrections in the original article in an effort to make our archive as error-free as possible.​

(5) In keeping with "ICv2 will indicate the source of our information whenever possible" I emailed the help desk at ICv2 to find out who conducted the interview. Thus far, they haven't answered.

(6) I never said, nor implied, that WotC performed both sides of the interview. I did, however, state that it remains a distinct possibility. It would not be unusual at all if they did.

(7) When and if ICv2 chooses to respond to my request for information, I will post the complete response here.

Fair enough?


RC

 

[Mark Hope]

It's the way you're presenting it - based on a CBC expose, you're implying that a huge number of companies crock the news this way. Then you imply that WotC has done so. With no proof whatsoever. Correlation does not equal causation, RK. It's just taking another cheap and unfounded shot at the company, something ehich everyone has seen far too much of in the past few weeks.

In any case, it's irrelevant to the statements that were made, since there's no proof it was done, just speculation on your part.

Speculation it may be, but it's not unfounded or irrelevant. I used to be a journalist and I can tell you that this kind of thing happens all the time. My first job was actually taking that kind of press release and turning it into an actual story. If such a release was just copied verbatim then that would be pretty shoddy journalism, but it's certainly not wild speculation to suggest that it's possible. (Edit: I see from above that the host site says it never does this - fair enough.) On busy news days it's even more likely that a press release goes through only the bare minimum of rewrites, especially if it is snappily written in the first place.

Note that I am in no way suggesting that this is what happened (I don't actually care either way - it's just a fact of life in the field if it did and not necessarily indicative of any kind of conspiracy). I'm just saying that it's well within the realms of possibility and pointing this out need not necessarily be seen as a cheap shot .

 

[Raven Crowking]

Speculation it may be, but it's not unfounded or irrelevant. I used to be a journalist and I can tell you that this kind of thing happens all the time. My first job was actually taking that kind of press release and turning it into an actual story. If such a release was just copied verbatim then that would be pretty shoddy journalism, but it's certainly not wild speculation to suggest that it's possible. (Edit: I see from above that the host site says it never does this - fair enough.) On busy news days it's even more likely that a press release goes through only the bare minimum of rewrites, especially if it is snappily written in the first place.

Note that I am in no way suggesting that this is what happened (I don't actually care either way - it's just a fact of life in the field if it did and not necessarily indicative of any kind of conspiracy). I'm just saying that it's well within the realms of possibility and pointing this out need not necessarily be seen as a cheap shot .

Exactly.

 

[billd91]

As to the backups - since you're on a message board right now, I *assume* you replaced your hard drive at some point.

And probably lost a lot of data in the process. I have Dragon Magazines that are over 20 years old that I can easily get to (whether or not they are boarded and bagged). What are the odds of being able to easily access DI stuff 20 years afterwards? If the other computer media and files I've that long are any indication... low.

WotC can make whatever choices it wants when it comes to the services it wants to provide but there are trade-offs they are making. Sure, the DI will be easy to access for people over a wide geographical area who have access to the internet, which implies a variety of other criteria as well. But a significant number of these factors are also pretty much necessary to ensure continuing access to the materials, even when already paid for.

Gaining access to the print media may also have requirements (knowing they exist and having contact information to get a sub or finding a reliable sales outlet being primary), but the bar is significantly lowered to have continuing access to the information. All I have to do is take reasonable care of it and I have the information as long as the paper survives. WotC may not ultimately care about that from a business model point of view since, once we buy the information, it's ours to deal with (one hopes). But as a consumer and long-time player of D&D, it is a concern I have and informs my preferences for format.

 

[Jim Hague]

EDIT - Y'know, Charles is right. Not pertinent to the thread.

 

[CharlesRyan]

This is really getting off topic, but I'll throw a couple of thoughts in anyway.

In my experience of dealing with and observing the media, I can agree with Mark Hope that it's quite common for companies to supply press releases and even interviews and have them published verbatim by news outlets.

In my tenure as D&D Brand Manager, I was interviewed dozens of times for print, web, radio, and TV. Never once did I or WotC supply or have editorial control over the questions. (Beyond exercising my right not to answer a given question.)

I've interacted professionally with ICv2 for a number of years. I'm not aware of them ever accepting a "canned" interview. I believe their statement that they do not print press releases verbatim. (I've seen many of their stories in both their form and the press release form, and their version is always somewhat different.)

So let's set aside speculation over the honesty of this interview and whether or not this poster or that is a conspiracy theorist, and get back to the regularly-scheduled speculation over WotC's next move.

 

[TheYeti1775]

Did you all see how eerily similar it was to Morrus's interview? Both in questions and answers?

 

[MojoGM]

Has it? Personally, I always was (and still am) in the second camp because my lack of interest in the digital initiative isn't emotional. I'm simply not interested in digital content, period. I haven't seen any signs that people who took that position originally are changing their minds.

I've said it before, MANY of those who are so against this will be signing up with the rest of us when they finally announce what you get and what is the cost per month.

I think they made a smart move...and I bought every issue of both magazines from my gam store for several years (and was a subscriber way back in the day).

I expect the DI to be good and I'm quite certain I'll sign up.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Incorrect.

(1) Not "based on a CBC expose". Correlation does not equal causation. This is just another cheap and unfounded shot at me. I mentioned the expose because it might be of interest to others. I also mentioned my own, direct experience.

And would you care to point out where you use anything other than the CBC show to support your claim?

Sure. Just read the paragraph you quoted. I also mentioned my own, direct experience. But, seriously, I thought that most people on EN World would have been well aware of corporate content providing by now, and didn't think it would require any "proof".

EDIT: May I also point out that, if I thought there was something "wrong" or "evil" or "Illuminati-esque" about providing content, I would hardly have mentioned my own direct experience. This was never meant as a "slam" against WotC. It was meant only to recall perspective: When you see an interview in print, you don't know how it is slanted, or who is responsible for the questions. React accordingly.

Factually incorrect - watch CNN for half an hour, and you'll see half a dozen advertisements for prescription drugs that aren't 'informational messages'.

You're right; I wasn't aware that this had been struck down in the U.S. It is still illegal in Canada, the UK, and Europe, however. Of course, the drug companies are working on striking down those laws as well.

http://whp-apsf.ca/pdf/charter_challenge_en.pdf

http://www.which.co.uk/reports_and_...ug_advertising/Drug_advertising_560_53893.jsp

And what will you do if ICV2 doesn't respond? Will that be held up as some sort of shaky proof of simply releasing a faux interview that was actually a press release?

Obviously not. (And this is also obviously another cheap shot.) Asking is a reasonable and time-honored method of gaining information.

Saying that WotC might have produced both sides of the interview is not the same as saying that they did so. It is nothing more than saying that you cannot preclude the possibility.

However, while I was composing this message, I did receive a response from Milton Griepp, President of ICv2. I reproduce it below in its entirety (I did tighten up the blank lines). Believe it or not.....any you can certainly email mgriepp@icv2.com to verify if you like.

Hello Daniel,
I did the interview, what can I help you with?
Milton Griepp, President
GCO, LLC
ICv2 Publishing
Consulting
448 W. Washington Ave.
Madison, WI 53703
608-284-9400, x1
608-284-9404 (fax)
http://www.ICv2.com

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Help [mailto:Help@icv2.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 10:54 AM
To: 'Milton Griepp'
Subject: FW:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Daniel Bishop [mailto:REMOVED]
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 2:56 PM
To: Help@ICv2.com
Subject:

Hi there. I am interested in learning more about one of your articles. Could you tell me who did the interview in this case?

Thank you.


Interview with Liz Schuh
On 'Dragon' and 'Dungeon' Moving to Web

May 01, 2007

So, there we have it. We now know exactly who to blame.

Asking....time-honored, and not a cheap shot no matter who says otherwise.