Liz Schuh on Dragon/Dungeon moving to the web

[hexgrid]

Since when does name-calling directed at your customer base result in increased sales? :\

See post #3.

 

[Odhanan]

5 or 10? I think the interviewer sadly underestimates those who prefer reading in print, and they all aren't "Luddites." Preferring to read things in print doesn't mean you are against electronic options. Certainly not a question coming from an unbiased interviewer.

Ditto. The choice of words was poor, bordering on pathetic contempt, actually.

 

[Jim Hague]

I didn't suggest that they were purchased. They are sent in terms of "provided content" that happens to slant advertising to whatever news outlet is used. This is very common with newspapers and television news as well. For example, a story about allergies might have been scripted by a drug company, which produces an actual "spot". It isn't uncommon for the local network to then reshoot using their own people. Here in Canada, the CBC recently did an expose on just this sort of sneaky advertising. It is very, very common.

So...other than this CBC expose, do you actually have any proof of this grand conspiracy? Seriously, folks, it doesn't help the current situation if every time someone from WotC says something you don't like, it's accused of being part of a secret plan. Never ascribe to conspiracy when can be ascribed to something simpler, like a bad interviewer or the simple possibility that the DI is still in development. Apply Occam's Razor.

I'm not happy that Dungeon and Dragon got cancelled - far from it - but for the love'a Mike, the constant and consistent conspiracy theorizing is getting tiresome for everyone.

 

[Jim Hague]

But does the best way to market said product involve refering to your clients, even a slimmer-than-it-used-to-be share of clients, in a derogatory manner? The "interview" does little to entice me to their subscription, is fairly off-putting to me simply because of the language used, and doesn't lend a professional air to the company behind the product.

Except that WotC didn't - that was the interviewer. Read the actual interview. Seriously.

 

[Mistwell]

I wish the interview had gone this way:

Q: Why are the two channels mutually exclusive--why couldn't you do both?

A: That's a good question. We really just feel at this point that the Web is a better delivery system than a printed magazine.

Q: I'm sorry, maybe I wasn't clear in my question. I'll try again. Why couldn't you do both?

A: We really just feel at this point that the Web is a better delivery system than a printed magazine.

Q: Yes, I understand that you think one delivery system is superior to the other, but that doesn't address the question of why you couldn't do both rather than just the one you think is a better delivery system.

A: <crickets>

 

[Raven Crowking]

So...other than this CBC expose, do you actually have any proof of this grand conspiracy?

It's hardly a conspiracy. Sites, papers, and other content dispersers need content to disperse. Corporations make themselves into content providers. This is pretty normal business, done all of the time, by a great variety of interests.

The CBC (Radio 1) expose was interesting because they played the original, company-produced spots followed by actual news re-realeases of the same information. The voices changed, but the words -- and even the inflections -- were exactly the same.

For my own part, I have been involved with sending releases to various sites as "content" while involved in more than one business interest.

Not a conspiracy; just something very, very common and very, very normal.


RC

 

[CanadienneBacon]

Except that WotC didn't - that was the interviewer. Read the actual interview. Seriously.

I read the interview, same as you. WotC is a large firm, a professional firm. I contend that they know and are responsible for their interviews. Please do not assume that my opinion is informed by not having read the interview in question. I certainly would not imply that yours isn't.

 

[Wye]

No one believes website numbers. IP address is a pointless way to count website visitors. Cookies might work -- it'll count unique *PCs*, sort of. But so many people routinely sweep and/or block those, now, you can't even count on a visitor without a cookie as being a frst-timer. And is that "unique" visitors to the D&D specific portions, or to the website in general?

We don't know how they got their numbers, but even it they are so far off as being doubled (which I doubt). That still means 6,500,000 visitors. My example of the 1% was an example of the lowest they could go, in reality they might get 10% of users to pay, and that squashes any numbers Dragon magazine may have ever had!

At the end of the day, it looks like a good business initiative, I won't deny that. Even if it is utter crap people will buy it; I know it and you know it, because it has the D&D logo. And if it's good they'll make a pretty penny, good for them (and good for our hobby too); hell, maybe even I will use it. But you see, the focus has shifted gradually from "I hate you from discontinuing my magazines" to "nothing you do will compare to the magazines" to "at least you better give me something good".

Emotions for our beloved magazines notwithstanding, their research, psychologists, and business people got it right in the end. *pat in the back* People are just placing conditions on how are they going to spend their money, that's half the battle already won. The conditions may well be easily attainable with WotC bank account, something Scott Rouse knows well, as evidenced in his posts here and on WotC forums usually saying "I hear you" and "how much would you pay for that?"

Not bashing Scott, I tip my hat to you; at least as a businessman. I still feel sad about my print magazines, but I can't deny simple math: No matter how bad we feel, there is a disproportionate majority that doesn't care one way or the other, as they weren't buying them anyway. As such there will be no impact on the DI plans.

 

[Raven Crowking]

It occurs to me also that the number of people who visit the free site, vs. the number of people who will pay for content, are two different beasts. I've visited the free site to see if I was interested in upcoming products; I have no interest in paying for content (especially sight-unseen) at all. How many of their "eyeballs" are attached to brains like mine?

OTOH, I do buy Dungeon and Dragon. Not every issue, but a lot more than I would sometimes care to admit. And I'm very interested in Pathfinder.

My magazines can go to work (for lunch break), on the bus, or in the bathroom with relative ease. Not so even a laptop. This isn't the best possible business decision, IMHO, but time will tell.


RC

 

[Michael Silverbane]

Once again the 'Why not produce the web-based content and the print magazines at the same time?' question is sidestepped with an irrelevant non-answer. It's beginning to look undeniably like it's WotC policy not to give a genuine response to this one.

I think that the answer to this is pretty clear... And it doesn't have much to do with competing for buyers... It has already been covered up thread how, even if nary a Dungeon or Dragon subscriber switched over to the Digital Initiative, it would have little to no real impact on the Digitial Initiative's profit margin...

It has a lot to do with competing for resources. The same people who would have been contributing to Dungeon and Dragon magazines are the people who are going to be contributing to the Digital Initiative. The same articles and columns that would have gone into Dungeon and Dragon magazines are now going to to into the Digital Initiative. There is a limit to how many times you can cover the same material without everything becoming watered down and flavorless. That's probably a pretty big factor in why there's no Wyvern and Catacomb magazines in the works, as well.

Later
silver