Love the Game, Hate the Marketing

[Stogoe]

This does not seem to be a valid criticism.

Validity plays no part in whether or not it will be used to criticize the new edition.

I grok cool. And cool changes over time, sure. But I'd rather have something cool now, and another cool thing later, when cool has changed, than the same lame refusal to try anything new for the rest of existence.

 

[The Little Raven]

While I was watching Metalocalypse a couple weeks ago, I saw a commercial for the new series of Magic cards. An actual TV spot. It was reasonably well done. The release of a new edition of D&D deserves at least as much attention.

There's a problem with making commercials for a product that hasn't been physically produced... you can't actually show the physical product since it hasn't been produced. We're much more likely to see TV commercials after the books are printed, so they can actually be used in commercials.

If we don't see TV commercials for it, it's because D&D doesn't make enough money to warrant them buying advertising time on TV (since it's pricey), whereas Magic makes more.

 

[The Little Raven]

(Yes, it would have also brought Paizo into the D&D IV tent right from the start.)

And that would have spawned accusations of unfair bias, and yadda yadda yadda... no matter what they do, there will always be a loud minority hammering away at ridiculous things. Like people have said before, if WotC gave out free money, people would complain about how the bills are folded.

And, as someone correctly pointed out, the overuse of the word "cool" results from having the Game Designers doing most of the public relations. (Yes, shockingly, there really is a reason for Marketers after all!)

Well, cool is also a simple term that is shared by multiple generations and is nowhere near as ostentatious as 'awesome,' or 'radical,' or (god forbid) 'the cat's meow.' Pretty much anyone from 7 to 70 knows cool, and doesn't feel ridiculous using it.

 

[The Little Raven]

If it makes any difference to you, I see real improvement in the marketing strategy between initial announcement and now. Talking to the major 3rd party players and getting them on board, and letting some respected playtesters say positive things about the game was, IMHO, a good decision.

Except, since they stated "We'll be talking to you guys more about the OGL/GSL and SRD in January," and then, come January, they did exactly that... so there hasn't been a change in marketing strategy. And playtesters talking about their experience wasn't a change in marketing strategy at all... it was a few playtesters explicitly asking if they could share their positive experiences and one of the playtest coordinators giving the thumbs up (with conditions, which make perfect sense to me as a programmer).

(2) the DI itself, which deserves some full-time support.

Y'mean, like an in-house manager for it, which they already put out a job listing for?

 

[Mephistopheles]

Show me any marketing or PR person in this situation who would grant outsiders an opportunity to spread negative press and I'll show you someone soon to be out of a job.

If marketers are in a position to determine whether outsiders are allowed to spread negative press then I think the status of the latter as outsiders is questionable. That seems to be the issue that some are offended by. While I'm not one of them I can understand why they might feel that way even if I don't agree that there was any intent to deceive.

Outsiders are more likely to be considered independent and unbiased as they are not directly associated with the source company. When you have independents commenting under undisclosed conditions it's not surprising it would cause an upset when it comes out and people get the idea that maybe they were deceived. It's not terribly unlike the situations that come about when radio personalities endorse products on their shows and it later comes out that it was a "cash for comments" scenario.

Having said that, I'm not in any position to say whether the non-WotC staff at the heart of this benefit from the success of 4E, or whether the comments made were deceptive (and seriously while you could call it selective I doubt there was any real intent to deceive people) so I'm not implying anything like that. However I'm certainly not surprised to see the kind of reaction we've seen when it's been revealed that independent commenters have been commenting under orders to keep it positive. Seems like it may have been more prudent not to go down that road to begin with.

 

[allenw]

Yikes. We're really stuck on this "cool" thing. We've decided to turn over a new leaf here at WotC and substitute other adjectives whenever we have the urge to use the word "cool". Being from Massachusetts, I'm partial to "wicked", but these native west coasters prefer "rad" and "tubular".

As a fellow Commonwealther, I say in all seriousness: adjectives are the problem, not the solution. While over-use of one particularly inane adjective may exacerbate the problem, I think people have really been hoping for more nouns and verbs. Adjectives are fluff; nouns and verbs are crunch.

 

[SteveC]

There's a problem with making commercials for a product that hasn't been physically produced... you can't actually show the physical product since it hasn't been produced. We're much more likely to see TV commercials after the books are printed, so they can actually be used in commercials.

If we don't see TV commercials for it, it's because D&D doesn't make enough money to warrant them buying advertising time on TV (since it's pricey), whereas Magic makes more.

That's a good point, but here's the thing: the actual commercial was about the fact that the new release of cards was going to be happening on X date, and everyone in it was getting psyched for it, including one guy getting a big M spraypainted on him like you would see at a football game. It was a "get to your store at this date and time to get the new cards ad."

Now it's too soon for that exact marketing, but a commercial that says "the new edition is coming, check HERE for the details" (where here is a website, or a magazine with a print ad or whatever) is just the thing. My image is a commercial with a bunch of bored people playing online games, and one of their friends comes by and says something like: we're putting the gang back together for D&D night...sort of a Blues Brothers sort of thing where each person in turn is doing something less fun than playing D&D together.

Something along those lines...

And no puffy shirts for Sara either...I'm an equal opportunity puffy shirt hater!

--Steve

 

[Scott_Rouse]

If marketers are in a position to determine whether outsiders are allowed to spread negative press then I think the status of the latter as outsiders is questionable. That seems to be the issue that some are offended by. While I'm not one of them I can understand why they might feel that way even if I don't agree that there was any intent to deceive.

Outsiders are more likely to be considered independent and unbiased as they are not directly associated with the source company. When you have independents commenting under undisclosed conditions it's not surprising it would cause an upset when it comes out and people get the idea that maybe they were deceived. It's not terribly unlike the situations that come about when radio personalities endorse products on their shows and it later comes out that it was a "cash for comments" scenario.

Having said that, I'm not in any position to say whether the non-WotC staff at the heart of this benefit from the success of 4E, or whether the comments made were deceptive (and seriously while you could call it selective I doubt there was any real intent to deceive people) so I'm not implying anything like that. However I'm certainly not surprised to see the kind of reaction we've seen when it's been revealed that independent commenters have been commenting under orders to keep it positive. Seems like it may have been more prudent not to go down that road to begin with.

This is not the independent press we are talking about.

They are playtesters who signed NDAs. They asked if they could talk we said "sort of" because no marketer in their right mind is going to cut someone free to criticize a product that is still in development. So we told people if you are excited go ahead and post about it, if not hold off until we get things dialed in.

I guess we just should have said no to everyone but then you would not hear anything from people like Ari.

 

[Lizard]

I guess we just should have said no to everyone but then you would not hear anything from people like Ari.

Having been both an NDA'd playtester and having overseen NDA'd playtesters....probably for the best.

I appreciate hearing the opinions of people I respect and who aren't on WOTC's payroll, and Ari's posts did the job of convincing me to think more deeply about 4e -- but the knowledge that marketing said "Talk only about what you like" taints ANYTHING, even if there's no actual malice, deceit, or hidden agenda. Appearence of impropriety and all that...

As a side note, at this point in the 3e cycle, we knew a LOT more about the mechanics and crunch, and lot less about changes to setting fluff. I don't know why it's going the other way this time around. The more I see of the mechanics, the more I like them, but the fluff is very irksome and often undercuts my appreciation of the mechanical improvements.

 

[Khairn]

From their announcement of the pending cancellation of the magazines, followed by 2 weeks of avoiding their own customers, to the decision to kill and then resurrect FR in such a way that all existing fluff is useless for the future, to the continual missing of their own e-zine deadlines, and now the decision to let select playtesters comment about their 4E experiences, but not if they are going to say anything negative, WotC's marketing / management of 4E has been a joke IMHO.

In the fine words of Sir Wulf ...

Watching the roll out of 4e is like watching a toddler trying to pick up a ball that he keeps kicking away every time he bends over.

I truly believe that without the many numerous bumbles, stumbles and fumbles, that WotC wouldn't be having to deal with even a fraction of the justifiable criticism and negativity that are a large part of any open discussion about 4E. You guys are your own worse enemies.

I appreciate hearing the opinions of people I respect and who aren't on WOTC's payroll, and Ari's posts did the job of convincing me to think more deeply about 4e -- but the knowledge that marketing said "Talk only about what you like" taints ANYTHING, even if there's no actual malice, deceit, or hidden agenda. Appearence of impropriety and all that...

I completely agree.