Marketing criticisms miss the point

[Negflar2099]

For those who don't know ex WotC staffer JD Wiker had a post in his blog where he said that he isn't going to play 4e because WotC botched the marketing but everyone should check out 4e anyway. (I would link to it but A) I don't know how and B) it's on the Enworld front page).

While I applaud Mr. Wiker's willingness to be open minded and to remind everyone to be as open minded as he is I have to admit that I'm confused as to why he would stop playing a game because the marketing was botched.

First of all I'm not even sure I agree it was botched. This is clearly a situation where the fans are so divided nothing can really appease them. If Wizards had come out with 3.75 as some suggest it would have been met with just as much anger as 4e's arrival. Had they called it 4e but not changed all that much people would be just as angry. Wizards could have continued to produce 3.x books but only for so long, maybe a year more tops, before they've ran out of ideas for sourcebooks people would buy.

Even after reading his post I still don't understand what Wizards could have done differently to sell 4e to a fanbase where half of us want to kill sacred cows in order to make what we hope will be a better system and the other half would rather find a way to keep the sacred cows at any cost and improve the system around them. Short of releasing two versions of D&D at the same time (call one D&D: SCI*) or closing the D&D line I don't know what they could have done.

WotC certainly made mistakes. I'll agree with you there, but to say there's one perfect way to run it that would have avoided all this hate is sort of missing the point I think.

Yet even if I agree they botched the marketing I especially don't understand why you wouldn't play a game you would otherwise play because it was marketed poorly. I don't understand. Maybe someone can explain it to me. I know a lot of movies that could have used better marketing but that I love immensely and I know movies with great marketing that i hated. I don't see making a decision about a game like this based on marketing. Can someone help me understand?

*Sacred Cows Intact

 

[w_earle_wheeler]

Can you post a link to the entry you're discussing?

 

[The Little Raven]

http://jediwiker.livejournal.com/57390.html

 

[Scribble]

cause gamers seem to always have to have something to stand against?

Shrug.

Whatever.. it's his problem not mine.

 

[Charwoman Gene]

He's an industry insider.

And one like Sean K. Reynolds, his layoff made him very bitter towards Wizards.

His post has nothing to do with what a gamer should do.

Gamers should vote with their dollars, and only buy 4e if they think it looks good, yes. Marketing should not influence the decision.

 

[Tetsubo]

Because the goal of marketing is to convince your intended demographic to buy your product?

In that regard, the 4E marketing team failed miserably. The poll here on EN World shows 39% of responders are not buying 4E. This poll is being taken from the core audience of D&D. The 4E marketing team failed to convince 39% of its core demographic to buy their new product. That is failure on a grand scale. Almost on a New Coke scale.

Wiz-bro showed with 3.x how to market a new game. How did the same company, eight years later fail to just use the same model? Oh yeah, because they became money grubbing suits.

4E is D&D in name only. It may well be a fine fantasy tactical miniatures game but it isn't D&D.

Vote with your dollar. Don't buy 4E.

 

[Tervin]

I just read his blog entry. And... I agree, the marketing ploy to keep stressing how things in 3rd Edition was bad was not a good strategy. On the other hand, I buy games not marketing strategies. So I don't feel bad at all for buying the core rules of a really nice new D&D edition. It has its flaws of course, and will probably get twice the errata of any D&D edition before it - but it is still good enough that I don't really look forward to playing any of the old editions again, except for an occasional nostalgia excursion.

One of his points was that he wouldn't buy the game because of the marketing mistakes. Another point was that he knew the marketing was bad because so many people on Enworld claimed that they would not move over to 4th Edition. Now I don't mean any disrespect to this site, but using a poll on this messageboard as evidence on general trends does not really make me trust his reasoning. Honestly, after that I stopped trying to take in what he meant.

Lets be honest. What us RPG nuts on a messageboard like this think is not what really matters for a marketing department of D&D. What matters is how many mainstream shops are interested in selling the product. What the presales are like. How much buzz there is about the new edition among CRPG fans and fantasy fans in general. If they can make an impact in mainstream media somehow. If they can appeal to the kids, the future die hard fans. If they can make promises that people hear about, and then deliver.

So, yes they have had some stupid articles on their messy website. And they have rubbed some of the oldies the wrong way. But that is nothing compared to being on the top 10 on the Amazon charts. Or being talked about in mainstream media in not derogatory terms. Or needing to order a second printing before the game is released.

What I think is a bit alarming is that DDI is looking more and more like a vague promise of something that isn't happening. And that the website still has a structure where the regular visitor can't easily get all the new info in one single place. And that they keep promising that something will be out on a certain date and then not delivering.

I really hope this will change. Because their new fans will not have a reason to trust them like we do, because they have not seen that they are actually able to deliver good stuff on time when it comes to printed products.

And no, a bad website won't make me not buy books. Paying for an online service from them though, I am not as sure about anymore. (Even if the new Dragon stuff is of real high quality so far.)

 

[moritheil]

He's an industry insider.

And one like Sean K. Reynolds, his layoff made him very bitter towards Wizards.

Yes.

His post has nothing to do with what a gamer should do.

In a sense, his criticism might be valid. Remember that a product is the whole thing, image and all. If the packaging of ice cream changes, people report that it tastes sweeter. No product exists in a void. If he dislikes the whole product, and he attributes it to marketing, it's not completely unreasonable of him to do so.

Marketing should not influence the decision.

I think you're oversimplifying because to you, marketing is not a part of the product. His appreciation for gaming is probably indelibly wrapped up with marketing, just as if I asked a music industry executive to assess a CD, their opinion would be modified by the CD cover.

 

[Atlatl Jones]

In that regard, the 4E marketing team failed miserably. The poll here on EN World shows 39% of responders are not buying 4E. This poll is being taken from the core audience of D&D. The 4E marketing team failed to convince 39% of its core demographic to buy their new product. That is failure on a grand scale. Almost on a New Coke scale.

What that poll told us was, at best, that 39% of the ENWorld posters who chose to answer that poll said that they would not be going over to 4e.

Message board polls are useless for assessing what's really going on. Even if we assumed that ENWorld is representative of the core audience of D&D, the people who voted on that poll are entirely self-selected.

 

[DaveMage]

First of all I'm not even sure I agree it was botched. This is clearly a situation where the fans are so divided nothing can really appease them. If Wizards had come out with 3.75 as some suggest it would have been met with just as much anger as 4e's arrival. Had they called it 4e but not changed all that much people would be just as angry. Wizards could have continued to produce 3.x books but only for so long, maybe a year more tops, before they've ran out of ideas for sourcebooks people would buy.

First, if you run out of sourcebook ideas when your setting is the multiverse, well, I don't think you're really trying.

Second, there were two things that Wizards could have done that would have staved off much of this (IMO - for me, anyway).

1) Show people that their library of 3.5 (and 3pp) products could be used in the new system. Also, It seems trite, but WotC showing - even once - that they give a damn that some people have
heavily invested in 3.5 would have been a nice olive branch. All we got though, is the feeling that we were suckers for buying - and god forbid liking - 3.5. (And thus, it behhoves us not to be suckers again with 4.0.)

2) Keep the 30-year-old fluff. If they wanted to vary the fluff, then ADD ON to existing fluff - don't kill the old.

I really wonder if these 3.x/4E discussions would even be taking place if things like the great wheel cosmology were still intact - but only had add-ons. The feywild could still be added to the great wheel, and even the elemental whatever could be a new (added) realm that was discovered/created along side the traditional cosmology.

Oh, well.