Need clarification on "No Retailer Links" rule
- Thread starter HinterWelt
- Start date
Cathix
First Post
smokewolf said:
I know, and neither am I. Thought I'd put in my 50 cents, and here's another quarter: There are decisions made by other people I have to abide by, and while I might not like the sound of them, they may or may not affect my business adversely. Only time can tell. I am not one of the decision-makers, as far as vendors of pdfs go. I must go with what they decide, a la The Edge. In the end, however, publishers have the most options available to them - they're the most dexterous players in the game. And for that I'm thankful. I've adopted a 'wait and see' approach, and it's working out pretty well.
PatrickLawinger
First Post
Morrus said:
I was guessing that it was going to be a separate entity but this doesn't seem clear from the information provided. If it is separate and pays for its use of bandwith, etc., I don't see how there can be that many complaints. If you ever need to do another fund raiser though, I am not sure how well that is going to fly.
As for the rest, I guess I'll just wait and see.
As for people complaining about "clicks." Well, any sale you didn't get from a press release here that people couldn't get to in 3 clicks or less is a sale you wouldn't have gotten if you didn't have a press release here at all so I don't really see that complaint. I honestly think the "click" discussion has gotten a bit silly in that respect.
I would be more concerned about the appearance or reputation of bias. This is something that can hurt the site and the Ennies (as they are both related). It is easy to say "Nope" but it would be better to set things out clearly from the beginning. For example, it should be made clear that .pdf publishers that sell through ENShop must go through the same expenses to submit products for the Ennies (mailing in a CD, etc.) as those that don't. Publishers selling through ENShop should have to go through the same steps to get staff reviews of products as others, and so on.
I do expect that publishers that can't link as easily are still going to do PR here, I do admit that they might spend more of their time using other avenues for PR and advertising though. Some people say that will "hurt" the site. I honestly don't know about that. I am sure those publishers that stick around here and answer posts are still going to be around. Frankly, lately a lot of the larger publishers with their own forums stick to those.
Just more opinions from a tired, half-incoherent dad ...
Patrick
smokewolf
First Post
Morrus said:
The links themselves are not an issue for me, its the loss of an unbias news source that I hate to see gone. By restricting what someone can write (which is your right, it is your place) while at the same time promoting a commercial enterprise in which you have a vested interest creates a very bias press engine.
I would have no problem if this policy had been different, such as a blanket no PR or no links even to ENSHOP or drop the news side altogether.
But your stance no longer places you in a neutral position. You have taken a side now in the industry. You have a commerical entity directly ties to your news agency which now has been given preferential treatment over your competitors. I think everyone that uses you as a news service needs to feel that they can trust the news they get to be unbias, honest and complete. And this relationship erodes that trust.
Imagine what would happen if there is a financial issue that arises out of ENSHOP with one or more vendors. What if the problem is on your end (say misappropiation of funds)? What if the problem is on their end (plagerized material or inflated sales or theft of others materials)? As someone who is places themselves in a news delivery position, any of the information regarding such matters is slanted (even if there is an attempt at honesty). The fact is you are a participant and are no longer independant.
And there is the whole matter of reviews now that there is more of a financial investment that those products you are selling sale well. With ENPUB, because of the air of transparency and the fact that so many of us were actually purchasing ENPUB material there was no reason to doubt the accuracy and intention of reviews. But now, any publisher who receives a low review and is not on your ENSHOP and then brings it up will further erode any sense of impartiality that you try to create. They do not have to right, they only need to create doubt in peoples mind. Or if a product is marked consistently low elsewheres but is ranked rather high here, again people are more than capable of inventing their own conspiracies.
smokewolf
First Post
Just an example:
Remember the Dan Rather and the superscript font fiasco. It didn't matter that IBM came forth and said that that particular font (with superscripts) had been used for years before the letter was supposedly written on their typewriters and had actually been around since the earlier than that. It also didn't matter that they even produced a model which had been available during that time which had that font and even had other characterists of the letter.
Dan Rather was left with having to defend himself because people believed the news was no longer unbiased.
Remember the Dan Rather and the superscript font fiasco. It didn't matter that IBM came forth and said that that particular font (with superscripts) had been used for years before the letter was supposedly written on their typewriters and had actually been around since the earlier than that. It also didn't matter that they even produced a model which had been available during that time which had that font and even had other characterists of the letter.
Dan Rather was left with having to defend himself because people believed the news was no longer unbiased.
smokewolf said:
But there's nothing new happening here. You should have been saying all this 4 years ago! Allow me to demonstrate.
I've always done that in various ways. I do it less than Eric ever did before me, but I've always done it. The news these days is far more impartial than it once was, when it was what one guy thought was cool. But it has never, ever, ever been an automated, unedited system - news has ALWAYS been edited, rewritten, summarised, cut down and so forth. And, frankly, what appears on the news page is vastly more important than what appears in this forum, views-wise, by several orgers of magnitude. This forum is used as source of information by the newshounds, but never, ever have the cut and pasted news items from here. What's actually written in here is almost inconsequential compared to what's on the news page, and the news page is compiled and edited. Or, in your words, "biased".
Some sites just post PRs as they are (see Gaming Report). EN World's never done that. I've always decided what's interesting, what's not, what deserves to be reported, what doesn't. I think you've been under a major misapprehension as to what EN World's news is for years!
EN World's RPGShop affiliate store has had preferential treatment for years. Check out the news each day if you don't believe me. Long ago, Eric Noah's Amazon affiliate links did the same thing. That's preferential treatment. Nobody ever complained about that!
It's not dishonest in the slightest. No deception whatsoever.
That's silly - sorry! What if I had spent CS account purchases on a new car and not granted CS accounts? In what way is this a new concept?
Again, I say - affiliate RPGShop. What would I have done in that situation? No change there.
Amazon. RPGNow. DTRPG. ALL have customer written reviews. No difference.
All your concerns have applied for years. They are no more valid now than they were then - or they were just as valid then as they are now (both ways round work!)
In summary - I'm afraid I disagree with your assertion that the news is now untrustworthy. However, I fully respect your right to hold that opinion and act in whatever way you feel is best for you, and wouldn't dream of trying to dissuade you from it. But we're not going to agree on this subject, I'm afraid!
Steve Conan Trustrum
Explorer
You're welcome to think that. Considering some of the clients I've helped run such studies for on more than one occassion include the Royal Bank of Canada, Lottario, Microsoft, Bell Canada and Kodak (not to mention Amazon's well-documented reasons for protecting their one-click patents), you'll understand if I tend to agree with them rather than your supposition without information. Morrus is welcome to do what he likes, but your statement above which chooses to ignore information that is pretty much a staple amongst some of the world's most successful online vendors is nothing less than willfull ignorance. You don't even have to take my word for it as you can find all this out if you spend enough time with Google.PatrickLawinger said:
Similar Threads
