Need clarification on "No Retailer Links" rule

[GMSkarka]

ENGS has a customer base. EN World has proven to be immensely successful at creating a massive customer base of thousands of PDF customers over the last few years. It will continue to do so.

EN World creates PDF customers. Fact. Undeniable fact.

One way of looking at it.

Another way to look at it is that the publishers who frequented EN World over the last few years created those customers. EN World's part in it was passive, rather than active. EN World provided the venue to speak to the customers, but it was the publishers who did the talking.


I do hope that your plans work out, though-- if you can be successful in creating new customers, rather than just splitting off some of the existing ones, Adamant will be happy to sign up. As it is right now, we'll stay in "wait and see" mode, and keep a close eye on developments.

 

[Morrus]

Another way to look at it is that the publishers who frequented EN World over the last few years created those customers. EN World's part in it was passive, rather than active. EN World provided the venue to speak to the customers, but it was the publishers who did the talking.

I dunno - I felt the provision of said venue to be a very active and effortful venture on my part. That said, what difference does it make? EN World had a massive part in it, whatever you feel its part actually was. I submit that EN World's part was far more active than you claim, because I've made vast amounts of effort to promote and legitimise PDFs and provide resources and venues which helped make those things become successful.

Of course, I'm not trying to claim all the credit. That'd be ludicrous. But I am saying that EN World had a very active role in the whole growth in the PDF industry. More so than any other non-retailer site in the world. And now it's a retailer site as well, just imagine what the long-term effect will be.

I do hope that your plans work out, though-- if you can be successful in creating new customers, rather than just splitting off some of the existing ones, Adamant will be happy to sign up.

I wouldn't bother doing this if I didn't firmly believe that were not only possible, but likely.

 

[Henry]

One way of looking at it.

Another way to look at it is that the publishers who frequented EN World over the last few years created those customers. EN World's part in it was passive, rather than active. EN World provided the venue to speak to the customers, but it was the publishers who did the talking.

As much as the publishers do the talking, the fans do it more, and it's fans communicating one to another that is the most effective advertising. (The least predictable, true, but the most effective.) ENWorld's part was by no means passive, because "ENWorld" is the publishers, the fans, and the staff, all together. You refer to the venue, but I think of ENWorld as Venue + Members. Without this, the site wouldn't have lasted this long!

 

[jaerdaph]

Anything that has to to with RPGs, I learn about at EN World. I rarely visit (lurk at) wizards.com forums, passively belong to a couple of listserv groups, there is no other RPG site/online community I visit.

 

[GMSkarka]

I've put up a poll on the main forum, the results of which should be of interest to publishers considering the ENGS.

 

[Arnwyn]

Probably because you weren't reading closely. When I said I had no delusions about how insiginificant Misfit Studios was to EnWorld, did you not read that? The key part of the point was publisherS. And you also seem to be missing an important part: this new policy doesn't just apply to PDFpublishers--it applies to ALL publishers

Indeed I did. Maybe I should have been more clear, and noted it's a rather over-inflated sense of value of pdf publishers to ENWorld members. Sorry.

But I can't imagine print publishers reducing whatever presence they have here right now. I hardly think consumers and ENWorld members are going to suffer.

Me thinks you're not in marketing, no?

Nope. It's just my minor in university. I'm a professional accountant with a background in cost accounting and product economics. I ran far away from marketing as fast as I could!

Your own preferences aside, I doubt even you will say that "All I can say is that this particular consumer doesn't even consider a product if he doesn't see it announced somewhere at ENWorld (whatever the links are in press releases notwithstanding)" is hardly a condition that will apply to most members here,

Beats me if it's "hardly a condition that will apply to most members here". I don't have the marketing data, nor have I seen the marketing studies - which is why I specifically said "this particular consumer" (though, given the state of market research in the gaming industry, I'm thinking it's not likely anyone has seen any hypothetical studies, either). I can only speak for myself, which I clearly did. (Note though, that I have indeed seen others say the same thing that both I and jaerdaph (above) said. Go figure.)

let alone consumers at large.

Which is irrelevant here.

As such, I further think, once you think on it a bit, you'll be forced to accept that a publisher's concerns likely won't be designed around your rather narrow product promotion criteria of "EnWorld or Bust."

Indeed - but I've always accepted that.

1) Give it to me in my favorite store or don't give it to me at all

I have no idea what you're trying to point out, here. Note that I've never said anything about "stores" or shopping.

And then we come to the point that nowhere did I even mention not promoting on EnWorld anymore, PERIOD, as Arnwyn seems to suggest. I was rather explicit in making my point that I believe publishers would still see EnWorld as a place to promote but the risk was that it would not be the focus of energies as it once was because publishers will always prefer being able to promote without restriction. This means the customers who say "EnWorld or nothing" will still see those promotions and be satisfied,

Great! Then I think there is little to be worried about, as far as ENWorld members are concerned.

 

[Morrus]

I've put up a poll on the main forum, the results of which should be of interest to publishers considering the ENGS.

Too soon to post it, Gareth. People haven't gotten used to it yet. Give them a few weeks then post the same poll.

Counting the time down for the hurricane, the new site has been up for about 5 minutes. And nobody predicts their future actions accurately in a poll. Wait and see what actually happens.

 

[RangerWickett]

I'm going to have to third this question, please.

*points to earlier posts in the thread with unanswered questions about freelancer linking*

Think you could field this one while you are here, Morrus? Does the "no outside vendors" rule apply to non-publishers, such as freelancers?

 

[Morrus]

*points to earlier posts in the thread with unanswered questions about freelancer linking*

Think you could field this one while you are here, Morrus? Does the "no outside vendors" rule apply to non-publishers, such as freelancers?

I'm thinking about it, Roudi. I'm inclined to say it's OK.

 

[The Sigil]

Oddly enough, I changed my sig (by chance) a couple of days before the new policy came out. Lucky me.

Just a couple of thoughts here...

1. Publishers, in general, very much dislike to be told they can't write/say something. Remember the brouhaha about the "d20 Standards Clause" or whatever brought on by the Book of Erotic Fantasy a couple of years back, and note how many publishers jumped off the d20 bandwagon and onto OGL-only releases (granted, that may have been playing in the back of their minds already, but if it did not cause it, the addition of the Standards Clause certainly accelerated it). Why? Again, because publishers definitely dislike being told "you can't say/write that."

2. Businessmen, in general, dislike any perceived attack on their ability to make money. (Duh.)

3. This new rule amounts to telling publishers "you can't say/write that." Even worse, it specifically states to many that "you can't say/write about a place that earns you money." That tends to make it a double-whammy to publishers, because it rankles both their artistic side ("censorship, I tell ya!") and their business side ("he's attacking my wallet!").

4. Even if this rule has no quantifiable effect on sales, and therefore no logical reason for publishers to frequent ENWorld less frequently, publishers are humans with emotions and not cold logic machines, and rankling them (see #3) makes them less likely to use ENWorld at all (including as an outlet for press releases). While Morrus may not see this as a loss, I do. I like being able to see the press releases for new products, and I fear that this may have the effect of alienating publishers.

5. Looking at my title bar, I see "ENWorld - Morrus' D&D/d20 News & Reviews Site" - I have to admit, Morrus, that restricting what can be posted in this forum - which has been specifically designated as the place for publishers to post press releases - smacks a little too heavily of self-interest for my taste. I understand not wanting competition with the new PDF store, but forbidding linking - or even discussion by publishers - about other outlets seems... well... a tad heavy-handed for a "news" site. Is ENWorld a place for news (even if it is vetted by the newshounds) or not? If it is not, don't tout it as such (take it out of the title bar). If it is, you really should accept press releases that mention (even if they don't link to) other companies.

What I liked about the old ENWORLD was the fact that it didn't take sides when it came to news. Positive or negative it stood its ground and presented an unbiased look at the information.

6. It does to me seem hypocritical to allow mention of a certain site splitting into two pieces - but a couple of weeks later not allow mention of that exact same site as a place to go if you want to buy PDFs. Allowing publishers to criticize/complain about the site is okay, but other discussion is out of bounds? If this policy had been in place a month ago, would ENWorld have run the story? I understand it is (obviously) in the best interests of ENWorld, but doesn't strike me as something a "News" site ought to do.

I should point out that none of this will stop me from visiting ENWorld, just wanted to point out a few observations and a few things that troubled me about this announcement. I see why you're doing it, Morrus, but I agree with some of the other posters that suggest that the publishers forum will soon be all but bereft of press releases not pertaining to ENStore products, which increases ENWorld's utility as an ENStore news site, but diminishes its utility as a "D&D/d20 News" site considerably.

--The Sigil