Need clarification on "No Retailer Links" rule

[Morrus]

I posted this elsewhere but I'll repost here for consideration:

I think a wiser course of action would be, at the very least, to allow publishers who are paying members to continue to post non-EnWorld links in their press releases and signatures. The incentive for publishers such as myself who have not yet purchased a membership (I don't use EnWorld to email, PM, or the like) just dropped down from "I think about signing up now and then" to absolute zero, and this current policy will likely see a large number of publishers not renewing membership considering the value that EnWorld has for them has dramatically dropped.

I'm sorry you feel that way. I respectfully disagree with your analysis, but respect your right to make whatever decision you feel is in your best interests.

 

[Morrus]

Yeah, I missed that as well. I see that the announcement is for publishers only. What about those non-publishing folks throughout the site that point to various products when asked about them?

Covered in the announcement. They aren't publishers. Conversation between members is fine; free advertising, on the other hand, is another thing entirely.

 

[Eosin the Red]

This seems abusive. Enworld got to be a popular source of news, so many publishers send their press releases here, helping the site gain popularity. Now you're saying, "feel free to advertise here, but only if you sell at my store".

Ditto.

 

[DanMcS]

This statement:

No I'm not. Read it again, please.

(In reponse to, 'you're only allowing people advertise if they sell at your store')

and this:

'Fraid not. That's what http://enworld.rpgshop.com/ is for.

(In response to, 'can I advertise if I sell at amazon?')

are directly contradictory statements from you.

Perhaps you objected to my use of "advertise"? Fine, I'll rephase:

You want this to be perceived as a community news site, but you will only accept community news if they sell at your store.

 

[Morrus]

This statement:


(In reponse to, 'you're only allowing people advertise if they sell at your store')

and this:

(In response to, 'can I advertise if I sell at amazon?')

are directly contradictory statements from you.

Perhaps you objected to my use of "advertise"? Fine, I'll rephase:

You want this to be perceived as a community news site, but you will only accept community news if they sell at your store.

If those were actual quotes, then yes, you'd be right. Luckily, nobody said that.

Again, I must repeat, please read what you're "quoting". "Can I advertise if I sell at amazon?'" was not the question asked. Please do not change what I am saying

 

[Steve Conan Trustrum]

You're right. Publishers generously send their press releases here purely out of a desire to help EN World. They get nothing from it at all. That's remarkably magnaminous of them, and I should really be paying them for it.

So none of the publishers helped EnWorld when it was in financial problems? None donated products and money during fund raisers and the like? Come on, Morrus. Portraying the publishers around here as self-serving is entirely repainting history. YOU made it possible for them to post their press releases here. They didn't come to you and demand it. Doing that helped build up EnWorld into the site it is today instead of just another of the many d20 messageboard crowd. Do you honestly think this site would have grown for Eric if the publishers hadn't been around here, let alone for you? Do you think you'd have as many members here, as opposed to countless other d20 sites, if those members didn't know that they would have the chance to talk to so many publishers and the like? While I respect your ability to do with your site as you will, trying to obfuscate your intentions by altering the facts of how this site came to be what it is rather than fading into the background like so many others is not a direction you really want to go down if you want the publishers involved to begin addressing it.

Let's be clear - what we're talking about here are free ads. I doubt I'll see many free ads linking to EN World's store plastered over DTRPG or FRP Games any time soon.

No we absolutely are not. A press release is not an ad. An interactive discussion forum is not an ad. Yes, it offers great promotional opportunities, many of which overlap with those of an ad, but they are not ads. The banner space myself or others can pay for on your site is an ad. When I announce a product to Gamingreport.com I am not placing an ad with them.

Promotion =/= ad in all cases. If it did, you wouldn't also be selling ad space at EnWorld, would you?

Sometimes EN World's gotta do what's in EN World's best long term interests. This is one of those things. I'm not "taking" anything from anyone, I'm just not giving quite as much as I was. Publishers can still get an awful lot of benefit from EN World for free.

Yes, they can indeed get benefit from EnWorld. However, I think you really need to take a long, hard look at the hypocricy of your actions.

Let's consider a talk I had with you several months ago after a certain rant you posted on your front page. In your response, you essentially broke down your rebutal to "look, Steve and everyone else, EnWorld is an impartial news site. I may have ties to EN Publishing but the two companies are different and I don't mix them." Fine, we'll take you at your word. More recently, you refuse to remove a post from a publisher who broke confidence with a clearly confidential medium wherein that person and many of his peers were discussing a rather important matter for their various companies in private by going public with it, thereby putting at risk the businesses of those peers. You refused to remove it following the claim that EnWorld is a non-partisan news site and that, because the situation was news and that EnWolrd doesn't take sides, you would let it stand. Now you're clearly using EnWorld, the news site, in partisan affiiliation with a business, the scope of which is well beyond that of mere news. The much vaunted non-partisan stance of EnWorld has not only been compromised but it has been tossed entirely out the window.

Now, if this is the rule you want to operate under then fine, I'll readily comply because it's your board to run as you see fit and I wouldn't dispute that--as soon as I saw the announcement I removed the links from my sig. However, please don't play us all for dullards who can't recognize the hypocricy within this aciton. Don't tell us how generous you've been for letting us post links this far and how much you've been benefiting us when you know as well as we publishers that it's been a two way road where the precense of some of the publishers (obviously some more than others--I've no delusions about how little Misfit Studios' presence has meant to EnWorld's popularity) has done more for your site's growth than just about anything else. Pretending that the truth is anything else is adding unnecessary insult to injury and is not only beneath you but beneath the publishers whose role in this site's history you belittle with
such comments.

 

[Morrus]

So none of the publishers helped EnWorld when it was in financial problems? None donated products and money during fund raisers and the like?

That's not what I replied to. I replied specifically to the assertion that publishers posting press releases was something EN World should be grateful for. Please do not extend that to refer to anything other than what I actually said. Please do not apply my replies to one assertion to hypothetical other assertions that haven't actually been made.

A press release is not an ad.

We disagree. I class a PR as advertising, espcially in the context of how they're used here. This forum "Publishers & Press Releases" is a forum for ads. That's fine. It will still be such a forum. Banner ads sold are also ads, yes - better seen ads, which is why I charge for them.

Believe it or not, EN World IS selective in the news it posts. Always has been. It's delegated more these days, yes, so it's less selective than it once was when it was one guy posting what he thought would be interesting, but I've never considered myself to have any duty to post all news submitted. Sometimes there have been opinions in the news, too.

Get this - even freakier! NO press release makes it through to the news age unedited, and never has! It is posted in the way I (and by extension, the newshounds) feel like it.

Let's consider a talk I had with you several months ago after a certain rant you posted on your front page. In your response, you essentially broke down your rebutal to "look, Steve and everyone else, EnWorld is an impartial news site. I may have ties to EN Publishing but the two companies are different and I don't mix them." Fine, we'll take you at your word. More recently, you refuse to remove a post from a publisher who broke confidence with a clearly confidential medium wherein that person and many of his peers were discussing a rather important matter for their various companies in private by going public with it, thereby putting at risk the businesses of those peers. You refused to remove it following the claim that EnWorld is a non-partisan news site and that, because the situation was news and that EnWolrd doesn't take sides, you would let it stand. Now you're clearly using EnWorld, the news site, in partisan affiiliation with a business, the scope of which is well beyond that of mere news. The much vaunted non-partisan stance of EnWorld has not only been compromised but it has been tossed entirely out the window.

I agree with you that this is a change in emphasis for EN World. I believe it to the the direction EN World needs to take in order to be viable long term. You don't need to post at length to convince me that this is a change - it is a change, and a deliberate one.

Note that I got just as much "hassle" (if not more) for the non-partisan act than I am for this act of EN World's self-interest. The non-partisan approach really did me no favours. Neither approach makes everybody happy. The important thing, though, is that EN World continues to prosper, and that means making decisions based purely on their business values from time to time.

Don't tell us how generous you've been for letting us post links this far and how much you've been benefiting us when you know as well as we publishers that it's been a two way road

Again, I'm being misquoted. You're now the second person in one thread to do that. Please don't. I did not say that I was being generous and it was all one-way. I would not say that, ever. I said it was two way, and that people should stop implying to me that it was one way in reverse. The "you can't do this because you owe the publishers" argument is as invalid as any reverse argument. Nobody owes anybody anything, everyone has benefitted in some way, all is equal.

 

[Steve Conan Trustrum]

That's not what I replied to. I replied specifically to the assertion that publishers posting press releases was something EN World should be grateful for. Please do not extend that to refer to anything other than what I said.

Morrus, the tone of your words spoke a great deal. Yes, there was certainly more than mere interest in EnWorld's interests at heart when press releases were made, but the tone of your words, especially within the context of this thread and what it entails, goes beyond the literal and I don't believe you're unaware of that.

We disagree. I class a PR as advertising, espcially in the context of how they're used here. This forum "Publishers & Press Releases" is a forum for ads. That's fine. It will still be such a forum. Banner ads sold are also ads, yes - better seen ads, which is why I charge for them.

The context of what the forum serves beyond press releases alone, and the nature of the site overall, would definately categorize them as something other than an ad to me, a person who deals directly with advertising in a non-retailer capacity. It's not my site, however, so I'm afraid we'll have to continue to disagree there.

I agree with you that this is a change in emphasis for EN World. I believe it to the the direction EN World needs to take in order to be viable long term. You don't need to post at length to convince me that this is a change - it is a change, and a deliberate one.

But you don't see how people are left scratching their heads over this considering how recent the indicent with the RPGnow leak is? I hardly think this is a decision you came to overnight and wasn't in the works at the time.

Again, I'm being misquoted. You're now the second person in one thread to do that. Please don't. I did not say that I was being generous and it was all one-way. I would not say that, ever. I said it was two way, and that people should stop implying to me that it was one way in reverse.

Communicating is more than just quoting and literal translation, Morrus. The situational context is a big part of it. The implications are a big part of it. The quote I replied to in the post you are replying to here is a big part of it. Now, it's entirely possible you misspoke or intoned something you didn't mean to. However, I can't believe that--were you to reread that post--you can't see how people can look at your words therein and draw the conclusion you're refuting, especially considering what the post your words were replying to was saying.

The "you can't do this because you owe the publishers" argument is as invalid as any reverse argument. Nobody owes anybody anything, everyone has benefitted in some way, all is equal.

I don't think you owe myself or any other publisher anything, Morrus. You made a situation availlable to myself and others under certain terms and we all took advantage of that. However, as you now say, many publishers returned that favor by assisting EnWorld in a number of ways to create a two way relationship. It was a symbiotic give and take. I wouldn't be suprised if much of that goes away now on the part of the publishers. Yes, I'm certain most (myself included) will continue to post link-free press releases here but I think you'll also find many will view this as a slap in the face and won't invest as much effort or support in the site.

As you say, it's a two way road but when one party begins putting up road blocks along the best path to one's destination, people inevitably look for other roads to travel upon.

 

[DanMcS]

We disagree. I class a PR as advertising, espcially in the context of how they're used here. This forum "Publishers & Press Releases" is a forum for ads. That's fine. It will still be such a forum. Banner ads sold are also ads, yes - better seen ads, which is why I charge for them.

So why make them change sigs, and disallow reference to rpg sales sites even by name? It's comprehensible that you, at this point, consider rpgnow and drivethru competitors to your rpg shop and whatever else you're announcing this week. The message boards are not competing with rpgnow or drivethru. Changing discussion policy on the message boards due to shopfront concerns that grew out of the existance of the messageboard itself seems like it's putting the cart before the horse.

Changing discussion policy to drive business to your storefront makes the community of the boards a secondary concern to the storefront, which doesn't seem right for a community site.

 

[Morrus]

Communicating is more than just quoting and literal translation, Morrus. The situational context is a big part of it. The implications are a big part of it.

Steve, the majority of what you are saying is based on what you perceive as implications. I have no reply to that, other than to say that telling me what I mean isn't going to convince me of anything.

The upshot is that I haven't - as you admit - said these things. You merely believe that I believe them. I can't help that, but I can ask everybody else to please just read what I've said and not what Steve believes I think.