Need clarification on "No Retailer Links" rule

[Morrus]

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.

That's the third time in one thread, Dan. In fact, every post in this thread, you've done the same thing. No, I have not asked people not to discuss anything. I have, very specifically, referred to press releases and publisher sigs (which are ads, pure and simple).

As this is the third time you have invented things that I have not said, I can only conclude that it is deliberate. In my admin capacity, I am asking you now to leave this thread and this subject.

 

[Steve Conan Trustrum]

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.

Morrus, when I say "implications" I mean what the policy changes will imply for future dealings between publishers and your site. What your words literally say and what those implications are to publisher relations is where I'm saying there's a divide in meaning.

 

[RangerWickett]

If I may, gentlemen? I suggest you each take the rest of the evening off of this discussion, then come to it tomorrow morning. I can see both of you replying to the other in ways that less than optimally bring your point across.

I have some thoughts, but I'll post once the Colbert Report is over.

 

[Morrus]

Morrus, when I say "implications" I mean what the policy changes will imply for future dealings between publishers and your site. What your words literally say and what those implications are to publisher relations is where I'm saying there's a divide in meaning.

Eh? I was referring to your exceedingly long post filled with... umm... theories as to what I meant, although presented as fact, such as the "one-way/two-way road" thingummajigger.

You did, very clearly state that I was claiming it was a one way road and that publishers owed me in some way. Your exact quote "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."]

When I pointed out that I had said no such thing, you then 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 "

My point was that you are telling me what I mean based on what you inferred from it. If I tell you that you are wrong in your belief as to what I was thinking when I wrote something, your only defensible position is to say "I apologise, I was in error. You did not say or mean anything of the sort" OR "Morrus you are a liar, I know exactly what you were thinking, despite the fact that you didn't say it".

I'm not entirely worried about what you think I may believe; I am more worried that people will read what you say I believe and go away with the impression that I believe that.

 

[Steve Conan Trustrum]

If I may, gentlemen? I suggest you each take the rest of the evening off of this discussion, then come to it tomorrow morning. I can see both of you replying to the other in ways that less than optimally bring your point across.

As you wish. However, as I'm entirely even tempered at the moment I can assure you that neither my opinion nor the way I'm reading the situation shall alter come the morning. I doubt I've said anything that a good many other people haven't also taken away from the policy change and following commentary and clarifications.

 

[Morrus]

As you wish. However, as I'm entirely even tempered at the moment I can assure you that neither my opinion nor the way I'm reading the situation shall alter come the morning. I doubt I've said anything that a good many other people haven't also taken away from the policy change and following commentary and clarifications.

You don't have to do what Ryan says, you know!

 

[Steve Conan Trustrum]

You don't have to do what Ryan says, you know!

Well, I could stay here and chat or I could go tuck in my girlfriend. I may have no problem speaking my mind but I'm not CRAZY!

 

[Morrus]

Well, I could stay here and chat or I could go tuck in my girlfriend. I may have no problem speaking my mind but I'm not CRAZY!

An understandable decision. And I won't infer anything from it other than what you said, either.

G'night!

 

[Mouseferatu]

Okay, Morrus, I have a question. And I'll start by saying in advance that if any of this comes off as accusatory or snarky, that's not my intention.

Cutting to the chase, what do you hope to accomplish by this?

My guess is, you're hoping that it'll increase traffic to the EN World store, and that's certainly a legitimate objective if you're planning to tie the two EN entities closer together. But from my (admittedly limited) viewpoint, I can't imagine any way in which this decision will accomlish that.

First, there are publishers whose works simply aren't available in the EN World store. So right off the bat, you've eliminated them from consideration.

Leaving aside that particular question, let me use myself, and Lion's Den, as an example.

I post press releases across several sites, whenever we have a new product release. It's in my interests to direct people to the storefront that most of them already know. They've likely got an established account. They know how to find things on the site. And they know how to link from the product I'm talking about to other stuff of ours that might catch their fancy.

Simply put, there's just no incentive for me to start funneling people to the EN World store. I'll simply continue to point them to RPGNow in my press releases elsewhere, and link them to my own site--which takes them to RPGNow--in my releases here. Or else I'll just have all my press releases link to my own site, which still takes the customer to RPGNow. If I start trying to link everyone to the EN World store, I lose the expectation that most of them already have an account, and that means I lose the sales from everyone who A) doesn't want to bother with creating a new account at yet another site, or B) won't follow a link to purchase a product from a site he's not familiar with. And while EN World is very well known, its storefront is, I believe, somewhat less so.

Bottom line is, this does nothing for your own storefront, and it potentially inconveniences customers and publishers. There's no upside to it.

For this to really work as I believe you want it to, Morrus, you can't just tell publishers they can't link to other storefronts. You'd have to offer positive and tangible incentives for publishers to want to direct people to your storefront in particular. Now, such an announcement may be forthcoming, and I'd have no way to know about it. But I'm having touble thinking of what it could be, off the top of my head. And again, it still wouldn't account for people who aren't selling through EN World in the first place.

 

[RangerWickett]

Basically, Russ, it looks like you should take a moment to detail specifically what you mean. People obviously read things into your original statements that you did not intend, and, people being as they are apt to be, it simply does not work to tell them they're wrong and to re-read your earlier statements. When someone misunderstands you, the best way to respond is to try to figure out what you said that caused them to misunderstand you, and then to clarify that point.

Arguing who said what only serves to muddle people's idea of what the real message is. And please Russ, don't be defensive.

Now Steve, some of your language did contain a bit of invective. One statement sounded like you were saying Russ was treating the publishers and community members as 'dullards.'

I think we can see there is some emotion on both sides of this issue, and we'd all benefit from stepping back for a moment and trying to figure out what the other person is trying to say and do. Russ obviously wants to make the site profitable for him since he does put a lot of time into it, and he does not want to give away what he perceives as free advertising. Steven and others seem to want to point out to Russ that he benefits more from the sense of community fostered by allowing things like the 'free advertising' in press releases and sigs, than he would profit from prohibiting those types of announcements.


Now Russ, from your initial announcement and later attempts to clarify it, it seems like you're saying this:

(Correct me if I'm wrong, please)

EN World is a place for people to see the publishers and get to know them and their products. It is, as always, a good idea to point people to your company's own website, and once they're there you can encourage them to go wherever you want. However, from EN World's own site and messageboards, it is only polite that you post links that point toward EN World's store, rather than to the sites of competing vendors. If your product is not sold at EN World's store, we still think it'd be polite not to use EN World's messageboards and news to encourage people to shop elsewhere.

EN World is still intended to be a friendly place where publishers can get out news about themselves. However, to help EN World support its server bills, we think it would be best if all links to buy products either point to EN World's own store, or point to your own site. EN World is not on unfriendly terms with vendors at other sites, but it is a plain fact that EN World needs a profitable store to keep providing a ever-better news and community site. We're just asking for publishers to help by encouraging people shop at our store.

EN World certainly won't stamp out discussions of other vendors, and if people are displeased with our policies, we encourage them to discuss it openly. We want to provide the best service we can, and we don't want to create any hard feelings by seeming to stymie open discussion. However, we don't feel press releases or links in your signature are really 'discussions.' They're more like ads. If someone brings up one of your products in a thread on the boards, feel free to chime in and point to whatever vendors you think they'd like to buy from. When it comes to press releases and sigs, however, please refrain from posting links to other vendors.


Is that about right, Russ? Appropriately polite and clear about your intentions?

And Steve, am I right in saying that you're just trying to offer Russ advice on what will serve the site best? Namely that publishers have gotten used to certain types of treatment, and it might seem to some that your decision is motivated by greed, rather than its actual motivation, which is good business sense.