Need clarification on "No Retailer Links" rule

[Morrus]

Mouseferatu - I think I have to answer "hang on and see" to your questions. You won't have to wait long, I promise, but you will probably have a better idea of my strategy very soon!

 

[Gilwen]

I think the new rule is clear, understandable and doesn't contain any hidden adgenda or slaps publishers in the face.
He's not banning links back to the publisher's site which could be an opportunity to plug your other products in addition to the one that you are PR-ing about. Personally in a PR I would have a link back to my site anyway and have it be a special promotional page. That said I think that the one thing in the rule announcement that is, for lack of a better word at this hour, unreasonable is this quote (and I pasted exactly what was in the post):

[Edit - in response to a query from a publisher: linking to an auto-redirect on your own server in order to bypass this would be considered.... extremely rude. Please don't try to "circumvent" this in any way - I won't applaud you for your cleverness! ]

You can't have it both ways, it is either OK to link back to their site or it isn't.

My 2 coppers for whatever they are worth.

Gil

 

[Morrus]

You can't have it both ways, it is either OK to link back to their site or it isn't.

Of course I can. It's OK to link to a publisher site, but not to a auto-redirect. Pretty clear and easy. And auto-redirect onto a retailer is exactly the same as a normal link to it from the POV of the person clicking on the link. I'm not even willing to discuss the semantics of that one!

 

[GMSkarka]

That's certainly much more polite, Ryan....but still doesn't address the core issue that Ari (Mouseferatu) so eloquently distilled: that the policy has no upside. It makes no sense.

And tip-toe-ing around the line of "its OK in discussion, but not in PR or sigs" is just an transparently obvious bit of semantic gymnastics that's only going to cause more confusion and misunderstandings down the road.

 

[RangerWickett]

You can't have it both ways, it is either OK to link back to their site or it isn't.

I think what he means is that if, say, Joe Goodman posted a link to 'Buy our adventure,' it's cool if he links to his own site. It's even cool if he links to a page that has a link to different vendors. But if the page it links to only has a redirect to send it to Amazon, that'd seem a little like cheating.

"No, officer, I didn't run the red light. I clearly took a right turn, then did a u-turn, then took another right turn. I mean, sure, I was doing it at 50 miles an hour, but since when is that illegal?"

 

[RangerWickett]

That's certainly much more polite, Ryan....but still doesn't address the core issue that Ari (Mouseferatu) so eloquently distilled: that the policy has no upside. It makes no sense.

And tip-toe-ing around the line of "its OK in discussion, but not in PR or sigs" is just an transparently obvious bit of semantic gymnastics that's only going to cause more confusion and misunderstandings down the road.

I agree with you and others that Russ should work to make the new policy help publishers, or at least provide a reasonable option. However, one of Ari's comments was that his customers aren't as familiar with the EN World store, so he doesn't want to ask them to shop somewhere unfamiliar, since he's afraid that will impact sales. I think that actually part of the point of this is to encourage people to become familiar with the EN World store.

If the EN World store were a superior store (either as a store in and of itself [better interface, better options] or as a part of this site [integrated reviews and press releases in addition to mere product listings]) then it would be good for publishers to direct folks here instead of elsewhere, wouldn't it?

We just need to make sure that the store here is a good option.

 

[rpghost]

Just to be clear... http://enworld.rpgshop.com is owned and run by my company which is the same one that own and runs RPGNow.com - It will not be selling PDFs or downloads.

There is no immediate intention to change that from either party involved.

What other plans Russ has up his sleaves is up to him to talk about - which he's not right now. So speculate whatever you will.

Just wanted that to be clear.
James

 

[Mouseferatu]

I agree with you and others that Russ should work to make the new policy help publishers, or at least provide a reasonable option. However, one of Ari's comments was that his customers aren't as familiar with the EN World store, so he doesn't want to ask them to shop somewhere unfamiliar, since he's afraid that will impact sales. I think that actually part of the point of this is to encourage people to become familiar with the EN World store.

It may well be. But to call a spade a spade, that has no impact on what I do. As I said earlier, I'm simply going to link back to my own site, which will contain links to RPGNow. I have no interest in preventing Morrus from making the EN Store more widely known; heck, I wish him luck. But I can't afford to sacrifice sales to help him do it, and I can guarantee you that the same holds true for most publishers. So under the circumstances I outlined above, I'd lay good money that most people will do exactly that--link to their own site, rather than the EN World Store. (And again, it doesn't address the "So-and-so's books aren't available here" issue.)

That said, Morrus says above that we'll be getting more information soon, and I'm willing to wait for it before I delve too much deeper into this...

 

[Morrus]

I have no interest in preventing Morrus from making the EN Store more widely known

You realise that this "not well known" store doesn't actually exist yet... which is probably why it isn't very well known!

It's not a case of making it "more widely known"!

 

[Mouseferatu]

You realise that this "not well known" store doesn't actually exist yet... which is probably why it isn't very well known!

It's not a case of making it "more widely known"!

Oh, sure, nitpick the writer. That'll get the companies to fall in line.