Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Atavar" data-source="post: 3484455" data-attributes="member: 7136">Respectfully, yes, you may be wrong about that.Here's a hypothetical, with fake numbers to make my point:Let's say there are a total of 1,000,000 D&amp;D players/DMs in the hobby.&nbsp; 10,000 of them subscribe to Dungeon and/or Dragon magazine.WotC's research finds that there are 30,000 non-subscribers who say they won't pay for a print magazine but would pay for online content.&nbsp; WotC's business analysts conclude it is not economically feasible to have both subscription online content AND subscription print magazines (too much self-competition, or whatever).So, WotC decides to kill the mags so that they can do their Digital Initiative.Of the 10,000 magazine subscribers, 9000 of them say &quot;screw you WotC&quot; and don't sign up for the DI, while 1000 do sign up.&nbsp; Of the 30,000 non-subscribers who said they would pay for the DI, only half do so.&nbsp; So, in the end, WotC goes from 10,000 magazine subscribers to 16,000 DI subscribers.&nbsp; They make more money.&nbsp; More players/DMs are getting subscription content in a preferred and/or settled-for format.In the above scenario, the majority of mag subscribers hate WotC's decision.&nbsp; Killing the mags affected the magazine subscribers AND the non-magazine subscribers.&nbsp; Obviously, the majority of magazine subscribers lost a beloved magazine (or two).&nbsp; But, the decision the kill the mags had another effect--the emergence of a subscription medium that appeals to all those non-magazine people enough to get them to sign up for the DI.The existence of the DI and/or the killing of the mags should NOT be up to what the majority of mag subscribers want.&nbsp; It should be up to what the entire consumer base, mag subscriber or not, wants.&nbsp; WotC is betting that the DI will bring more to more consumers than the mags would.&nbsp; Only time will tell if they are right.Respectfully,Atavar</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Atavar, post: 3484455, member: 7136"] Respectfully, yes, you may be wrong about that. Here's a hypothetical, with fake numbers to make my point: Let's say there are a total of 1,000,000 D&D players/DMs in the hobby. 10,000 of them subscribe to Dungeon and/or Dragon magazine. WotC's research finds that there are 30,000 non-subscribers who say they won't pay for a print magazine but would pay for online content. WotC's business analysts conclude it is not economically feasible to have both subscription online content AND subscription print magazines (too much self-competition, or whatever). So, WotC decides to kill the mags so that they can do their Digital Initiative. Of the 10,000 magazine subscribers, 9000 of them say "screw you WotC" and don't sign up for the DI, while 1000 do sign up. Of the 30,000 non-subscribers who said they would pay for the DI, only half do so. So, in the end, WotC goes from 10,000 magazine subscribers to 16,000 DI subscribers. They make more money. More players/DMs are getting subscription content in a preferred and/or settled-for format. In the above scenario, the majority of mag subscribers hate WotC's decision. Killing the mags affected the magazine subscribers AND the non-magazine subscribers. Obviously, the majority of magazine subscribers lost a beloved magazine (or two). But, the decision the kill the mags had another effect--the emergence of a subscription medium that appeals to all those non-magazine people enough to get them to sign up for the DI. The existence of the DI and/or the killing of the mags should NOT be up to what the majority of mag subscribers want. It should be up to what the entire consumer base, mag subscriber or not, wants. WotC is betting that the DI will bring more to more consumers than the mags would. Only time will tell if they are right. Respectfully, Atavar [/QUOTE]

Verification