What do we actually know about WotC's market research?

[Numion]

I'm not so sure about that, at least based on EnWorld. I ran a poll a few months ago asking when people started playing D+D, expecting there to be a broad range with spikes around 1980 (for 1e), 1989-ish (2e) and 2000 (3e); what came back was a huge trend toward about 1977-82, a tiny spike around 2000, and an odd unexplainable spike in 1992. Most people who started in 1982 or earlier would probably have been born before 1966...all that data thrown out for no good reason. Makes no sense to me...

No good reason? That depends on what the study was aimed to do. They didn't include presbyterian ministers in the survey either.

Probably there was a reason for both.

 

[Asmor]

Also keep in mind that ENWorld isn't a typical sampling of RPG players. The fact that we're all predisposed to come here sets us apart from others, whether they go to different sites or don't really participate in any online communities. If nothing else, ENWorld has a vastly higher concentration of DMs than would be found in a typical sampling.

 

[Raven Crowking]

No good reason? That depends on what the study was aimed to do. They didn't include presbyterian ministers in the survey either.

Probably there was a reason for both.

Surely you know that there is a difference between not actively seeking out a target group (presbyterian ministers) and actively excluding a target group (older D&D players). Or are you suggesting that the WotC postcard survey asked about religion & occupation in order to avoid ministers?

 

[Cadfan]

This thread clearly implies that when a gamer knows absolutely nothing about a topic, he should keep his mouth shut.

On behalf of gamers everywhere, I strenuously object.

 

[Numion]

Surely you know that there is a difference between not actively seeking out a target group (presbyterian ministers) and actively excluding a target group (older D&D players).

No, not really. You choose who you want to please, and then you ask them. Including and excluding are the same thing. You plan a statistical test for anything, part of it is to choose the target population. WotC might consider choosing the target population from, for example: all americans, all american roleplayers, all american D&D players, all american D&D players aged 7-65, all american D&D players aged 10-35.

If they want to develop the game to be very mainstream they might ask just random americans what they know about D&D, what interests them in what they've heard, what kind of D&D would they like to play .. etc. Now, if they wanted to know what the strengths and weaknesses of the current D&D (then 2nd ed) are to make it more popular among younger players, they might choose the last segment. There's no malice in it, or any kind of conspiracy to shaft the older players - they just might not know anymore how to capture that wonder D&D inspires in younger players, which is an important part in getting people hooked to the game.

It's quite ordinary, actually, in different fields. Choose the audience you're going for, and ask them.

But it does make you right in that the market research isn't really a study on all D&D players, and shouldn't be touted as such. It was a market research conducted to sell more books, not to know the D&D players. Well, ok, it can function little as a both, as long as all remember how the sample was chosen and what was asked. I know neither.

P.S. I've studied some statistics at Uni, but don't shoot me for getting something wrong.

 

[Lanefan]

But it does make you right in that the market research isn't really a study on all D&D players, and shouldn't be touted as such. It was a market research conducted to sell more books, not to know the D&D players. Well, ok, it can function little as a both, as long as all remember how the sample was chosen and what was asked. I know neither.

OK, fair enough. What this means, though, is that whenever someone uses said research to try and make or support a point, we just have to remember the research is by its own defined parameters an incomplete study and thus take said point with a grain of salt.

Lanefan

 

[Raven Crowking]

Surely you know that there is a difference between not actively seeking out a target group (presbyterian ministers) and actively excluding a target group (older D&D players).

No, not really. You choose who you want to please, and then you ask them. Including and excluding are the same thing.

If you are trying to find out about the mating habits of 35-year-old males, you exclude anyone who is not 35 years old, and anyone who is not male. You are not specifically seeking the opinion of ministers, but ministers may form a subset of that demographic.

Similarly, the people polled, unless there was a question that excluded on the basis of religious occupation, may well have included ministers, presbyterian and otherwise. Just because a particular group is not the target group, it doesn't mean that the target group does not contain members of the non-target group.


RC

 

[nothing to see here]

In some ways I think grognards are the single worst group to consult in doing this kind of research because, despite their vast experience, they tend to be (1) tremendous outliers and (2) extremely resistant to any kind of change.

....

Likewise, many grognards (certainly not all, though!) are extremely negative or resistant toward anything new or different, like the Comic Book Guy from the Simpsons. "Worst. Module. Ever." These folks might flood the internet with their strong opinions, but they don't speak for most gamers.

I both agree and disagree with you here. On one hand, if a demographic is significant, it should not be exlcluded just because it is difficult. GOOD Market Research does not deliberately over-represent or exclude anyone. If you are trying to measure the popularity of D&D among the general population as a whole (which would be a wholly depressing project) then you let in young players, old players, Presbytarian Ministers, EVERYONE...to ensure accureate sampling.

But on the other hand, Garnfellow raises a very good point. Though I am grossly oversimplyfying marketing in saying this -- there are two distinct goals of any marketing campaigning.

1) GROWING your market to include more people.

2) INTENSIFYING your current market to buy more products.

Now think about WTOC's goals when they implemented their 1999-2000 campaign (and, I would guess all their subsequent research) If you're mainly interested in people who just PLAY D&D, then you need to find a way to target your research to a very specific sub-population...be it through magazine subscriptions, websites, feedback post cards...to name just a few tools.

Note However that this post is about MARKET research. If I was contracted to do Market Research for WOTC, I wouldn't be sweating too much about who is PLAYING D&D (except in a background/sector context kind of analysis), I want to know what is important to people who are either ALREADY BUYING D&D PRODUCTS or are in demographics that are LIKELY TO EXPERIEMENT WITH BUYING D&D PRODUCTS.

In this case an eleven year latching on to an older game group, and a 30-year grognard who has not purchased any new products since 1983 have something in common. While, in both cases their contribution to the hobby is commendable on the other hand, their views on product marketability are close to inconsequential.

 

[Storm Raven]

I'm not so sure about that, at least based on EnWorld. I ran a poll a few months ago asking when people started playing D+D, expecting there to be a broad range with spikes around 1980 (for 1e), 1989-ish (2e) and 2000 (3e); what came back was a huge trend toward about 1977-82, a tiny spike around 2000, and an odd unexplainable spike in 1992. Most people who started in 1982 or earlier would probably have been born before 1966...all that data thrown out for no good reason. Makes no sense to me...

First off, I suspect your assumptions concerning age to be wrong. Most of the people who started in 1982 would have probably been born in the 1966-1970 range, making them between 12 and 16 when they began playing D&D. If a player stated playing D&D at the age of 12 and was born in 1966, then he would have begun playing in 1978. When it was first marketed, D&D was a "kids" game, at least as far as the marketing of the product went. Sure, it was developed by old wargamers like Arneson, Gygax, Ward, and so on, but it was marketed to a teenage or pre-teen demographic. I, for example, started playing D&D in 1979, at the age of 10.

Second, you make a hugely dubious assumption that the age ranges of ENWorld members is anything remotely resembling a representative sample of the D&D playing population. As has been noted elsewhere, the percentage of ENWorlders who are regular DMs is wildly out of proportion to anything one would reasonably expect. As a group, we seem to skew much older than the general population of D&D gamers (for example, how many 10-14 year olds frequent these boards, yet that is a significant marketing demographic for the game). Using the self-selected pool of ENWorlders as a basis for any sort of evaluation of the D&D community as a whole is likely to be an excercise in futility.

 

[WizarDru]

First off, I suspect your assumptions concerning age to be wrong.

A point I was just about to make. I started playing in 1979 at the ripe old age of 11. You can't extrapolate birth dates from beginning play dates. My wife began playing RPGs in 1992...when she was in her 20s. Some of my players started playing in 1982 or 1983...but they're in their 40s.

Statistical research and survey samplings IS pretty complicated stuff...at least when done correctly. For example, without knowing the degree of accuracy of a piece of research, it's percentage of accuracy is not known. When a poll is conducted, one has to determine if bias exists (how many times have you taken a poll and not found an answer that matches your answer?) and what degree of accuracy it has. A poll that is 99% accurate, but with a margin of error of plus/minus 5% is far less accurate than a poll that is 97% accurate, plus or minus 1%.

I think the original statement might not have been "A few times, some specific problems with that market research has also arisen.", but rather "A few times, I noticed a disconnect between my anecdotal experience and that market research."