What would WotC need to do to win back the disenchanted?

[Umbran]

The main problem with your reasoning is that while teens may represent 35% of the market, non-teens must represent close to 65% percent of the video game market.

If your company targets the 35% and mine targets the 65%, if we both pull in just ten percent of the people we target, I'll make twice as much money as you do, more or less.

My argument was merely to show that the teens have plenty of money, in general.

Now, add to the point from the WotC Market research: While the teens may not spend as much on the game per individual, it turns out that (at the time) 79% of people who played tabletop RPGs learned D&D between the ages of 12 and 18!

The older folks are only spending more after years of already being gamers - if you don't already have them, they are a poor choice to target them for sales. If you want to grow your long-term player pool, you need to get them while they are teens. Failing to target teens is a good way to doom your long-term business.

 

[renau1g]

To further the information on teen purchasing power in the US

"Teen spending money, accumulated through paying jobs, allowances from parents, “as needed” money from parents, and monetary gifts, will increase an estimated 3.5% annually, raising the aggregate teen income 14.4%, from $79.7 billion in 2006 to $91.1 billion in 2011. The amount of money families spend on teens for food, apparel, personal-care items, and entertainment is expected to grow approximately 7%, from $110 billion in 2006 to $117.6 billion in 2011."

 

[ggroy]

The main difference now is that I plan and budget my gaming purchases; many fewer impulse purchases than when I was younger.

When I was younger, I did a lot of impulse buying of rpg books. Many rpg titles I picked up back in the day, were never used at all in any of my games.

These days I'll only buy new rpg books if I know I'll be using them in my games. Though the only exception in regard to impulse buying, is if I come across rpg stuff at 2nd handed bookstores for really dirty cheap (ie. less than 5 or 6 bucks a pop).

 

[mudbunny]

My argument was merely to show that the teens have plenty of money, in general.

Now, add to the point from the WotC Market research: While the teens may not spend as much on the game per individual, it turns out that (at the time) 79% of people who played tabletop RPGs learned D&D between the ages of 12 and 18!

The older folks are only spending more after years of already being gamers - if you don't already have them, they are a poor choice to target them for sales. If you want to grow your long-term player pool, you need to get them while they are teens. Failing to target teens is a good way to doom your long-term business.

And to further this, WotC needs to look at what gives a better return on investment:

1 - Chasing after teens, who often have only a vague idea of what they like or don't like, and who quite often have oodles and oodles of free time in which to try lots of different things; or
2 - Adults, who are often limited in what they can play both by time (kids, job, house) and what the people that they can play with will play.

It may take a lot more money to get group 2, and I suspect that the "tail" of purchases for group 2 will be, on average, much smaller and represent a much smaller source of revenue in the long run.

 

[Falstaff]

Bring back AD&D in print (both 1st and 2nd), as well as the D&D Rules Cyclopedia.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Goodwill has value. (Seriously, actual monetary value.)

The goodwill you refer to has a specific accounting definition. It is not the same kind of goodwill being discussed in this thread. Monetary goodwill arises only when more is sepnt to acquire a company than its fair market value. This intangible asset is dubbed goodwill and is generally thought of as the value of the company's reputation, customer lists, and other aspects not quantifiable in a monetary sense.

Edit: How much another company is willing to spend to acquire Wizards of the Coast is going to be influenced more by the tough business decisions they have to make (net customer gain, trimming staff, etc.) than pandering to fans.

 

[Wicht]

But you're assuming 100% of people who are not teens suddenly abandon D&D and head to Pathfinder or other games.

If they sold PDF's of older editions would you (or most of the others who are upset about it) buy 4e products? Or would your patronage be a one time, tiny boost to profits?

Actually all I said was that if you target 35% of the market and I target 65%, all other things being equal, I'll make more money. The teen market is always held forth as being more desireable than the older market and I simply question that analysis. Teens may have buying power, but they are never the primary buying power in almost any market.

As an added thought: it's just my opinion, and it may be biased, but if I was targeting an audience, I would target parents. My kids (of which 1, soon to be 2, are teens) are now faithful Pathfinder players because I, the parent, buy Pathfinder books. As they mature, their tastes will branch out, but I suspect Paizo has some loyal customers there in the future so long as they continue putting out good material. If WotC had kept my business, my children would be that much more likely to be exposed to their product and would have more exposure to the brand.

 

[renau1g]

My apologies Wicht, I misinterpreted, didn't mean to put words in your mouth. Not sure about targeting parents though. Look at Disney, McDonalds, or most other toy companies, they advertise heavily directly to children (which is another discussion), but it works. My 2.5 year old boys go bonkers when they see a Thomas the Train anything, it could be a cup, or a towel, or a train, it doesn't matter, but they want it. If the parent isn't a gamer, they are probably less likely to buy the game for the child/teen. Heck my own parents would tell their friends we played poker on Saturdays as a teen instead of D&D because they thought it was more socially acceptable.

I have no doubt that Paizo will have loyal customers, I am still theirs despite not playing Pathfinder as their adventures are second to none.

It's a bit hard to discuss as well, because RPG's are such a niche product and there's really only one large company in the field. Umbran's comment about most players learning to play between 12 - 18 is certainly the reason that they would want to focus on teens. Long term gains as you develop your future customers

 

[Coldwyn]

Actually all I said was that if you target 35% of the market and I target 65%, all other things being equal, I'll make more money. The teen market is always held forth as being more desireable than the older market and I simply question that analysis. Teens may have buying power, but they are never the primary buying power in almost any market.

As an added thought: it's just my opinion, and it may be biased, but if I was targeting an audience, I would target parents. My kids (of which 1, soon to be 2, are teens) are now faithful Pathfinder players because I, the parent, buy Pathfinder books. As they mature, their tastes will branch out, but I suspect Paizo has some loyal customers there in the future so long as they continue putting out good material. If WotC had kept my business, my children would be that much more likely to be exposed to their product and would have more exposure to the brand.

What you seemingly don´t understand is that the kid´s 35% mostly represent short-term spending while the 65% are long-term spendings. It really doesn´t matter when you or I as adults spent a thousand bucks in gaming stuff divided on ten years while a kid spents 400 bucks in one year.
Sure, the thousand bucks sound better, but take a kid each year, for ten years, and you quickly surpass them.
That´s why WotC can afford to lose us older players and I guess the byproduct is that companies like Paizo can strife.

 

[Reynard]

I'm not sure a discussion about what WotC should or should not do is going to particularly fruitful, since only those in charge have any real inkling of what the demographics look like. But then, that's not really what the title of the thread asks, is it?

Assuming by "disenchanted" you're talking about people that are not playing and/or purchasing 4E, then the only real answer is to "undo" whatever drove them away in the first place. This is likely to be different for everyone for whom the "disenchatnted" label fits, but there's probably a few general categories:

1) People who don't like the fluff changes.
2) People that don't like the system changes.
3) People that don't like either of those things.

I am leaving off "grognards" and boycotters and others who have no interest at all in every buying or playing a WotC owned D&D. They don't count because they are not potential customers.

So, for category 1 disenchanted, it's easy: bring back pre-4E fluff, tropes, sacred cows, etc... that have been with the game for decades. This stuff never needed to be changed in the first place and while there's plenty of people that like the changes, I don't think the removal of the great Wheel brought any customers in and probably drove a few away.

Category 2 disenchated are a little more difficult, but it seems like from the description of the Essentials wizard they might be attempting to address this a little bit. i think WotC undervalued the sacred cows and D&D-isms and have realized those things, even the things that don't make any sense, are adored by many.