On the practice of marketing


4th Edition

51 to 60 of 60 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Scarab Sages

maliszew wrote:
My guess is that, after the initial sales boom from the release of 4E, numbers will decline and WotC will start migrating more stuff to the DI in an effort to prop up the numbers. I give it 18-24 months after 4E's appearance before the DI ceases to be merely an optional extra.

If you are right, that would only cause sales to tank further. Restricting access to your product is rarely a wise marketing decision. I doubt they would do this.

Or if they did do it, I doubt it will last, as a business decision for longer than a year. I'll point to the New York Times online as the model for my prediction.


Wicht wrote:
maliszew wrote:
Or if they did do it, I doubt it will last, as a business decision for longer than a year. I'll point to the New York Times online as the model for my prediction.

That's a fair point and might even prove true. I simply don't believe that WotC is going to go to all the trouble of setting up DDI and canceling the print magazines only to roll over and accept defeat if/when the entire online component of 4E tanks. I expect they'll try lots of other strategies to boost revenue before it gets to that.


Wicht wrote:
maliszew wrote:
My guess is that, after the initial sales boom from the release of 4E, numbers will decline and WotC will start migrating more stuff to the DI in an effort to prop up the numbers. I give it 18-24 months after 4E's appearance before the DI ceases to be merely an optional extra.

If you are right, that would only cause sales to tank further. Restricting access to your product is rarely a wise marketing decision. I doubt they would do this.

Or if they did do it, I doubt it will last, as a business decision for longer than a year. I'll point to the New York Times online as the model for my prediction.

Not to keep waving the Paizo banner, but that's why I hinge my conversion decision on the third-party company.

I have basic trust that Paizo won't leave me high and dry for content needed to use their products. When they do come out with supplements (City Guide of Korvosa for example) they outline the benefit of having it, but reassure that Curse of the Crimson Throne plays good without it.

I take Maiszew's comments seriously, in that I'm not sure I would want to start investing in a WOTC campaign setting for just that concern. That they'd find a way to hold out in order on content, to boost sales somewhere else, in this example, the on-line magazine.

Scarab Sages

Watcher! wrote:
I take Maiszew's comments seriously, in that I'm not sure I would want to start investing in a WOTC campaign setting for just that concern. That they'd find a way to hold out in order on content, to boost sales somewhere else, in this example, the on-line magazine.

I'm just taking the long view.

Like you, at this point I intend to only purchase those WotC products I need to run Paizo products.

And realistically, 4e may end up being a boondoggle of the highest sort. DI may be as bad as many fear it will be. But bad marketing and bad products will bring about their own downfall.

Dungeons and Dragons, as a brand name, is big enough and good enough to weather bad decisions.* And I believe that ultimately it will once more fall into the hands of intelligent, capable people that know what to do with it. At the end of the 2e era we were in a bad way company wise with TSR. But it passed. This too shall pass. Doesn't make the transition through the bad parts more pleasant but I am convinced that when my grandchildren are born they will be able to game just as I and my children now game.

*Like Coke with the boondoggle that was New Coke. The company suffered, the product died. But ultimately they kept making Coca-Cola and eventually gave us the wonderful nectar that is Vanilla Coke. of course they did go through another stupid period where they didn't make Vanilla Coke for about a year but that too passed.


Well stated.

I have not much more to add. Until we see a further development, like Paizo actually getting the rules.. I'm sort of in a holding pattern.


Dario Nardi wrote:
From what I understand, from a standard marketing point-of-view, WotC is doing many things right. "Managing the brand" involves a coherent strategy, everyone speaking with one voice toward a common vision of the product, and so forth. However, they have made a crucial mis-step, IMO, my forgetting who their particular (current) customer is.

I don't think they're doing "many things right."

IMO they're taking one step in the right direction. "Managing the brand" is a good move -- there's been room for improvement for a long time.

The problem is that customers feel they're being (brazenly) exploited, often with good reason. Adding insult to injury, WotC appears to believe we're stupid enough to fall for their lame marketing garbage.

Two more cents :)


Wicht wrote:
*Like Coke with the boondoggle that was New Coke. The company suffered, the product died. But ultimately they kept making Coca-Cola and eventually gave us the wonderful nectar that is Vanilla Coke. of course they did go through another stupid period where they didn't make Vanilla Coke for about a year but that too passed.

A agree compeletely -- except the Vanilla Coke thing. Ewwwww!

:P

Sovereign Court

Tatterdemalion wrote:
Dario Nardi wrote:
From what I understand, from a standard marketing point-of-view, WotC is doing many things right. "Managing the brand" involves a coherent strategy, everyone speaking with one voice toward a common vision of the product, and so forth. However, they have made a crucial mis-step, IMO, my forgetting who their particular (current) customer is.

I don't think they're doing "many things right."

IMO they're taking one step in the right direction. "Managing the brand" is a good move -- there's been room for improvement for a long time.

The problem is that customers feel they're being (brazenly) exploited, often with good reason. Adding insult to injury, WotC appears to believe we're stupid enough to fall for their lame marketing garbage.

Two more cents :)

I absolutely agree with you that WotC has grossly mismanaged their marketing!

In my original post, I meant "a standard marketing point-of-view," as derogatory. The RPG community is an unusual market. Scott Rouse (on ENWorld) said that "in all his years" at other companies he hadn't seen a negative response like this. Well, D&D isn't coca-cola, or Burton Snowboards, or Conde Nast. They applied standard marketing techniques that any 18-year old can pick up in Marketing 101, and they're getting burned (no surprise).

I also mentioned I participated in their market research. If the surveys I took were typical, they were never able to learn what they really needed to about the RPG market, because their survey process was also "standard" and thus flawed.

Anyway, I'm totally on board with your perspective. I was just hypothesizing why they believe they've done everything right, when obviously they haven't.


Wicht wrote:
Dungeons and Dragons, as a brand name, is big enough and good enough to weather bad decisions.* And I believe that ultimately it will once more fall into the hands of intelligent, capable people that know what to do with it. At the end of the 2e era we were in a bad way company wise with TSR. But it passed. This too shall pass. Doesn't make the transition through the bad parts more pleasant but I am convinced that when my grandchildren are born they will be able to game just as I and my children now game.

Yes, on the whole, I think you're right, with one exception:

The death of the magazines is pretty well irrevocable, and, I firmly believe, will do serious long-term damage in ways that we can't yet foresee.

-The Gneech


John Robey wrote:


The death of the magazines is pretty well irrevocable, and, I firmly believe, will do serious long-term damage in ways that we can't yet foresee.

I wouldn't go as far as calling it irrevocable - Maybe, after Wizards gives away D&D for two cents or something after they've ridden it to the ground, a wiser company will take over and resurrect the magazines - but I also think that the lack of an official magazine or two will hurt D&D.

It's clear that many gamers like magazines, or we wouldn't have so many magazines for computer games - something that is otherwise completely computer-based. Making the magazines for a Pen & Papergame online only is a really bad move.

I think there's even magazines for WoW. Why not for D&D? It would have been easy to combine a print edition with online content. (But I guess that way they wouldn't have the excuse to take away Paizo's license for it without making it absolutely clear for everyone that they're jealous of the competition's ability to do those mags)

51 to 60 of 60 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 4th Edition / On the practice of marketing All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in 4th Edition