Challenges and Solutions, Take Two

[madelf]

The biggest problem I see with this idea is that it's just... an idea. The mechanisms to carry it out aren't in place. I mean sure it would be nice if there was a someone who would serve the function of a distributor (or even a fulfillment house), with in-house POD (if they were any good at it, unlike the RapidPOD fiasco). But I have a hard time picturing anyone here jumping into that sort of thing. And there's not much we can do about it if there's no one ready to step up and carry it out. (And, yeah, RPGnow is experimenting with something sort of like that, but it's looking like it'll proceed at a snail's pace if it works out at all)

A lot of the rest sounds like stuff that could already be accomplished with methods that are currently existing.

Maybe I'm missing something...

[Sean P. Fannon]

Hello, folks.

Today I was designing a logic flow for a survey-based WebGUI-driven event submission system for Origins.

Brain hurt. This is not my area of fundamental expertise or training. Here's hoping it works...

Anyway, I explain that in hopes that you all will realize I've really got my hands full. There's been more than a few "Why won't you answer this specific question?" posts, and I have felt very bad about it. However, these questions deserve more than a casually tossed-off answer on my part, and I've simply not had the time to devote.

Tonight, I take a crack at it. What's that old saying?

"Sleep is for the weak..."

I will be using quotes, but I do hope you will all indulge me and permit me the cheat of not making specific attributions. My HTML-fu is weak. I will, however, take them in order, which should make it easy to follow.

Can you explain, if at all, how this changes the relationship to retailers or distributors?  From the retailer side, there's no real incentive to try to stock POD games, and from the consumer side, there's no reason to pay extra for those games when they could be ordered via Lulu, RPGNow, etc.  I don't see how any of the current traditional distributors have something extra to contribute in either side.

As far as I can tell, this isn't any change from what is currently served by the market.

In the end, you may well be right. However, I believe, based on my research, experience, and (yes, I admit it) intuition, the models presented can result in the following changes:

Retailers will be able to more easily establish relationships with RPG publishers if they can get products like Burning Wheel and Dogs In the Vinyard from centralized sources where they can make larger orders. This doesn't mean I am remotely recommending that publishers abandon other venues for such a model. Never once have I, or would I, suggest it. Talisman's not going to do it, and neither should any outfit that is positioned to make sales in every venue possible.

My assertion is that, if some of the suggested combinations can be applied, some publishers might see additional sales, books on game store shelves, and wider presentation to customers not otherwise reached.

And, yes, what I have proposed looks a great deal like the "system of old." That is, despite being pure anathema to some of the esteemed constituents here, an intentional feature of the proposal.

By constructing the models along familiar lines, yet employing the technologies developed and lessons learned in the "alternate" markets, I am hoping to create new bridges from some of those that were burned down from the negative elements of the past.

Am I grabbing your steering wheel and demanding you drive across the bridge? Not on your life. I am inviting you to keep an eye on the bridge, maybe give some ideas on how to build it better, and even grab a hammer and nails if you like.

If you have a jet car, though, you don't need my bridge. I'm cool with that.

OK, I went a little off track there. Back to the specifics asked above.

There's no incentive for a retailer to stock POD games if they are being asked to buy them direct, I agree. If we make it easier on them, as explained above, then there's no opposing force for them to overcome in ordering the products. With POD quality indistinguishable from regular print, there doesn't have to be any difference at all.

As for customers paying more - not sure why they would. I certainly don't have any plans to change the cover price of my products, regardless of where they are sold. Yes, I get greater margins selling direct. I don't believe I lose very many sales by taking the fraction I get from retail sales, since I attest that those are added sales to what I plan to earn via the means already in front of me.

Traditional distributors may not have anything to contribute. You'll note that they are only one possible component in the models presented. It's up to them to take the initiative to participate as well. They could benefit greatly from either putting POD tech into their facilities (thus storing files like books, but with far less long-term overhead) or working closely with POD operations. Yes, they might end up making less per book than from a traditional print run.

Once again, my assertion is that those would be additional sales to their current flow, not replacements to current lines.

If I've failed to really get at the heart of the above questions, please let me know and I will take another crack. However, I am not claiming that I will have perfect, or even good, answers to all the challenges.

This was, and remains, an opportunity to explore those challenges and, if necessary, face which ones may not be overcome.

One issue you don't discuss here is the cost of POD printing. You acknowledge that POD costs are high, but don't really answer how to solve that issue. Presumably, if the Distributor does POD printing in-house, or partners with a POD service, it would cut the cost some. But I'm not sure if it will cut it enough.

Actually, from what I've seen on the table, such partnerships would, in fact, cut those costs more than enough to make the additional revenue streams worthwhile to all involved. The technology is rapidly approaching the point where it will price traditional print right out of the market. This will happen fast enough to make early preparatory efforts along these lines smart investments for the future.

Straight up, outside any of my models, I believe all of us need to keep a close eye on this. Those who can come up with the capital, or at least the lease money, may well discover it's a real boon to pick up their own systems down the road.

Another issue to consider is what type of POD printing you're talking about. I'm sure you're aware of the difference between "true" POD (books are printed one by one when ordered) and "short-run" POD (books are ordered in batches of 100-500 or so). "True" POD is really expensive. That's possible when selling direct. So what if printing costs 30-40% of the cover? That still leaves 60-70%. But in the 3-tier system, when the publisher only keeps 40%, that's a killer. Even if you can get the cost down to 20%, that's not leaving a whole lot for the publisher.

Understood, but I am not suggesting anyone look at this as the sole approach to their market presence. It will take everyone adjusting to the different cost structures, which is why I've engaged ever level of the industry in this discussion. Traditional 3-tier pricing won't work with the flat costing as you've pointed out, but I've already got people at all levels agreeing that other pricing models should and would apply in such circumstances.

Even so, a one-off printed book sold through the distributor network won't net you jack piddle compared to selling it direct, or even through RPGNow, etc.. But if it nets you anything at all, gets into the hand of a store customer who then turns on his gaming group to this book that they would have never heard of otherwise, well...

I believe you can get the cost of "short-run" books within a manageable percentage, but short-run books have most of the disadvantages as traditional printing. You still have to front money (though not as much), which means you have to worry whether the book will sell or not. You have also to worry about warehousing (though again, not as much).

True, these equations will be different for each developer and publisher, and some just won't like the math of they've go no capital at all. However, you even agree the concerns for short-run fall well within reasonable burdens for anyone with a little float and a garage.

Or an alternate plan.

Take Talisman, for instance. PDF sales of the Shaintar Player's Guide (and some serious ground-level marketing and promotions to generate those sales) has netted us the money we've needed for short print runs (for direct and convention sales), and continues to help us generate the "war chest" we'll need for the bigger print run of the full Setting Book for Shaintar. Having a proven product with a track record of sales has enabled us to discuss very friendly deals and arrangements (to include back end cuts rather than up front capitalization) to reach for the next level of market presence.

All I know is that I am looking at a process much akin to what I've proposed, and I think it's going to work for Talisman. I'd like to see it work for others.

On one hand, you attest that customers overwhelming want books. I agree. But the above passage seems to fingerpoint at PDFs for cutting retailers and distributors out of a major revenue stream. It doesn't gel. Either customers are primarily buying books and PDFs are a minor side gig for the rpg publishing industry, or PDFs are the wave of the future. If PDF technology is adopted by the consumer, I don't think that printing is an issue. People who want PDFs will want them for their virtues not their flaws.

I don't think the ideas are mutually exclusive. I think there's a segment of the buying public -a significant segment - that would be much happier buying real books. I think their purchasing is chilled because they don't like spending the time and effort to "make" the books themselves. What PDFs they do buy, however, represent sales lost for retailers. Furthermore, there is another segment that is all about the PDF market, and it's for certain that they are sales lost to retailers.

I am not claiming that my approach will eliminate any of these practices or issues. I do believe that some alteration can occur, such that some publishers are able to make more of their fans happy with easier-to-obtain print products, and some retailers will enjoy selling product they were feeling otherwise cut off from.

Please understand that I am not painting any one-zero pictures here. I believe the market, as tiny as it is, is highly complex and diverse. The customer base is by no means homogeneous, and thus requires diverse tactics to reach a larger portion of it.

But all this also dances around the idea of this downward spiral you mention. How is a POD production model controlled by distribution -- who many of us see as the choking vine in the industry -- going to reinvigorate the process  of buying and selling rpgs? How is introducing more product into an already saturated industry going to help get kids to stores to play and buy games?

I dunno man. This model seems like you're centralizing production and distribution which has historically proven to be bad.

Except that I am not proposing centralization. If anything, I am proposing diversification. I hear that many of you feel good about the sales you are making. Excellent! However, I know there are plenty of folks - with top-grade products - who really should be making more, and whose products should be more widely known.

I don't think POD production should be "controlled" by the distribution networks. I do think a lot can be gained if they are involved in distributing books heretofore not readily or easily available to them.

Don't think for a minute that I am suggesting any of you abandon your current practices. I'm simply advocating that at least some of you might enhance your bottom line if some effective ways of implementing the proposed models can be brought into realistic application.

I think Luke asked a very good, very tough question and I too am very interested how this model you have proposed going to get more people to sit down and play.  The current model, which you are just tweaking a bit, isn't putting more butts in the seats.  How is shuffling the deck of responsibility in the three tier system going to get more people to buy product, play that shit, and come back for more?

Different kettle of fish, though tangentially getting high-quality, trend-altering games like the ones created by this crew into stores should have some impact on that.

This is but one card in the hand, sir. I'm not going all in, yet, either. I am still working on the flop, if you will...

I say nuke the whole fucking three tier system as it stands right now cause it ain't help'n nobody.  Instead we should be looking at how to harness the success of conventions and learn how to export that to the smaller scale, much in the way those crazy fuckers in NYC do it.  But that is a whole 'nother topic and I should have kept my mouth shut and started a new thread.

Nah, it's part of the bigger picture. If you'd be willing to ping me some reference points, I'd love to know more about what you're talking about in NYC. I will say that the "year-round-convention" model is something I have been avidly working on for a while, now...

Removing the burden of special-ordering every single title directly from the publisher makes ordering indie RPGs much easier on the retailer. 

A very, very powerful point, folks. Some of you feel retailers are lazy, and others feel like there's little point in making things easier for them. Respectfully, I heartily disagree. Those who have found other ways to reach retailers are to be commended, but you really will find a much larger success margin if you can figure out a way to at least recreate the relative ease of the "old system," even if you wish to abandon standard practices utterly.

Once again, the reason for the proposed models looking the way they do is to present the familiar while incorporating the new.

The biggest problem I see with this idea is that it's just... an idea. The mechanisms to carry it out aren't in place. I mean sure it would be nice if there was a someone who would serve the function of a distributor (or even a fulfillment house), with in-house POD (if they were any good at it, unlike the RapidPOD fiasco). But I have a hard time picturing anyone here jumping into that sort of thing. And there's not much we can do about it if there's no one ready to step up and carry it out. (And, yeah, RPGnow is experimenting with something sort of like that, but it's looking like it'll proceed at a snail's pace if it works out at all)

Fair enough, and very true.

Which is why I stepped up, and why I am actively recruiting others, from each part of the industry, to do the same.

And, actually, there is plenty you can do, if you care to. Mind you, I am not advocating anyone jumping on a bandwagon, per se. However, I encourage you to talk to retailers, and distributors, and other possible partners in the process. Explore this and see if you can't crunch out numbers and a process that makes any kind of sense. After all, as James is proving with RPGNow, there's nothing wrong with starting small and seeing if it might work.

However, one thing I've said from the very beginning of this is that one of the most important elements for success will be if publishers can save enough money, foregoing traditional print costs, to invest into marketing, advertising, and promotion of their products. Just opening up new channels of sales won't be enough if no one knows you exist. You have to work on building that clientele, as always, with the added incentive to getting into stores and on convention floors, pushing your wares into exploratory hands.

.......

I am no Man on the Mountain, no guru, no Yoda. I'm an old soldier, but one of many. I have a passion for this industry that has grown far beyond my need for personal gratification. I really and truly want good people with fun games to succeed beyond their wildest dreams.

I mean, honestly, I don't stand to make one cent if Burning Wheel sells 10,000 copies because of anything I might propose. I hope everyone realizes that. There's no profit motive here. No real ego motive, either.

It is, frankly, my job. And my mission.

That's it, and it's enough.

[MatrixGamer]

I just noticed this thread today and read through it.

On the surface the model looks fine. Say I have a PDF product and a POD company has stepped up to the plate to do this job (either as a pseudo distributor or a fullfiller for an expisting distributor). If I don't have a "set up" fee then I have no disincentive to post my product there. If there is a set up fee (say $100) then it may never pay off.

Assume there is no set up fee. I have no reason not to post my product there at all. It would be just another avenue of sales. Maybe it would get product into stores - that would be up to the stores - but since it would be out of my hands it wouldn't matter. I could focus all my energies on writing more stuff (and hopefully proofreading, and editing, and making a good design, and putting in really good art).

My question is this. Isn't this something that should be presented to a printers/POD forum rather than here? I know that Ryan at Guild of Blades and I at Hamster Press do in house production, but very few people here do. Until a quality printer is ready to set up this kind of business we game designers are not involved. Once it is set up then the business owner should post on these lists to let people know about the service to fish for titles. In your role in GAMA you are fishing for interest without the model existing.

If you find lots of interest here I could see it helping you sell the idea to a Printer - but since the three tiered system is not very popular here I can see why your not getting that support.

A lot of this is going to come down to margins. True POD is pretty expensive, tight margins. Short run printing is merely expensive, margins still tight. And then there is the necessity of knowledge of the gaming industry and printing (which will be a difficult combination to find in a business man).

Speaking as a printer and a book binder, I can see this model working but it will take a special person to run it.

Sincerely Chris Engle
Hamster Press = Engle Matrix Games

[Sean P. Fannon]

On the surface the model looks fine... My question is this. Isn't this something that should be presented to a printers/POD forum rather than here?... In your role in GAMA you are fishing for interest without the model existing.

Much obliged, Chris. I truly appreciate all you've said here.

Trust me when I tell you this isn't the only place this is being vetted.

Speaking as a printer and a book binder, I can see this model working but it will take a special person to run it.

More like a special collection of folks, I think.

[Luke]

Sean,
I appreciate your noble intentions. Many of us hear have noble intentions as well. But I hope that wasn't a hint for us to back off! You posted your model for a reason...

I think there's a segment of the buying public -a significant segment - that would be much happier buying real books. I think their purchasing is chilled because they don't like spending the time and effort to "make" the books themselves. What PDFs they do buy, however, represent sales lost for retailers. Furthermore, there is another segment that is all about the PDF market, and it's for certain that they are sales lost to retailers.

Personally, I think GAMA would be far better served by conducting some hardcore market research in the roleplaying game community. Market research it could publish. Market research we all could use to better expand the reach of our products and art. I say this because I know instinctively that segment I quoted is wrong.

People who want to buy printed matter will primarily buy books. The PDF market/publishers are not "losing money" because someone decides to buy a book. A PDF publisher attempting to lure a book-buying customer to buy his product is taking a risk and is attempting to jump market niches.

People who buy PDFs do not represent a loss of sales for the retailer. I submit that PDF-purchasers are extremely unlikely to buy the same book in a brick and mortar store. If they were never going to buy it in the first place, there's no "lost sales."

There are niches within the market. Retailers serve a very different purpose than PDF vendors. Part of the PDF buying experience involves sitting at home, browsing and purchasing at leisure. A retailer can't provide that experience.

And maybe all large-run printing will die soon. Maybe someday we will just push a button and the machine will spit out the book. But that seems to utterly undermine both retail and distribution. Hastening that end doesn't seem like the best idea.

Except that I am not proposing centralization. If anything, I am proposing diversification.

I think I don't understand. Aren't you proposing making the distributers into POD houses and distributers?



I propose that GAMA encourage retailers to offer services that give them a true competitive edge stands to sell more books and bring more gamers to the table. Have you ever been in a Games Workshop store? You walk into that store and you play a game. Period. 30 minute demo the second you walk through that door. Mom and pop retailers, for the most part, act as book stores, toy shops and cigar shops. They've got no focus on what the games actually do. This is the direction I'd love to see GAMA move in: research and programs that will help publishers, retailers, distributers and ultimately gamers.

-L

[Troy_Costisick]

Heya,

You have a good point, Luke.  A store that gets people in there and gets them playing will end up with a lot more sales.  There is no substitute for actual play.  That'll hook more customers than anything else.

Peace,

-Troy

[komradebob]

People who buy PDFs do not represent a loss of sales for the retailer. I submit that PDF-purchasers are extremely unlikely to buy the same book in a brick and mortar store. If they were never going to buy it in the first place, there's no "lost sales."

I totally disagree. The only time I buy pdfs is when a book is not available locally.

I'll say though that my personal preferred method is for a free pdf of a game that I have to order, so that I can enjoy it while I wait on the mail.

I'm not big on delayed gratification.

[Keith Senkowski]

Different kettle of fish, though tangentially getting high-quality, trend-altering games like the ones created by this crew into stores should have some impact on that.

This is but one card in the hand, sir. I'm not going all in, yet, either. I am still working on the flop, if you will...

Sean,

What does this even mean?  Cryptic bullshit don't fly here man.  You say what ya fucking mean and mean what you fucking say.

I'm done with what Luke is saying.  GAMA should function like and actual trade organization.  Market research should be a big part of what it does.  It should also promote activities to grow the industry.  Teach retailers how to sell product and be a resource that surveys and vets printers and distributors.

You proposal so far doesn't offer a solution.  It offers a way for a dying system to try and squeeze out a few more dollars before it is done.  Fuck that noise.  If you are interested in helping community (notice I didn't say industry), then you would be proposing actual solutions to turn shit around.

And the NYC thing I spoke of is the Gotham Gaming Guild.  Also check out the Get Your Geek On-Athon in Ithaca, NY.

Keith

[Sean P. Fannon]

I appreciate your noble intentions. Many of us hear have noble intentions as well. But I hope that wasn't a hint for us to back off! You posted your model for a reason...

Absolutely! And please don't consider me being patronizing if I say that I really appreciate the way you are engaging me in this thread.

Personally, I think GAMA would be far better served by conducting some hardcore market research in the roleplaying game community. Market research it could publish. Market research we all could use to better expand the reach of our products and art.

I am lock-step with you on this point. It has been a mission at GAMA for a long time, and we are finally getting enough groundwork laid with the right sources to start really compiling it. It would not be unwarranted for me to admit that past political fireballs destroyed a lot of previous efforts in this regard. So up goes the scaffolding...

I say this because I know instinctively that segment I quoted is wrong.

People who want to buy printed matter will primarily buy books... People who buy PDFs do not represent a loss of sales for the retailer. I submit that PDF-purchasers are extremely unlikely to buy the same book in a brick and mortar store. If they were never going to buy it in the first place, there's no "lost sales."

With absolute respect, we are working from clearly different intuitive bases, to be sure. As well, my own research provides some support for my assertion. It's purely empirical, I admit, but what Komradebob said in response -

I totally disagree. The only time I buy pdfs is when a book is not available locally.

- is very consistent with my experiences and the empirical research I've managed.

Unfortunately, we would both be better served by more information. This is one of the main reasons I've kicked this whole idea into play. I am hopeful that I can start getting support for the research necessary to establish the truths and the mis-perceptions. That kind of data would be incredibly helpful to us all.

There are niches within the market. Retailers serve a very different purpose than PDF vendors. Part of the PDF buying experience involves sitting at home, browsing and purchasing at leisure. A retailer can't provide that experience.

I can't disagree with you here, and I don't doubt that this truth will remain a truth regardless of what happens. I just don't think that there are only PDF and retail customers, one-zero. I have a great deal of faith in the idea that many of these people are both, and would buy their favorite stuff as books were it possible and convenient.

And maybe all large-run printing will die soon. Maybe someday we will just push a button and the machine will spit out the book. But that seems to utterly undermine both retail and distribution. Hastening that end doesn't seem like the best idea.

I don't see it that way. Push-button book printing will simple reduce the up-front costs and warehousing overhead. It will ensure books need never go out of print. It will make it easier for everyone, and ultimately cheaper.

However, the distribution/retail options still offer what they offer, which includes such things as savings on shipping (this is something that I think too many are inclined to ignore as a barrier to purchase, and I strongly warn against this) and impulse purchase opportunities.

Except that I am not proposing centralization. If anything, I am proposing diversification.

I think I don't understand. Aren't you proposing making the distributors into POD houses and distributors?

I hope I am not failing in my communication here, but I really don't see these as mutually exclusive. Distributors handling POD products will offer the publishers another venue for sales, not remove venues. To me, this diversifies the sales options for the publisher.

I propose that GAMA encourage retailers to offer services that give them a true competitive edge stands to sell more books and bring more gamers to the table... This is the direction I'd love to see GAMA move in: research and programs that will help publishers, retailers, distributors and ultimately gamers.

We are, again, lock-step on this. What I've brought to the table here is but one card in the hand (if I may return to the poker analogy again). Retailer-as-event-space is a huge initiative with me, and I am also working on that.

Again, thank you for the great input.

[Sean P. Fannon]

What does this even mean?  Cryptic bullshit don't fly here man.  You say what ya fucking mean and mean what you fucking say.

I tend to be poetic, I guess. I am not trying to be cryptic, though, and I don't peddle bovine excrement. I just prefer to keep the tone higher and the language professional.

(In this context, anyway. Bars and room parties at cons... that's a different thing altogether.)

And you can take it to the bank that I've meant all that I've said, sir.

I was trying to communicate that there are a lot of things we all could and should be doing, and I agree that initiatives that get more gamers playing games, especially in stores, is a key element. It's something else I am working on.

Thank you, by the way, for the excellent links. I am looking forward to researching them more.

[Ron Edwards]

There's that "sir" again.

I lived in Georgia for a while. I know the difference between the two ways to say it.

Here, use it the right way, if at all. That wasn't it.

Best,
Ron

[daMoose_Neo]

Retailer-as-event-space is a huge initiative with me, and I am also working on that.

Um, from personal observation, this should really really be #1 as opposed to trying to scrap the whole current print process.
I was involved in a discussion about something related earlier, to which this is the real solution.

The MOST valuable thing I learned at the Forge booth at GenCon is what is more or less preached all the way around here: Play sells. Simple. The GW example is prime. I'm absolutely lousy face to face, and my first couple days at GenCon I sold about $20-$30 a day. Changing gears, I swapped places with my partner, the people person between us, and ran some events while he demoed and pulled about $120 a day. Small numbers to be true, but for what we were offering not bad. The difference was the play.
Way too many stores simply kick back and rely on D&D, Magic, YuGiOh, etc. to make their bills each and every month and then bitch that WalMart, Meijer, KMart, Target, or whatever else in their area is getting the sales. Way too many retailers simply wait for their distributor or magazine to tell them what is going to be "Hot", stock it, and wait for the sales to fall in- advertising only does so much! It makes people vaugley aware something exists!  Relying on THAT to make your sales is a lousy way to do business.
I'm looking at opening a store front and a number of people who are involved in running stores question why I want open tables and play space, because that will only cost me money according to them. The thing is, having the space for gamers to come in means they'll play their new favorites or sit down so I can show them something new coming out or an old favorite they've never touched. Locally, *I* can help decide what is hot or what is not. Retailers forget that, and apperently so does most retailer supporting organizations. I'm doing it now with my own card game. The last couple of in-store events I've hosted I've paid for new runs of cards, just with the sales from local events (Know anything about CCG Printing? Thats saying something). Imagine if I had that retail assistance across the country. It SELLS when your show it, when they play it. It DOESN'T sell in a magazine ad. It DOESN'T sell in an industry or distributor catalog.
And here's where PDF is wonderful: for a rate less than that of a print book, a player can take a risk. A publisher can release a mass amount of material so players can play it. My card game is available in PDF for $1 a set. Its also online via CCGWorkshop, free to play. I also support it with free PDF card downloads. And with current POD models, a player who likes the PDF can order a print copy. If they can't, its the designers own lazy fault.

[Eero Tuovinen]

Now, Nate's talking the kind of retail reform I can understand. That's how art galleries operate, isn't it? Time-limited events highlighting artists the gallery owner thinks will sell. The artist sells what he can, the gallery gets its cut and the stuff makes the rounds. Some constantly popular stuff is kept available all the time, but the emphasis is on tailored events.

Just imagine that in gaming: everything sold on a sales account (hmm... that's not the English term for it, but I don't remember what is) with excesses returned to publisher in short cycles. Small stocks and an event-based sales culture. I think they do that already for CCGs at times. Sounds like a game plan to me. I'll be interested to see how it goes when somebody tries that!

I like Sean's demeanor just fine, but I can't see the exciting ideas yet. I'm probably missing something, because mostly I'm wondering if really the US distributors and retailers do not already do the things he outlines. They seem rather self-evident, after all.