*
*
Home
Help
Login
Register
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
July 30, 2014, 05:09:39 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Search:     Advanced search
46709 Posts in 5588 Topics by 13297 Members Latest Member: - Shane786 Most online today: 32 - most online ever: 429 (November 03, 2007, 04:35:43 AM)
Pages: 1 [2]
Print
Author Topic: Independence, Adept Press, and Indie Press Revolution  (Read 11407 times)
Pelgrane
Member

Posts: 135


« Reply #15 on: October 24, 2008, 03:29:22 PM »

When Vincent and Ron approached me, on behalf of themselves and the other authors involved in the initial conversation, I had to see the plan and think it through before agreeing to be the fulfilling agent. I needed to know it was something I could fit in around my other work. The question was not 'how to keep Meg busy", but "would Meg be willing to help us with this new idea". Turns out I am.



Sorry, Meg. I must have misinterpreted what Vincent said. It's much better to take 10 pieces to the post office that 1, and it doesn't take much more time. So I thought that Vincent was pulling out of IPR to make sure you were doing the 10 rather than the 1.Now I don't even understand why Vincent left.
Logged
lumpley
Administrator
Member
*
Posts: 3656


WWW
« Reply #16 on: October 24, 2008, 04:03:57 PM »

I left IPR because if retailers can keep getting all the games they already know they want from IPR, they won't ever come to an alternate source and see an alternate set of games. In order to make this new thing a genuine alternative to IPR for indie publishers who want into retail, it'll need some exclusive games that retailers will come looking for. We have to overcome the obvious benefits IPR's already giving them - and Dogs in the Vineyard with its reliable store sales is THE THING I've got going for me.

Right now, this new thing is only for direct sales to customers who coming looking at my website, or Ron's, Joshua's. Meg's; there are no cross-sales, no common storefront, no retailers' portal. That's not going to last. My vision is much bigger than that. I don't mind taking a short-term sales hit when it's an investment in something as cool as this.

This new thing barely has any policies at all - exclusivity certainly isn't one of them. I'm going exclusive because I think that it can become a viable alternative to IPR in the long run only if I do so. Realistically, only if several other publishers do so too, enough of us with big enough games to drag retailers along with us. Whether we do that, whether we CAN do that, I don't know! We'll see. But if we don't do it, it won't be because I didn't commit.

-Vincent
Logged
Joshua A.C. Newman
Member

Posts: 1146

the glyphpress


WWW
« Reply #17 on: October 24, 2008, 04:19:10 PM »

I think if my stuff's at IPR for direct customers, none will sell through the co-op because folks will go to where they figure it's sold. This works across publications, too, once there's a storefront  if people go looking for Dogs in the Vineyard and buy Shock: too, then I benefit further. Naturally, this can happen vice-versa, but I have no illusions about where the bread is buttered in that matter.

IPR will continue to sell my stuff to retailers because I don't have another way to do that, though. I'm following Luke Crane's advice in this matter and assuming that those are pretty much promotion.
Logged

the glyphpress's games are Shock: Social Science Fiction and Under the Bed.

I design books like Dogs in the Vineyard and The Mountain Witch.
Pelgrane
Member

Posts: 135


« Reply #18 on: October 24, 2008, 04:20:39 PM »

I left IPR because if retailers can keep getting all the games they already know they want from IPR, they won't ever come to an alternate source and see an alternate set of games. In order to make this new thing a genuine alternative to IPR for indie publishers who want into retail, it'll need some exclusive games that retailers will come looking for. We have to overcome the obvious benefits IPR's already giving them - and Dogs in the Vineyard with its reliable store sales is THE THING I've got going for me.

-Vincent

Now I get it! I didn't understand about the retail thing at all. You need a lot of decent evergreen games to make retailer purchases worthwhile. Just as something to consider for the future - retail through IPR is optional.



Logged
Joshua A.C. Newman
Member

Posts: 1146

the glyphpress


WWW
« Reply #19 on: October 24, 2008, 04:21:45 PM »

Vincent said more and better than I did.
Logged

the glyphpress's games are Shock: Social Science Fiction and Under the Bed.

I design books like Dogs in the Vineyard and The Mountain Witch.
Ron Edwards
Global Moderator
Member
*
Posts: 17707


WWW
« Reply #20 on: October 24, 2008, 05:04:01 PM »

Hi Simon,

You asked me some questions (other people, see the first page of the thread).

I'm almost certain that you're reading a lot into this which doesn't apply, because these questions are getting weird, as if you were asking someone besides me about something else he was doing. Most of these responses can only show why a given question doesn't make any sense.

1. If I didn't want, for instance, to participate in the three-tier at all, then I wouldn't have done so for the past seven-plus years. Using retail and distribution isn't ideologically objectionable to me. What is ideologically objectionable as well as plain stupid, and which I've been vocal about for (wow) a decade now, is relying on three-tier terms to define my success, to rely on such sales for primary profits, or to consider "being in the stores" a goal in itself. As it stands, I make some money off being in the stores and it's good advertising. (See Why I sell to retailers; for clarity, the thread was started by Paul so the "I" refers to him.)

2. My "ideological objections to IPR's business model" - this one probably wins the Twilight Zone theme song. In fact, IPR and Key 20 were and are my heroes for not buying title to the games and thus not being distributors. If I had ever had ideological objections to either one's policies, you can bet you'd've read all about that lonnnng ago. All of my concerns with IPR/Adept are extremely concrete. I made an ideological point directed entirely elsewhere, to clarify the issue of independence, and how a publisher should not mistake any middleman service as a hobby gatekeeper.

3. Regarding returning to IPR, I can't really tell what you're asking - something about if I don't mind selling at discount (i.e. moving books into retail), then I'd "come back?" Come back for what? I'm already using Key 20 for that like I always have. I dunno, this is too off-base even to try to figure out where you're coming from; I have to send it back marked "unclear."

4. This one pretty much gets a shrug, but I will try anyway.

Quote
What I don't understand is why you are leaving IPR?

Since I explained it all in detail, I have to conclude that you're looking for something I didn't say, perhaps something presumably hidden or secret. There isn't anything like that. Everything is already said. I'll repeat it here. What I want financially from a fulfillment service is not reasonable to expect from IPR given its expenses and workload. What I want in terms of website promotion from a fulfillment service is not reasonable to expect from IPR given its volume of titles. What I want in terms of operations and management is not reasonable to expect from IPR given that I am not dealing exclusively with Brennan any more (as abundantly illustrated by this thread). Do you understand that I am explaining why I am a poor choice of client for IPR's current form?

Dealing with Dimension X questions is tiring and a little aggravating. I suggest you have a conversation with Brennan, who understands me perfectly about all of this, and perhaps he can put it in terms that will make better sense to you.

Best, Ron
Logged
Pelgrane
Member

Posts: 135


« Reply #21 on: October 24, 2008, 05:15:59 PM »

3. Regarding returning to IPR, I can't really tell what you're asking - something about if I don't mind selling at discount (i.e. moving books into retail), then I'd "come back?" Come back for what? I'm already using Key 20 for that like I always have. I dunno, this is too off-base even to try to figure out where you're coming from; I have to send it back marked "unclear."

Sorry - I'll try to be clearer. I understand why you are setting up this new arrangement. I'm crytal clear on that. I think it's an excellent idea. What I don't understand is, why you don't want to continue selling your products by mail order through IPR as well. Why are they mutually exclusive?

I'm asking you because I want to hear from you rather than do Chinese whispers with Brennan.

I also think other publishers will be interested, hence the open discussion.

I'll leave it at that.
Logged
Ron Edwards
Global Moderator
Member
*
Posts: 17707


WWW
« Reply #22 on: October 24, 2008, 05:24:12 PM »

Gahhh! Simon, I just gave you three absolutely clear sentences explaining exactly why I am not renewing a contract with IPR. Each one begins with "what I want." I cannot imagine what else I can possibly say. 

You are out of line with the Chinese whispers crack. There is no secret knowledge or behind-the-scenes interaction involved. Brennan simply may be able to make sense to you regarding the exact same points, whereas I clearly cannot.

Best, Ron
Logged
Pelgrane
Member

Posts: 135


« Reply #23 on: October 24, 2008, 11:52:22 PM »

Gahhh! Simon, I just gave you three absolutely clear sentences explaining exactly why I am not renewing a contract with IPR. Each one begins with "what I want." I cannot imagine what else I can possibly say. 

You are out of line with the Chinese whispers crack. There is no secret knowledge or behind-the-scenes interaction involved. Brennan simply may be able to make sense to you regarding the exact same points, whereas I clearly cannot.

Best, Ron

It wasn't a crack. Chinese whispers isn't about secret information, it's about how information gets distorted if you don't get it first hand. Perhaps I should have said "from the horse's mouth." I'm not after secret knowledge.  I've read everything you've said many times, and I'm afraid I must be having a bad day or something. I just don't get it. I do not have an explanation as to why, in your case, selling directly precludes selling via IPR, mail order only - no con or retail sales.

Maybe someone who has understood can paraphrase it for me in simple terms?
Logged
Brennan Taylor
Member

Posts: 499


WWW
« Reply #24 on: October 25, 2008, 03:23:53 AM »

Hey, I really don't want this to have the appearance of an acrimonious split and it's starting to look that way thanks to this thread. IPR doesn't begrudge Ron or Vincent anything (or Joshua, or anyone else for that matter).

Here's the deal: I understand that Ron and Vincent want to start their own thing. I'm cool with that, IPR's agreement can be terminated by either party at any time for any reason. I understand that you think there should be more options for publishers, and I'm cool with that. I, like Simon, don't necessarily understand why that means you can't do both, but I respect your decision to do whatever you want.

I'd really like to leave it at that and call this done. I don't think going around about it is going to do anyone any good. Let's release this new thing into the wild and see how it fends for itself. Then we'll have something real to talk about, rather than just guesses about how it's going to work.

Best of luck, guys!
Logged

Ron Edwards
Global Moderator
Member
*
Posts: 17707


WWW
« Reply #25 on: October 25, 2008, 06:15:03 AM »

Oh hey, I think I can clarify that point. I'm not saying that a publisher can't use both IPR and this other (or any) fulfillment thing. I'm choosing to go with the latter for the reasons I've outlined, but that's not a prescriptive or "must do" point that applies to anyone else.

Perhaps that was the issue?

Simon, I apologize for my misunderstanding of the whispers.

Best, Ron
Logged
Pelgrane
Member

Posts: 135


« Reply #26 on: October 25, 2008, 07:41:51 AM »

Oh hey, I think I can clarify that point. I'm not saying that a publisher can't use both IPR and this other (or any) fulfillment thing. I'm choosing to go with the latter for the reasons I've outlined, but that's not a prescriptive or "must do" point that applies to anyone else.

Perhaps that was the issue?

Simon, I apologize for my misunderstanding of the whispers.

Best, Ron

Thank you. Sometimes the internet is like swimming through treacle.


Logged
Pages: 1 [2]
Print
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.16 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines
Oxygen design by Bloc
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!