Independence, Adept Press, and Indie Press Revolution
Pelgrane:
Quote from: Meguey on October 24, 2008, 11:47:18 AM
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.
lumpley:
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
Joshua A.C. Newman:
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.
Pelgrane:
Quote from: lumpley 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.
-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.
Joshua A.C. Newman:
Vincent said more and better than I did.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page