Indie Sales Numbers
Valamir:
Ron, seriously. You said Quote
There's also a distinct difference between sales to distributors vs. sales to end customers. Moving books to distribution is a "sale" in most publishing parlance, without reference to whether anyone actually buys the book as a reader or user
Which is a ridiculous thing to say. Putting scare quotes around sales to distribution as if those don't really count is purely your own indie bias. Desireing a reference to whether anyone actually buys the book as a reader is purely your own indie bias. A bias you're entitled to, but utterly irrelevant to the topic of sales numbers. I was just at my FLGS. There are two copies of each Dresden book sitting on the store shelves. Am I to cry "aha! Dresden didn't REALLY sell 7000 copies...I have proof it only sold 6998!" That's ludicrous. And yet that's exactly what your scare quotes imply and your follow up continues...that some how distribution sales don't count as much as direct sales.
If your point was "there are also important differences between the various sales channels that you need to consider when making business decisons" you could have said that without the scare quotes and without the smug disparaging of publishing into distribution.
Ron Edwards:
Oooh, a scare quote accusation. Is that all you have in this? You didn't like my quotes? That is, actually, all you have.
I did not say that Dresden Files did not sell 7000 copies. I did not say that a non-direct sale was not a sale. You are getting bent out of shape over a gross mis-reading of my post. For the record, neither did I say that any non-direct sale of Dresden Files was somehow less good than a direct sale. I said the two kinds of sale are not directly comparable. Not one word about relative superiority.
That means that a publisher should simply and clearly know which type of sale they are making, per book, and which type of sale they want to emphasize, and in what ways, for a given project. That is my only point and it is very good advice for the question posed in this thread. Every bit of judgment or bias you are seeking to combat here originates in your reading.
Ralph, that's my moderator cue: you are being "Valamir," who has in recent years become a real asshole on-line. Post here, on the Forge, as yourself, not your internet persona. I'm not talking about the username as such, but about the way you post. Read the sense in what's posted and respond with sense, as you used to do even in the throes of serious disagreement, not with this Limbaugh-style button-pushing combativeness which only works if you can twist others' posts into nonsense.
Also, this thread is not a referendum on whether Evil Hat did something good or not. Gregor, your post appears to be a vote in that sort of referendum. Nothing I've written here is disparaging Evil Hat or the Dresden Files RPG or its marketing/sales success.
Best, Ron
Valamir:
My post is full of shit, sub par sophomoric logic, and circular reasoning and *I'M* the one being an asshole on line?
whatever.
Gregor Hutton:
Quote from: Ron Edwards on November 03, 2010, 05:26:21 AM
Gregor, your post appears to be a vote in that sort of referendum.
I didn't intend for my post to be seen as a vote in a referendum (or to get one rolling). So, for clarity, it is not.
I was struck by this quote in the OP.
Quote
Now, I understand we're dealing with a well-established designer, a known and loved property, a system that seems to enjoy some sort of darling-status at the moment, and a build-up that was years in the making. I get all that. I'm not expecting sales like this...ever.
My take is that Evil Hat would not have expected the Dresden sales numbers themselves a few years ago. They've looked at what sales are achievable (via the various ways you can sell your RPG) and done all the things listed in that quote to get higher sales (and IMHO it's not easy to do that, which is why I tip my hat to them).
And I think this comes back to Ron's point (as I see it): which is that comparing one strategy of sales at 500 with a different strategy of sales at 6000 is like comparing apples and oranges.
Callan S.:
I'm kind of staggered - I would have thought a post that starts with 'Oooh' would trigger all sorts of moderator alarm bells. I'm idly wondering what a report post button means in these circumstances?
I think Ralph is correct in a short term sense. But in a long term sense, books need to be being used in order to further future sales. Books that moulder means less people gaming, and less people gaming means less people buying games. Perpetuate that brand, mofo!
On the other hand, if you don't own a huge share of the market, you can work the short term formula and it probably doesn't make a difference in terms of future buyers. So it is somewhat viable in as much as being inconsequential.
To me, I'm seeing the same arguement that occurs when two people want to do two quite different things, but each act as if they are doing the one thing and they other has clearly gone borked. Used to seeing it in terms of 'how to play game X', but I guess it translates just as well to the money game.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page