AKA_Bait
2007-10-11, 09:33 AM
Ok, yes, it's another thread about the recent WotC publication Confessions of a Part-time Sorceress. (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=products/dndacc/215407400) I bought the book yesterday, after having to order it since none of the local bookstores near me had a copy in stock. I'm around 1/2 way through it, but enough to be utterly confused as to the aim of the book. I thought I knew what to expect, I was wrong.
Here were my expectations:
1. Marketing tool attempting to increase the female base of Dungeons and Dragons.
2. Aimed at: A. Gamer girls who don't play D&D but do play, say, WoW or go to Renn Fairs, B. Signifigant others of those who play D&D (mainly female), C. Girls totally outside of the normal gaming demographic who might pick up the book, read it, and have an interest in the game sparked.
From what I can tell, it's trying to be all thee at once, and consequentially, failing at it's task. The content of the book is a handbook but the writing style is more narritive, which would be fine if it weren't for the frequent, many page long breaks to explain game mechanics. This seems like a strategy that is going to tick off groups A & B for not explaining enough (you don't need to spend 6 pages dispelling myths about gamers to someone married to or dating a gamer or who plays WoW themselves) and group C for breaking the narrative they have become slightly interested in with boring bits about 'classes' before the author has endeared herself to the reader.
The book is peppered with dated pop culture refrences (dated to me and I'm only 26) which also speaks to aiming at a demographic my age or older. Is that really the demographic WotC was shooting for? It has countless references to shopping and fashion, I know very few female gamers that care about that enough to get the jokes and from my experience the wives and gf's of gamers I know tend to be the same soft of people (otherwise why would they date the fashion handicapped like myself? I mean, I wear bowties. Of my own free will.) to whom fashion and shopping are unimportant and only a means to acquire goods respectivley.
This leads me to think that the demographic they were aiming at is C. The random girl who sees the book, which has a good title I must admit, and picks it up. The cover art is good and seems aimed in that direction as well. However, if thats the demographic, not only is the book in a style that's a bit rules-first (which is wrong for that demographic) but the distribution is all wrong.
I mentioned above that I had to order a copy of the book because none of the local bookstores around me had a copy in stock. To make the impact of that clearer, let me tell you that I work in Midtown Manhattan. There are no less than 9 bookstores within a 15 block radius of me. I had to order it. If the demographic is women who don't know the book exists but will pick it up and get interested in the game then it might, I don't know, pay to have some copies visible in stores in the highest density book purchasing ten square miles in America.
Also, if you looked at the link above, you have seen the cover art. It's not bad. The picture on the webpage is also not totally accurate. They left off the very large print Dungeons & Dragons sitting at the bottom of the front cover. A sure fire way to keep precisley the consumer that they were hoping to win over from picking up the book, if by some miracle they find it.
So, I'm confused. In the past WotC's marketing and consumer control folks have been spectaular in terms of grabbing interest and expanding their player base. I'm surprised that this attempt at it is so, well, bad. Is the WotC D&D marketing department really this inept all of a sudden? Is there a strategy in here I'm not seeing? One that plans on not selling books increasing the player base perhaps? Can someone explain this to me?
A few requests:
1. This is not intended to be a thread about how 'Wizards is mysoginist' or 'Wizards is against free speech' or any such thing. It's about their marketing strategy. There have been plenty of threads bashing them on those accounts already.
2. Please have an opinion based upon expereince with the book itself. Having leafed through the thing at least, rather than looking at the picture and saying 'dis sux!'
That said, back to 'huh? What's the deal here?'
Here were my expectations:
1. Marketing tool attempting to increase the female base of Dungeons and Dragons.
2. Aimed at: A. Gamer girls who don't play D&D but do play, say, WoW or go to Renn Fairs, B. Signifigant others of those who play D&D (mainly female), C. Girls totally outside of the normal gaming demographic who might pick up the book, read it, and have an interest in the game sparked.
From what I can tell, it's trying to be all thee at once, and consequentially, failing at it's task. The content of the book is a handbook but the writing style is more narritive, which would be fine if it weren't for the frequent, many page long breaks to explain game mechanics. This seems like a strategy that is going to tick off groups A & B for not explaining enough (you don't need to spend 6 pages dispelling myths about gamers to someone married to or dating a gamer or who plays WoW themselves) and group C for breaking the narrative they have become slightly interested in with boring bits about 'classes' before the author has endeared herself to the reader.
The book is peppered with dated pop culture refrences (dated to me and I'm only 26) which also speaks to aiming at a demographic my age or older. Is that really the demographic WotC was shooting for? It has countless references to shopping and fashion, I know very few female gamers that care about that enough to get the jokes and from my experience the wives and gf's of gamers I know tend to be the same soft of people (otherwise why would they date the fashion handicapped like myself? I mean, I wear bowties. Of my own free will.) to whom fashion and shopping are unimportant and only a means to acquire goods respectivley.
This leads me to think that the demographic they were aiming at is C. The random girl who sees the book, which has a good title I must admit, and picks it up. The cover art is good and seems aimed in that direction as well. However, if thats the demographic, not only is the book in a style that's a bit rules-first (which is wrong for that demographic) but the distribution is all wrong.
I mentioned above that I had to order a copy of the book because none of the local bookstores around me had a copy in stock. To make the impact of that clearer, let me tell you that I work in Midtown Manhattan. There are no less than 9 bookstores within a 15 block radius of me. I had to order it. If the demographic is women who don't know the book exists but will pick it up and get interested in the game then it might, I don't know, pay to have some copies visible in stores in the highest density book purchasing ten square miles in America.
Also, if you looked at the link above, you have seen the cover art. It's not bad. The picture on the webpage is also not totally accurate. They left off the very large print Dungeons & Dragons sitting at the bottom of the front cover. A sure fire way to keep precisley the consumer that they were hoping to win over from picking up the book, if by some miracle they find it.
So, I'm confused. In the past WotC's marketing and consumer control folks have been spectaular in terms of grabbing interest and expanding their player base. I'm surprised that this attempt at it is so, well, bad. Is the WotC D&D marketing department really this inept all of a sudden? Is there a strategy in here I'm not seeing? One that plans on not selling books increasing the player base perhaps? Can someone explain this to me?
A few requests:
1. This is not intended to be a thread about how 'Wizards is mysoginist' or 'Wizards is against free speech' or any such thing. It's about their marketing strategy. There have been plenty of threads bashing them on those accounts already.
2. Please have an opinion based upon expereince with the book itself. Having leafed through the thing at least, rather than looking at the picture and saying 'dis sux!'
That said, back to 'huh? What's the deal here?'