In light of the recent editorial position by The Escapist, according to the article "Publisher's Note: The State of Gaming" (published September 8) by Alexander Macris, I wanted to point out the serious possibility of conflict of interest that might arise from, on the one side, the sudden concern over ethics in gaming journalism involved in Gamergate and, on the other, the construction (according to Macris' article) of a hierarchy or caste between the Gamer/enthusiast and the non-gamer, who - if I read him correctly - is clearly not to be represented by this publication.
Macris' statement: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/video-games/editorials/12223-The-Escapist-Publisher-Issues-Public-Statement-on-Gamergate
The further description, especially on the third page of that article, of the failings of game publishers raises further doubts as to this, as if The Escapist wanted to position itself as a match-making service between a product and its audience, between producers and consumers. To quote the article: " of necessity game media sites must either try to position themselves as more mainstream-friendly in order to retain ad dollars or they must find new sources of revenue.")
If we are to believe that the "Gamergate" movement is really about ethics in game journalism (it was obvious all along that it wasn't, but let's play along), isn't that exactly the kind of situation that would raise concern? That precisely a publication which seeks to distance itself from its advertisers would not try to find a way to facilitate how these companies can advertise to its readers?
In this, the dismissal, by The Escapist, of the non-"enthusiasts", as it calls them, can be interpreted as little more than a way to offer to advertisers a clearly defined demographic to which they can sell their wares.
On the fifth page of that article comes the revelation that some of the companies which invested in Defy Media, which now owns The Escapist, have a vested interest in marketing to this demographic: ZelnickMedia, which invested in Take Two Interactive, which includes 2K Games and Rockstar; Lionsgate, the media company; and also, not mentioned on that list, Viacom (which controls MTV and Paramount, notably) which took a minority stake in Defy Media.
Last June, when Viacom joined the ranks of Defy investors, an article at Advertising Age, a reputable publication on matters pertaining to advertising, wrote:
"Additionally Defy Media will promote Viacom's brands and content across its owned digital properties and network of third-party sites." (Which, presumably, includes The Escapist.)
http://adage.com/article/digital/viacom-takes-stake-defy-media-boost-youtube-presence/293620/
The article also quoted Defy CEO Matt Diamond:
""We are creating content people want and selling advertisers around that; that's the same business Viacom is in," said Defy Media CEO Matt Diamond. "They just come from the linear and traditional place, but they also have a very large digital platform.""
There is little point in talking about the relationship between the content on The Escapist and the advertising on the site if the content itself is conceived from the beginning to be the advertising. I see that disclosures now appear, for example on the recent review of the new "Borderlands" game (a 2K title), but I still have serious doubts about The Escapist's capacity for editorial independence - especially since The Escapist has made it its mission to come up with a distinct "Gamer" identity that excludes people for not being gamers enough, which reinforces the accusations made on the Left that the gamer identity is still based around consumption, an impression reinforced by the Gamergaters calling themselves a "consumer revolt".
My questions, then:
Is the Defy Media position, as expounded by that Advertising Age article and Defy CEO Matt Diamond, still valid?
If the Defy Media position has changed, just three months after that article appeared, what made it change?
Macris' statement: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/video-games/editorials/12223-The-Escapist-Publisher-Issues-Public-Statement-on-Gamergate
The further description, especially on the third page of that article, of the failings of game publishers raises further doubts as to this, as if The Escapist wanted to position itself as a match-making service between a product and its audience, between producers and consumers. To quote the article: " of necessity game media sites must either try to position themselves as more mainstream-friendly in order to retain ad dollars or they must find new sources of revenue.")
If we are to believe that the "Gamergate" movement is really about ethics in game journalism (it was obvious all along that it wasn't, but let's play along), isn't that exactly the kind of situation that would raise concern? That precisely a publication which seeks to distance itself from its advertisers would not try to find a way to facilitate how these companies can advertise to its readers?
In this, the dismissal, by The Escapist, of the non-"enthusiasts", as it calls them, can be interpreted as little more than a way to offer to advertisers a clearly defined demographic to which they can sell their wares.
On the fifth page of that article comes the revelation that some of the companies which invested in Defy Media, which now owns The Escapist, have a vested interest in marketing to this demographic: ZelnickMedia, which invested in Take Two Interactive, which includes 2K Games and Rockstar; Lionsgate, the media company; and also, not mentioned on that list, Viacom (which controls MTV and Paramount, notably) which took a minority stake in Defy Media.
Last June, when Viacom joined the ranks of Defy investors, an article at Advertising Age, a reputable publication on matters pertaining to advertising, wrote:
"Additionally Defy Media will promote Viacom's brands and content across its owned digital properties and network of third-party sites." (Which, presumably, includes The Escapist.)
http://adage.com/article/digital/viacom-takes-stake-defy-media-boost-youtube-presence/293620/
The article also quoted Defy CEO Matt Diamond:
""We are creating content people want and selling advertisers around that; that's the same business Viacom is in," said Defy Media CEO Matt Diamond. "They just come from the linear and traditional place, but they also have a very large digital platform.""
There is little point in talking about the relationship between the content on The Escapist and the advertising on the site if the content itself is conceived from the beginning to be the advertising. I see that disclosures now appear, for example on the recent review of the new "Borderlands" game (a 2K title), but I still have serious doubts about The Escapist's capacity for editorial independence - especially since The Escapist has made it its mission to come up with a distinct "Gamer" identity that excludes people for not being gamers enough, which reinforces the accusations made on the Left that the gamer identity is still based around consumption, an impression reinforced by the Gamergaters calling themselves a "consumer revolt".
My questions, then:
Is the Defy Media position, as expounded by that Advertising Age article and Defy CEO Matt Diamond, still valid?
If the Defy Media position has changed, just three months after that article appeared, what made it change?
