Is the escapist going bankrupt?

[Canadamus Prime]

Oh I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact that they keep throwing out new content when they can barely afford the content they have. /sarcasm]

Have to wonder why they're advertising for new writers when they're struggling to pay the ones they have.

That too.

 

[dexxyoto]

Can I just clarify something? What the Escapist has is a lot of IOUs from advertisers who are paying late, they're not going bankrupt, they're behind on their payments because advertisers are behind on their own.

Can you show me where you got that information? to me that would quite likely change my opinion of things. To be fair it stands at "You twits need to stop cutting your subscribers, fan, page hit makers out of the damn loop as it's not helping you any"

I doubt the escapist is really foundering that badly but they're certainly not doing swimmingly well.

Honestly with regards to the entire EC mess Both parties behaved horribly EC for doing a post on twitter of all bloody places and sounding like a kid running to the teacher and the escapist for not fessing up in the first place, so again cutting people out of the loop. I can understand if you don't want to share the minutiae of the last quarters profit breakdown but even a post saying "Yeah we're fine here's the deal quit whining" or "Ohgod we're drowning here's why for the love of all that's holy help us!"

 

[Jedamethis]

OT: I don't know. I hope they don't, but I think they'd tell us if things were dire.

Just like they told us they were months behind on paying some of their contributors and that some of those contributors left because of it?

It wasn't in a newspost, but Alexander explained a lot of things in a thread somewhere. You'd have to ask one of the staff if they knew where it is, because I don't.

 

[Jimbo1212]

First off, The rules allow for constructive criticism. The mods just enforce that rule.
Secondly, if you have ever seen somebody actually get banned for that, then you should look at their posting history. The mods don't roam the forum seeking out wrong-doers, they look at posts which have been reported a lot. They then look at whoever made the post's posting history and apply whichever punishment is necessary. With the new forum health bar, there is no way for the mods to be overzealous, skipping sections of the bar. If you have had 3 warnings already, you get another. Then you move up to probations, then suspensions, and only then can you get banned. The only time somebody can be banned is if they have broken the rules at least 7 times before.

Sorry, but the mods are not evil and I feel I have to make that clear, because they don't have time to.

OT: I don't know. I hope they don't, but I think they'd tell us if things were dire.

Again, I have never found another website that allows for no negative criticism. If an advert is annoying or shit, why can we not say so? Are they afraid that the advertising would be pulled and they are scared they can not find another? After all we are the people they are aimed at so surely a forum could be used as a real time survey. There has to be a reason behind doing this.

 

[Jedamethis]

First off, The rules allow for constructive criticism. The mods just enforce that rule.
Secondly, if you have ever seen somebody actually get banned for that, then you should look at their posting history. The mods don't roam the forum seeking out wrong-doers, they look at posts which have been reported a lot. They then look at whoever made the post's posting history and apply whichever punishment is necessary. With the new forum health bar, there is no way for the mods to be overzealous, skipping sections of the bar. If you have had 3 warnings already, you get another. Then you move up to probations, then suspensions, and only then can you get banned. The only time somebody can be banned is if they have broken the rules at least 7 times before.

Sorry, but the mods are not evil and I feel I have to make that clear, because they don't have time to.

OT: I don't know. I hope they don't, but I think they'd tell us if things were dire.

Again, I have never found another website that allows for no negative criticism. If an advert is annoying or shit, why can we not say so? Are they afraid that the advertising would be pulled and they are scared they can not find another? After all we are the people they are aimed at so surely a forum could be used as a real time survey. There has to be a reason behind doing this.

That's not what I said. They allow negative criticism, as long as you have something useful to say. If you're just saying something's shit, then that's a different story, as it doesn't add much to the discussion.

 

[Redlin5_v1legacy]

But the guys behind the scenes know what they're doing so I suggest we just keep calm and keep buggering on.

Good enough for me!

*retreats back into FG*

 

[Sevre]

Can I just clarify something? What the Escapist has is a lot of IOUs from advertisers who are paying late, they're not going bankrupt, they're behind on their payments because advertisers are behind on their own.

Can you show me where you got that information? to me that would quite likely change my opinion of things. To be fair it stands at "You twits need to stop cutting your subscribers, fan, page hit makers out of the damn loop as it's not helping you any"

I doubt the escapist is really foundering that badly but they're certainly not doing swimmingly well.

Honestly with regards to the entire EC mess Both parties behaved horribly EC for doing a post on twitter of all bloody places and sounding like a kid running to the teacher and the escapist for not fessing up in the first place, so again cutting people out of the loop. I can understand if you don't want to share the minutiae of the last quarters profit breakdown but even a post saying "Yeah we're fine here's the deal quit whining" or "Ohgod we're drowning here's why for the love of all that's holy help us!"

My own source would be the site's own staff who I've had the pleasure of talking to on such business. Though I haven't been given figures, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that the site's trouble is greatly exaggerated. Most people here couldn't tell you what it means to be bankrupt, but if Themis Media was bankrupt then why would they be paying for more content and signing new content producers?

I'm not going to deny they're in trouble, but almost everything I read on the forums on the matter is pure conjecture. There's a lot of cynicism and negativity on this forum so it's to be expected but if Themis Media felt the need to discuss its finances with the rest of us, they would do so. Until then, people need to stop worrying, The Escapist is still here, WarCry is still here, and Extra Credits will continue to be successful.

 

[dexxyoto]

Thanks kindly Sevre. It's good to know at least someone is able to talk to the staffers and know what's actually going on.

Any chance you can convince them to try and be a little more transparent with everything going on? They by no means should appear and grovel and take all the blame for the EC deal (as I said before my stance is both parties were at fault) but just a simple message going hey guys, things are a bit rocky, but we're doing okay.

More preferable would be an update of what's happening with regards to lack of payments from advertisers and Themis (Assuming it's not NDA and similar) and maybe an idea of how people can assist?

I definitely agree improving the pubclub isn't a bad idea but I sadly can't really suggest ways to do so, Perhaps others on the thread can.

I know i'm not alone in saying I really like this site and would hate to see it suffer.

 

[The Unworthy Gentleman]

I believe I made it all-too-clear that the Escapist wouldn't ask for help even if it were drowning in fire. [http://www.nuklearpower.com/2005/09/22/episode-602-at-least-the-air-isnt-acid/] They are IN a situation where they should admit that they're in the shit and they won't. And no, they're really not big enough to look after themselves.

Actually, all we've heard about The Escapist's money troubles is contributors receiving late payment and the advertising they've upped. There are plenty of ways that The Escapist can get themselves out of a tight situation, plenty of ways that don't require members of the forums to come up with a clever scheme.

 

[FalloutJack]

I believe I made it all-too-clear that the Escapist wouldn't ask for help even if it were drowning in fire. [http://www.nuklearpower.com/2005/09/22/episode-602-at-least-the-air-isnt-acid/] They are IN a situation where they should admit that they're in the shit and they won't. And no, they're really not big enough to look after themselves.

Actually, all we've heard about The Escapist's money troubles is contributors receiving late payment and the advertising they've upped. There are plenty of ways that The Escapist can get themselves out of a tight situation, plenty of ways that don't require members of the forums to come up with a clever scheme.

Maybe, but who turns down a good risk-free scheme when money's involved? Some of this shit wouldn't happen if they DID take it seriously. To me, this smacks of bravado in the face of a threat one cannot manage. Yes, they were exposed about the contributors and stuff. Consequently, there's a blow to credibility (professionally and personally), a loss of revenue (some of the users DID leave or won't come very often), and they're still in the economic red while performing the afore-mentioned sign-on of people without the greenbacks to back 'em up.

What I take from that is it's {A} a classic case of Dilbert management, {B} a sure sign that they don't have alot of good ideas, and {C} a case where they would need something REALLY good to put the starch back in their socks. Let me also point out that magazines go under all the time, even the inciteful and interesting ones. The Escapist is by no means immortal.

 

[The Unworthy Gentleman]

Maybe, but who turns down a good risk-free scheme when money's involved? Some of this shit wouldn't happen if they DID take it seriously. To me, this smacks of bravado in the face of a threat one cannot manage. Yes, they were exposed about the contributors and stuff. Consequently, there's a blow to credibility (professionally and personally), a loss of revenue (some of the users DID leave or won't come very often), and they're still in the economic red while performing the afore-mentioned sign-on of people without the greenbacks to back 'em up.

What I take from that is it's {A} a classic case of Dilbert management, {B} a sure sign that they don't have alot of good ideas, and {C} a case where they would need something REALLY good to put the starch back in their socks. Let me also point out that magazines go under all the time, even the inciteful and interesting ones. The Escapist is by no means immortal.

I'm not saying this isn't bravado but I am saying that we don't know all the facts. Not one thread has ever provided information other than the contributors scandal to show that The Escapist may be having money trouble. I wouldn't be surprised if The Escapist disappeared from the face of the Earth, but I see no credible evidence to warrant our concern.

When have you ever heard of a business that took the advice of what they consider a mere consumer in a financial area? If anyone found out about them taking advice from consumers then they'd lose far more credibility regardless of how good it was. Any investors would be gone and the competition would be fighting over the carcass before it was even dead. In that case, not making ends meet for a few months is, by far, the better option.

 

[Jimbo1212]

[They only disallow harsh offensive, unreasonable criticism. If you hate Jimquisition, you're allowed to say it. But calling him a fat bastard IS NOT allowed.

....or criticism about the website.

Make a post about how a new advert on this website is shit/annoying and watch what happens.

That's not what I said. They allow negative criticism, as long as you have something useful to say. If you're just saying something's shit, then that's a different story, as it doesn't add much to the discussion.

What about saying some advert is shit and they should get rid of it? Because that will get you a closed thread with some warnings.


As I have said, such policies towards protecting their adverts says a lot about their revenue stream.

 

[dexxyoto]

That's not what I said. They allow negative criticism, as long as you have something useful to say. If you're just saying something's shit, then that's a different story, as it doesn't add much to the discussion.

What about saying some advert is shit and they should get rid of it? Because that will get you a closed thread with some warnings.

So don't simply start a thread saying the ads are shite. try posting one like I think the ads are damn annoying, does any else?

As I have said, such policies towards protecting their adverts says a lot about their revenue stream.[/quote]

 

[Jedamethis]

That's not what I said. They allow negative criticism, as long as you have something useful to say. If you're just saying something's shit, then that's a different story, as it doesn't add much to the discussion.

What about saying some advert is shit and they should get rid of it? Because that will get you a closed thread with some warnings.


As I have said, such policies towards protecting their adverts says a lot about their revenue stream.

If youre saying the advert is shit, then doesn't it go without saying that you think they should get rid of it? I don't see how your argument has changed.
Their adverts don't need protecting. If you hate an advert, yet they need it to keep the site up, then tough luck, of course they're not going to take it down. It's not like adverts have ears which The Escapist needs to cover to stop them hearing mean things you're saying about them...

That's not what I said. They allow negative criticism, as long as you have something useful to say. If you're just saying something's shit, then that's a different story, as it doesn't add much to the discussion.

What about saying some advert is shit and they should get rid of it? Because that will get you a closed thread with some warnings.

So don't simply start a thread saying the ads are shite. try posting one like I think the ads are damn annoying, does any else?

As I have said, such policies towards protecting their adverts says a lot about their revenue stream.

If youre saying the advert is shit, then doesn't it go without saying that you think they should get rid of it? I don't see how your argument has changed.
What a good thread, such discussion it incites. I'm sure every post in it would be creative and bring something new to the table. If you're going to bring up zombie apocalypse threads or something like that, remember that there are a hell of a lot of creative, unique responses to those kinds of threads. A thread about adverts would be almost like a vs. thread. There's either "Adverts are good because they keep The Escapist running." or "Adverts are bad because they don't look nice."

 

[Jimbo1212]

If youre saying the advert is shit, then doesn't it go without saying that you think they should get rid of it? I don't see how your argument has changed.
Their adverts don't need protecting. If you hate an advert, yet they need it to keep the site up, then tough luck, of course they're not going to take it down. It's not like adverts have ears which The Escapist needs to cover to stop them hearing mean things you're saying about them...

Well clearly they think they do hence why they warn you for saying that.
Otherwise why do they warn you for saying such things?

 

[Jedamethis]

If youre saying the advert is shit, then doesn't it go without saying that you think they should get rid of it? I don't see how your argument has changed.
Their adverts don't need protecting. If you hate an advert, yet they need it to keep the site up, then tough luck, of course they're not going to take it down. It's not like adverts have ears which The Escapist needs to cover to stop them hearing mean things you're saying about them...

Well clearly they think they do hence why they warn you for saying that.
Otherwise why do they warn you for saying such things?

It says in the Forum Rules: "Constructive criticism is welcomed; negativity for its own sake is not." Saying adverts are bad is not constructive criticism now is it.
It also adds nothing to discussion, classing it as a low-content post I believe. It is not because the ads need protecting.

 

[Jimbo1212]

If youre saying the advert is shit, then doesn't it go without saying that you think they should get rid of it? I don't see how your argument has changed.
Their adverts don't need protecting. If you hate an advert, yet they need it to keep the site up, then tough luck, of course they're not going to take it down. It's not like adverts have ears which The Escapist needs to cover to stop them hearing mean things you're saying about them...

Well clearly they think they do hence why they warn you for saying that.
Otherwise why do they warn you for saying such things?

It says in the Forum Rules: "Constructive criticism is welcomed; negativity for its own sake is not." Saying adverts are bad is not constructive criticism now is it.
It also adds nothing to discussion, classing it as a low-content post I believe. It is not because the ads need protecting.

Even if you add in anything to do with how they should advertise, you will get a warning.
As for the low-content post, that is just bullshit spin from the mods. You can have hundreds of " What if your last character...", which is the epitome of low content drivel, but you can't say " Advert sucks, please get rid of it. Post here is you agree".

 

[Jimbo1212]

Fine then, you make a thread and call the adverts shit. Of course you're going to get warnings, that's the same if you make a thread and call Yahtzee shit and that the Escapist should remove him.

.........which proves my point.
Why does the moderation have to be so protective compared to so many other websites? As it requires more time, there must be a financial gain in it somewhere otherwise why bother?

 

[FalloutJack]

I'm not saying this isn't bravado but I am saying that we don't know all the facts. Not one thread has ever provided information other than the contributors scandal to show that The Escapist may be having money trouble. I wouldn't be surprised if The Escapist disappeared from the face of the Earth, but I see no credible evidence to warrant our concern.

When have you ever heard of a business that took the advice of what they consider a mere consumer in a financial area? If anyone found out about them taking advice from consumers then they'd lose far more credibility regardless of how good it was. Any investors would be gone and the competition would be fighting over the carcass before it was even dead. In that case, not making ends meet for a few months is, by far, the better option.

It is true that we do not know all of the facts. I, for one, am theorizing based upon what I DO know and what patterns such information lead to if things remain unchanged. That said, pattern recognition is something more businesses could use if they wanted to avoid situations like this in the first place.

As for concern...well...that's more everybody else. You might notice that I'm not what you call invested in the Escapist in any serious capacity. True, I made alot of posts here, but that's because the board became an excellent time-waster for me while in-between something else. Five or six minutes and I've gotten an installment of Yahtzee or Unskippable or whatever under the belt. Ten minutes and I've made perhaps a few interesting or funny answers to things for my own personal entertainment.

Anyway,regarding advice, not only am I certain that listening to consumers is half of why businesses stay afloat (i.e. because they're the money in the bank and the business is the bank), but I don't see how credibility can suffer if they take advice that couldn't actually hurt, but in fact help. You can SAY it's damaging, but I don't see how. Neverminding the fact that {A} this forum has numerous ways for regular people to voice themselves for this purpose if nothing else and {B} I tried this myself literally because it was suggested to me that I try, by someone who WORKS HERE.

And you know what? I was doing it all the users of this damn board, to try and make things smoother, less strict, and overall more fun if it could be made possible in some way. I maintain that it's not 'they can't withstand a blow to their credibility', because that is a joke, but rather 'they just simply cannot be helped, period'. It'll all end in tears, for everyone that holds a job on this site.

 

[The Unworthy Gentleman]

It is true that we do not know all of the facts. I, for one, am theorizing based upon what I DO know and what patterns such information lead to if things remain unchanged. That said, pattern recognition is something more businesses could use if they wanted to avoid situations like this in the first place.

I would hope that The Escapist is doing some cash flow forecasting, it's common business practice to do it. If you don't then... well, you can end up in these kinds of situations, like you said, and they'll eventually just get worse.

Anyway,regarding advice, not only am I certain that listening to consumers is half of why businesses stay afloat (i.e. because they're the money in the bank and the business is the bank), but I don't see how credibility can suffer if they take advice that couldn't actually hurt, but in fact help. You can SAY it's damaging, but I don't see how. Neverminding the fact that {A} this forum has numerous ways for regular people to voice themselves for this purpose if nothing else and {B} I tried this myself literally because it was suggested to me that I try, by someone who WORKS HERE.

I didn't say the don't listen to consumers entirely, I said they don't listen to consumers regarding financial matters. If wind got out that they were taking the advice from just any random guy then they'd be considered lying in a pool of their own puke and blood. A business that isn't in control of it's own finance is doomed to fail from day 1. That's how it's damaging.

Those systems may be in place but either they aren't being used by the staff or they don't take financial advice from someone they consider to be just some guy on the internet.