Meet Yahtzee at PAX, Get Stuff
- Thread starter Susan Arendt
- Start date
The EC guys, in response to the huge support, decided after the fact to do something that seemed like a good use of the money. If anyone objected, I'm sure they would give them refunds. The whole thing in this thread really is a semantic whine fest, because people are just so damn critical sometimes.GreatTeacherCAW said:
So reflecting on the whole discussion, a few things stand out to me.
#1: The Psychology of the Contributor/Fueler
I've noticed a big psychological divorce in the mind of the customer/contributor between being sold a product, such as a poster, for $50 and then the profits being used to a specific project, and being asked to contribute $50 for a project and receiving a poster as an incentive to contribute.
I mean, I felt, in writing the above paragraph, that I needed two separate words:
*A customer, in my mind, buys a discreet product, and enters a business one to one arrangement with a vendor, where the price offered is presumed to be directly reflective of the product.
*A contributor on the other hand offers up as much money as they deem fit for a more nebulous whole--the price is based purely on the willingness of the contributor to give more, and while contributors can be incentivized to give more by offering enticing rewards, this is different then selling a product to a customer. A contributor works with a network of other contributors to support a large project.
#2: The Inescapable Implications of Asking People to Give You Money
People don't want to contribute anything if they don't think it's necessary. Just reading the criticism, it's taken the form of either, "The Escapist makes enough money that they don't need my help," or "Yahtzee makes enough money that he doesn't need my help." These people cannot be encouraged to contribute simply by treating them like a customer instead of a contributor. My initial reaction was, "$20,000--For What??!!"
You aren't selling that unwilling person a poster. You're asking that unwilling person to give you money for something you want to do, and offering a poster in exchange for that.
It has been argued that there's a difference between charity and Kickstarter/RocketHub, but I don't know if that's strictly the case. If you give a street musician money, is it an act of charity, or is it investment in a service? Can you be said to be buying a product? Or is it something between the two? In any sense, street performers seem like an apt comparison to kickstarter projects, to me at least.
Finally, this isn't to say that these projects need to charitable in the sense that Habitat for Humanity is charitable. I think people give for charitable reasons to things which are completely selfish simply because they're interesting in seeing those things done and they derive a sense of accomplishment in helping that thing happen.
For instance, I didn't contribute to Minecraft: The Story of Mojang because it would make the world a better place. But at the same time, I did have a sense of contributing merely because I wanted to see such a thing exist, but not necessarily because I wanted that product for my own personal consumption -- though there is that too. I think the larger driving for is wanting to see cool stuff happen, while also being partially responsible for that cool stuff happening.
#3: From Where the Money Seems Likely to Come
Contributors for this specific idea are really only likely to come from three places:
1). People who will be attending PAX.
2). People who will donate specifically to receive the promised incentives, but aren't necessarily attending PAX.
3). People who recognize that the Escapist could use the help to pull this off.
The first group, IMHO, could probably be both the largest group in terms of actual contributors and also the smallest group in terms of potential contributors; the largest actual group because as far as I can see they gain the most benefit from the currently offered incentives; the smallest potential group because the minority of people who see this event and could potentially choose to fuel it will actually be attending Pax.
The second group... I don't have faith for the second group giving a lot. I don't particularly find the pricing for whats offered attractive. For instance, I'm pretty cash strapped, and though I'm interested in giving $5-$20 for this, I'm not sure it's worth it for what I'm receiving. I'm not going to Pax so I can't pick up a poster, so I have no incentive to give more than $10. Right now, there's a cap on only the first 50 people who donate $10 receiving the incentive. So the $5 incentive might be my only choice if I'm late to donate, if I'm really to be thought of as a customer and not a contributor. And if it really isn't at all a charity case, then no one should expect me to give $20 even though I won't receive a poster, or $10 even after the limit on $10 contributors is reached. Certainly I am not large enough to be a representative sample of the escapist as a demographic, but there's my anecdotal argument anyway.
In my humble and relatively uninformed opinion, it would seem that you could fund your project better by offering better rewards at lower dollar values that are not contingent on you being physically at PAX to see your name on a screen or pick up something in person. An exclusive forum badge, for instance, seems like an obvious low dollar value incentive. Maybe a temporary publishers club membership, etc.
That leaves the third group. This is the demographic which, as far as I've noticed with Kickstarter type projects donates the most. People who want to see a specific project succeed and feel some good in contributing it. The problem with the third group, is that given the initial backlash against the idea, there is no perception that, "The Escapist could use my help to pull this off," or the idea of Yahtzee being at PAX and giving the Escapist a bit more exposure might not necessarily ignite everyone's engines, so to speak.
And then there are inherent problems in running a business and also trying to appeal to people's charitable nature.
It seems to me that, as a business, you want to appear as successful or powerful or as well put together as possible. But you won't receive as many donations via kickstarter/rockethub if you don't tug on people's heartstrings a little bit.
I was totally disinclined to contribute anything until I realized the extent of the difficulty in funding this event. But to trot that fact out immediately might seem whiny, or sniveling even. I think there are probably subtle ways of hinting that a project idea is currently beyond your current budget, and it is probably best to gently pepper your project proposal on Rockethub/Kickstarter with these words or phrases.
Ultimately, in the end, regardless of the incentives offered, I don't think that people will contribute if they assume you can do it on your own.
My two cents.
I've noticed a big psychological divorce in the mind of the customer/contributor between being sold a product, such as a poster, for $50 and then the profits being used to a specific project, and being asked to contribute $50 for a project and receiving a poster as an incentive to contribute.
I mean, I felt, in writing the above paragraph, that I needed two separate words:
*A customer, in my mind, buys a discreet product, and enters a business one to one arrangement with a vendor, where the price offered is presumed to be directly reflective of the product.
*A contributor on the other hand offers up as much money as they deem fit for a more nebulous whole--the price is based purely on the willingness of the contributor to give more, and while contributors can be incentivized to give more by offering enticing rewards, this is different then selling a product to a customer. A contributor works with a network of other contributors to support a large project.
#2: The Inescapable Implications of Asking People to Give You Money
People don't want to contribute anything if they don't think it's necessary. Just reading the criticism, it's taken the form of either, "The Escapist makes enough money that they don't need my help," or "Yahtzee makes enough money that he doesn't need my help." These people cannot be encouraged to contribute simply by treating them like a customer instead of a contributor. My initial reaction was, "$20,000--For What??!!"
You aren't selling that unwilling person a poster. You're asking that unwilling person to give you money for something you want to do, and offering a poster in exchange for that.
It has been argued that there's a difference between charity and Kickstarter/RocketHub, but I don't know if that's strictly the case. If you give a street musician money, is it an act of charity, or is it investment in a service? Can you be said to be buying a product? Or is it something between the two? In any sense, street performers seem like an apt comparison to kickstarter projects, to me at least.
Finally, this isn't to say that these projects need to charitable in the sense that Habitat for Humanity is charitable. I think people give for charitable reasons to things which are completely selfish simply because they're interesting in seeing those things done and they derive a sense of accomplishment in helping that thing happen.
For instance, I didn't contribute to Minecraft: The Story of Mojang because it would make the world a better place. But at the same time, I did have a sense of contributing merely because I wanted to see such a thing exist, but not necessarily because I wanted that product for my own personal consumption -- though there is that too. I think the larger driving for is wanting to see cool stuff happen, while also being partially responsible for that cool stuff happening.
#3: From Where the Money Seems Likely to Come
Contributors for this specific idea are really only likely to come from three places:
1). People who will be attending PAX.
2). People who will donate specifically to receive the promised incentives, but aren't necessarily attending PAX.
3). People who recognize that the Escapist could use the help to pull this off.
The first group, IMHO, could probably be both the largest group in terms of actual contributors and also the smallest group in terms of potential contributors; the largest actual group because as far as I can see they gain the most benefit from the currently offered incentives; the smallest potential group because the minority of people who see this event and could potentially choose to fuel it will actually be attending Pax.
The second group... I don't have faith for the second group giving a lot. I don't particularly find the pricing for whats offered attractive. For instance, I'm pretty cash strapped, and though I'm interested in giving $5-$20 for this, I'm not sure it's worth it for what I'm receiving. I'm not going to Pax so I can't pick up a poster, so I have no incentive to give more than $10. Right now, there's a cap on only the first 50 people who donate $10 receiving the incentive. So the $5 incentive might be my only choice if I'm late to donate, if I'm really to be thought of as a customer and not a contributor. And if it really isn't at all a charity case, then no one should expect me to give $20 even though I won't receive a poster, or $10 even after the limit on $10 contributors is reached. Certainly I am not large enough to be a representative sample of the escapist as a demographic, but there's my anecdotal argument anyway.
In my humble and relatively uninformed opinion, it would seem that you could fund your project better by offering better rewards at lower dollar values that are not contingent on you being physically at PAX to see your name on a screen or pick up something in person. An exclusive forum badge, for instance, seems like an obvious low dollar value incentive. Maybe a temporary publishers club membership, etc.
That leaves the third group. This is the demographic which, as far as I've noticed with Kickstarter type projects donates the most. People who want to see a specific project succeed and feel some good in contributing it. The problem with the third group, is that given the initial backlash against the idea, there is no perception that, "The Escapist could use my help to pull this off," or the idea of Yahtzee being at PAX and giving the Escapist a bit more exposure might not necessarily ignite everyone's engines, so to speak.
And then there are inherent problems in running a business and also trying to appeal to people's charitable nature.
It seems to me that, as a business, you want to appear as successful or powerful or as well put together as possible. But you won't receive as many donations via kickstarter/rockethub if you don't tug on people's heartstrings a little bit.
I was totally disinclined to contribute anything until I realized the extent of the difficulty in funding this event. But to trot that fact out immediately might seem whiny, or sniveling even. I think there are probably subtle ways of hinting that a project idea is currently beyond your current budget, and it is probably best to gently pepper your project proposal on Rockethub/Kickstarter with these words or phrases.
Ultimately, in the end, regardless of the incentives offered, I don't think that people will contribute if they assume you can do it on your own.
My two cents.
You guys should update the "seattleorbust" page with the update on this thread and probably more.
" and then I was all D:
I was going to mention you might want to redesign the ads on the sides of the page because the lines (and even the whole style) look off and I realized I was forgetting that too, the obnoxious omnipresent ads that frame every page. Still, it could be worse, technically, and it's not the only site I've seen do it. The Escapist is, however, the only site I've ever seen where, when you click on a video, it sometimes replaces all of the rest of the window with an ad that's clickable everywhere which occasionally makes my back button not work.
I hope you know there's no way it's going to be the biggest fan meetup of all time, or even the biggest one so far, but good luck with it anyway, and good luck to you, Yahtzee, in staying (relatively) sane through it.
That's the thing, I'd like to participate, but there's no way I could-- even if I could get there (this is majorly hampering to most of the world), and even if I had a ticket, the $100 thing (which I'm assuming is true because you haven't refuted it) is majorly beyond my reach. Speaking of which, you do know tickets for this thing are sold out right? Did you guys really just get this idea yesterday? If not you should've said something much earlier, and reserved tickets-- I was excited at "oh, I might get a chance to go after all, somehow!!!1Archon said:
" and then I was all D:Maybe you should be. Sure, anyone that buys them is stupid, but does that mean they should be repeatedly ripped off en masse?Archon said:
I had almost forgotten about this, could someone explain again why this is good for anyone (especially the people paying to use part of a website)? It seems pretty pointless to me.Archon said:
I was going to mention you might want to redesign the ads on the sides of the page because the lines (and even the whole style) look off and I realized I was forgetting that too, the obnoxious omnipresent ads that frame every page. Still, it could be worse, technically, and it's not the only site I've seen do it. The Escapist is, however, the only site I've ever seen where, when you click on a video, it sometimes replaces all of the rest of the window with an ad that's clickable everywhere which occasionally makes my back button not work.
I hope you know there's no way it's going to be the biggest fan meetup of all time, or even the biggest one so far, but good luck with it anyway, and good luck to you, Yahtzee, in staying (relatively) sane through it.
General Vagueness said:You guys should update the "seattleorbust" page with the update on this thread and probably more.
That's the thing, I'd like to participate, but there's no way I could-- even if I could get there (this is majorly hampering to most of the world), and even if I had a ticket, the $100 thing (which I'm assuming is true because you haven't refuted it) is majorly beyond my reach. Speaking of which, you do know tickets for this thing are sold out right? Did you guys really just get this idea yesterday? If not you should've said something much earlier, and reserved tickets-- I was excited at "oh, I might get a chance to go after all, somehow!!!1Archon said:
Maybe you should be. Sure, anyone that buys them is stupid, but does that mean they should be repeatedly ripped off en masse?Archon said:
I had almost forgotten about this, could someone explain again why this is good for anyone (especially the people paying to use part of a website)? It seems pretty pointless to me.Archon said:
I was going to mention you might want to redesign the ads on the sides of the page because the lines (and even the whole style) look off and I realized I was forgetting that too, the obnoxious omnipresent ads that frame every page. Still, it could be worse, technically, and it's not the only site I've seen do it. The Escapist is, however, the only site I've ever seen where, when you click on a video, it sometimes replaces all of the rest of the window with an ad that's clickable everywhere which occasionally makes my back button not work.
I hope you know there's no way it's going to be the biggest fan meetup of all time, or even the biggest one so far, but good luck with it anyway, and good luck to you, Yahtzee, in staying (relatively) sane through it.
I'm part of the Pub Club. I paid because $20 isn't much to support a website that I spend a lot of time on. Also it removes ads. However, I clearly remember Yahtzee going on about his massive new 3DTV that he got from internet revenue, so from that three second phrase alone, I decided that he can pay for his own damned business class ticket to PAX.
EDIT: "Anyway, let it never be said that I'm some ignorant Loom-smashing Luddite, because I started playing Killzone 3 not only with the PlayStation Move controls but also with the 3D option on my new massive 3D TV that I bought with all my ad revenue money, much obliged Internet! The motion controls didn't last ten minutes. After calibrating (Calibrating, fuck! Starting up a game these days is like starting up a fucking cruise liner) the aim was wavery and difficult, I didn't know where they'd moved all the buttons to and my big red glowing controller was reflecting in the screen and giving people hilarious clown noses! So after getting sniped silly for a while that went out the window and I took up a nice sensible sixaxis which didn't stop the game from throwing in motion-controlled turny switches whenever it could get away with it. The 3D held out a bit longer - yeah, things in the foreground were getting all prominent and shit but everything from the middle distance on looked like a big flat matte backdrop like the game was taking place in a puppet theater. After a while I turned it off and suddenly I was astounded by the detail in a nearby wood texture now that I wasn't wearing those stupid glasses. Things ten feet away stopped popping in all the time and my dog came back to life! So fuck modern technology right in its cutting edge! Ow!"
Slightly more than three seconds, but you Get The Idea.
Okay, so, as you've established in this thread, you cannot afford to pay for your visit to PAX. Add to this, the fact that not too long ago, Extra Credits also had a fund-raiser for a charitable cause.
Then you ask us, less than a month before PAX is supposed to happen; to pay for all of your expenses, offering incentives that don't even work because nobody can buy PAX tickets any more. This isn't even mentioning the elephant in the room: it resembles corporate pandering when you offer prizes to give us more reasons to pay for your expenses. When you have to make more reasons for us to pay, then clearly something is wrong with the idea to begin with.
In addition, most users here will NOT be able to talk to Yahtzee, as this forum almost entirely consists of teenagers from the western world, who would also have to deal with massive expenses at such short notice.
Then there's the fact that if we assume a few hundred people manage to pay the necessary "donation" on time, it doesn't guarantee that when they talk to Yahtzee, he won't be just sitting in a booth signing autographs.
Why not... not go to PAX? Clearly you cannot afford it, and there's only going to be a few hundred people who would care if Yahtzee actually turned up. And if they do turn up, it would be a dreary experience for all involved, and a massive waste of money. Why do we have to pay for your expenses?
Then you ask us, less than a month before PAX is supposed to happen; to pay for all of your expenses, offering incentives that don't even work because nobody can buy PAX tickets any more. This isn't even mentioning the elephant in the room: it resembles corporate pandering when you offer prizes to give us more reasons to pay for your expenses. When you have to make more reasons for us to pay, then clearly something is wrong with the idea to begin with.
In addition, most users here will NOT be able to talk to Yahtzee, as this forum almost entirely consists of teenagers from the western world, who would also have to deal with massive expenses at such short notice.
Then there's the fact that if we assume a few hundred people manage to pay the necessary "donation" on time, it doesn't guarantee that when they talk to Yahtzee, he won't be just sitting in a booth signing autographs.
Why not... not go to PAX? Clearly you cannot afford it, and there's only going to be a few hundred people who would care if Yahtzee actually turned up. And if they do turn up, it would be a dreary experience for all involved, and a massive waste of money. Why do we have to pay for your expenses?
I think this idea really has been presented too late. As has been said multiple times, no access to tickets severely limits who can attend, not to mention tickets weren't cheap anyways. Plus there's the geography to consider.
So think about it this way:
MOST of the people you're asking to contribute money (most of your fanbase), has neither the way to get physically to the event OR the ability to buy a ticket to go (because they aren't available.) You're asking people to pay solid money for something most of them cannot attend. Under these circumstances, how is this not a donation?
Also there's the matter many will simply not consider it a good value for money (like myself.) There's also the question of why the escapist (being a gaming news company) couldn't afford to go to PAX with the money it makes from its numerous revenue sources (multiple types of ads, captchas, etc.) It seems to me that something could have been worked out (I know from firsthand accounts from things individuals who work here have posted that not everybody is starving/has trouble affording things) for your employees to maybe pay part or most of their ticket if they wanted to go.
In short, people gave generously when Allison had her hand thing because it was for a worthy cause. Most of the escapist's members can't benefit much from this PAX merchandise bit being introduced so late, so it's practically a donation thing for them. I think under these circumstances it's unsurprising to see resistance to this idea. YES, you're giving them merchandise, but is it a good value for money? If the value is the merchandise itself, probably not. If it's the escapist's staff going to PAX, then maybe, but again that seems like a donation situation, despite protestations to the contrary.
So think about it this way:
MOST of the people you're asking to contribute money (most of your fanbase), has neither the way to get physically to the event OR the ability to buy a ticket to go (because they aren't available.) You're asking people to pay solid money for something most of them cannot attend. Under these circumstances, how is this not a donation?
Also there's the matter many will simply not consider it a good value for money (like myself.) There's also the question of why the escapist (being a gaming news company) couldn't afford to go to PAX with the money it makes from its numerous revenue sources (multiple types of ads, captchas, etc.) It seems to me that something could have been worked out (I know from firsthand accounts from things individuals who work here have posted that not everybody is starving/has trouble affording things) for your employees to maybe pay part or most of their ticket if they wanted to go.
In short, people gave generously when Allison had her hand thing because it was for a worthy cause. Most of the escapist's members can't benefit much from this PAX merchandise bit being introduced so late, so it's practically a donation thing for them. I think under these circumstances it's unsurprising to see resistance to this idea. YES, you're giving them merchandise, but is it a good value for money? If the value is the merchandise itself, probably not. If it's the escapist's staff going to PAX, then maybe, but again that seems like a donation situation, despite protestations to the contrary.
Exactly. Yahtzee has on numerous occasions both here and elsewhere stated that he's basically swimming in a pool of money and has no money worries. Good for him, he deserves it. But really, forget about him asking me for money. I should be hitting him up for a loan.TypeSD said:
I donate for good causes, but I couldn't be bothered to join a club that would allow me to avoid spam or an event that won't impact me in the slightest. I'm sad that we have those banners to the left and right, pimping out Yahtzee for $$$ but nothing really for an artist that seriously needed the help.
Working retail, I know what drives sales. Waggling a promise of a meeting with the biggest celeb on the site drives profit.
I won't how much revenue the Escapist made and how much of it was put in a fund to help out an ailing artist. Captcha time!!! XD
Working retail, I know what drives sales. Waggling a promise of a meeting with the biggest celeb on the site drives profit.
I won't how much revenue the Escapist made and how much of it was put in a fund to help out an ailing artist. Captcha time!!! XD
Hmm, selling out Yahtzee for something he doesn't like to do. Sounds fun. When I meet him can I say this?
I think you mean sparse, though now I am having visions of Russ Pitts dressed as either Master Chief, or King LeonidasSusan Arendt said:
Oh man. What can we learn from this adventure?
This reminds me of how Socialism doesn't work, but maybe it's all in the phrasing.
Socialist Example: Contribute to the party, for the benefit of the team! Get a reward!
Capitalist Example: Buy this autographed poster! Proceeds go to this big party we're throwing at PAX!
This reminds me of how Socialism doesn't work, but maybe it's all in the phrasing.
Socialist Example: Contribute to the party, for the benefit of the team! Get a reward!
Capitalist Example: Buy this autographed poster! Proceeds go to this big party we're throwing at PAX!
Actually, "spartan" is used as an adjective meaning frugal or austere, presumably referring to the purported harsh lifestyle of historical Spartans.Operations said:I think you mean sparse, though now I am having visions of Russ Pitts dressed as either Master Chief, or King Leonidas
Can we stop comparing this to the Extra Credits charity? They're not asking you for donations because poor old Yahtzee can't pay his way to a place he doesn't particularly want to be, they're asking for contributions so that the Escapists presence at PAX is actually big enough to justify forcing him out of his dank Australian dwelling.
I mean, it's still kind of silly, but you all seem to be missing the point.
I mean, it's still kind of silly, but you all seem to be missing the point.
Why not scrap this and just do it proper for the next PAX rather than try to do this at the last minute in a complete and total scramble? At this point I can't get a pass to enter PAX anyways; so even if I were interested in throwing money at you guys, it wouldn't serve me any purpose seeing as how I literally cannot possibly attend the event. You are asking people to fund an event that they cannot go to.
You can call the efforts to get him here whatever you want. But the execution here is spectacularly shoddy.
You can call the efforts to get him here whatever you want. But the execution here is spectacularly shoddy.
That is a whole other level of contribution.Operations said:I think you mean sparse, though now I am having visions of Russ Pitts dressed as either Master Chief, or King LeonidasSusan Arendt said: