Quote Whoring
By SteveI did an e-mail interview with GameDaily’s Media Coverage, which can be found here. Some of my original responses were a lot longer.
The “…” part of the question about magazine’s and their unjust reputations went into a little more detail:
Q: You mentioned people would rather have “free and fast, regardless of quality” over “pay and slow, but good.” How do you convince readers to pay for quality content? Or is it too late… have we trained readers too well to value quickness over quality?
A: That’s the $4.99 question.
The cynic in me says it’s too late, that no one really cares that much about quality today, if they ever did.
Oh, people will say they want it. They’ll post angry screeds on message boards. They’ll bring up the name “Pauline Kael,” forgetting or ignoring that she wrote for the highbrow New Yorker, not for a general consumer publication. They’ll make fun of IGN.
But when a link pops up with “first review!” of a game they’re interested in, they’re all over it, even if they’ll hate themselves after reading it. They just can’t help themselves. But they’re rewarding shoddy work, that “we got it first” type reporting, because there’s no barrier to entry for a website. (We’re all guilty, even if we post links on message boards to make fun of an article; each of those hits pays for that site to continue producing those kinds of articles.)
A lot of people will say, “I’m not paying $4.99 for old news in a magazine.” I get that: Magazine=old and busted, Blogs=new hotness. But I can’t tell you how many times people have given reasons they stopped reading magazines that were no longer relevant. The magazines have changed a lot, but people still perceive them as being full of fluff and old, useless content. While it’s our fault that we were unable to convince them otherwise, those seekers of amazing, high-quality content should consider making some effort to actually find it. And maybe they should also consider spending a few pennies to reward those who are at least trying to produce it.
It’s getting even worse. Today, it’s all about the snarky meta commentary from blogs. Don’t get me wrong, I love ‘em jut like everyone else, even if the “blog revolution” was here 10+ years ago; someone give “Blue’s News” and his ilk some credit for doing what sites like Joystiq are doing today. But they’re conditioning people to skip the source article and be satisfied with the summary. If that’s enough for most readers, what’s the point of producing the original feature in the first place?
(And if they summarize it incorrectly, good lord… not only do you lose out on the traffic, you get your reputation trashed.)
A perfect example is the Slashdot effect. It used to be huge to get a link from Slashdot. Today, it’s barely a blip. Is it because Slashdot’s traffic is that much lower? Possibly. But there’s a reason people know what “RTFA” stands for…
Another question/answer:
Q: Any memorable stories from your CG days that you’d like to share? Dealings with developers/publishers, tough deadline scrambles, something you wrote that got you in trouble … anything you’d care to reminisce about.
A: There were hard drives that blew up the day before deadline that took down an entire issue (that was in my first few months of starting; I took a crash course in Quark Xpress that weekend)… Backups? What were backups? We were using Bernoulli disks at the time, for crying out loud.
How about all of the canceled games that appeared on our cover? Or the one that was canceled the day we were mailing the issue to the printer (Privateer 3)? Or the time we pulled a cover story two days before going to press because someone screwed us over?
Companies yanked ads because of reviews, others because of columns, we were sued a few times—once for running a preview, sheesh—I don’t know. It seems silly to dwell on this kind of stuff. It’s part of doing the job.
We never backed down, though we never made a big public showing of it, preferring to handle it all privately. (Had it escalated, perhaps things would have changed.) I was always willing to let people—developers, PR, CEOs, whatever—yell at me. You let them get it out of their system, tell them you respect their views, and they feel better while you do nothing.
A question about integrating web and print was cut; I should probably work on shorter answers.
Q: How hard is it integrating the CG web site with the printed magazine? Do you think an online publication is a more natural fit for PC gamers, who are obviously going to have a computer already?
A: I’m going to go out on a limb and say that every gamer has a computer. Hell, anyone buying any magazine probably has a computer, so I’m not sure that part of the question is particularly relevant. The only issue is whether people find your content worth paying money for.
While I think we had the right idea of how to tie print and online together, we just didn’t have the time or staffing to pull it off. You use a website to build community via forums and blogs and other forms of social networking, while showcasing your content after it’s had its run in print. You offer additional subscriber perks (access to high-speed downloads, additional content), but it just requires engineering (i.e. money and time).
We were doing some of these things at various times, and were relatively successful. But almost every change imposed on the magazines in the last few years managed to kill off parts of our community. Our archive site was taken down. We were forced to switch forum software multiple times, losing people with each change. We had multiple website front-end redesigns, yet the back-end was wrong for the type of site we were trying to produce. We were producing original online content that didn’t match the tone or style of the print content.
I don’t think it’s a coincidence that our readership and profile went down when we stopped putting magazine content on our website. For years, I’d been trying to get someone to spend a few days building an archive website. But no one saw its value, and it always got pushed aside for other projects. How else were people supposed to find out whether or not our content was worth paying money for? It was kind of like, “If we put up a subscription page, they will hand over money.” That was literally the expectation for MASSIVE, that we’d have thousands of subscribers before even producing a single issue. (That we did have a few hundred before launch was a bit of a shock.)
The thinking on the corporate side was that money should be spent promoting the magazine in traditional ways, at the newsstand (you pay for front positioning, etc.). While I supported those efforts, I felt we should have spent our time promoting the magazines via our own sites and by sending out copies to bloggers and other people who might talk about them. (It would have been a lot cheaper, too.)
I felt that people needed to be told to go to the newsstand to buy the thing nowadays, that they weren’t necessarily hanging out at the magazine rack at Borders/Barnes & Noble any more. For CGM, there wasn’t even a “check out what’s in this issue” page on our own website. It was ridiculous.
This was part of a follow-up to a comment where I said, “I’m disappointed that it ended like this. I feel like I failed, that there was something I could’ve/should’ve done to make the magazines more successful.”
Q: You said you feel “there was something I could’ve/should’ve done to make the magazines more successful.”
A: I don’t think the magazine connected with readers in the ways others do, though some of the post-mortem discussions of the magazine say otherwise.
To use one simple example, most game magazines/sites use first-person a lot and I reserved its use for columns or specific features. My feeling was that while it may increase the connection readers feel to the writer, it also made it seem more anecdotal and less definitive. It’s the difference between writing, “I think it’s the best game ever” vs. “It’s the best game ever.”
I think it also had something to do with our decision to have a more serious tone than others. We didn’t have silly nicknames, we didn’t share details of our personal lives, we didn’t put a lot of in-jokes on each page. We didn’t treat everything like it was a joke, even though the issues were full of humor (think Schadenfreude Interactive ads, articles by Erik Wolpaw, Bruce Geryk, or Kelly Wand, Tom Chick’s column, etc.). We just kept everything separate.
These were very specific decisions I made for very specific reasons, with some dissent amongst writers and other editors. Were they the wrong decisions? Maybe. It’s hard to say. (They’re pretty subtle distinctions to most people, but I think the lack of first-person in particular is one of the reasons people viewed us as tougher on games than others.)
Q:What specifically do you think could have been done differently? Were you limited in an way during your tenure?
A: I can’t say I was limited all that much. A few things were mandated from above—the Now Playing debacle, our console section—but I pretty much had free reign over content.
Still, we were limited by staffing and money. For the last few months, I was the editorial staff for both magazines. Before that, I had one employee (Cindy Yans). Our competitors had 5-6 full-time editorial people. While I have no idea what you’d do with that many people, there was little time to do anything but get the issue out the door.
I wish I’d had more time to help with marketing the magazine. I wish I had the time to talk to more of our readers to better understand what they wanted.
I wish I wish I wish.
March 23rd, 2007 at 3:48 pm
“The cynic in me…”
There’s a cynic IN you? C’mon, you’re ALL cynic. Well, maybe *mostly* cynic with a delicious candy coating.
March 23rd, 2007 at 3:54 pm
I’m no full-time cynic. I’m an optimist. Why I put Google ads on this page because I think I’ll make millions! Millions, I say!
I’m already up to a quarter. A quarter!
March 23rd, 2007 at 4:00 pm
That would be 25 cents, not a quarter of a million bucks. Just wanted to clarify that.
March 23rd, 2007 at 4:42 pm
I like your long answers. But an email interview? You should have said “We don’t accept email interviews!”
Well, now you know why PCG and GFW have more people on their mastheads. Promoting a magazine with a staff of one or two is bound to be unsatisfying and unsuccessful. The latest web redesign has as little to do with the pub as possible, it seems, and never seemed to find a voice or perspective that gelled with what was in print.
March 23rd, 2007 at 5:55 pm
“A question about integrating web and print was cut; I should probably work on shorter answers.”
What? I thought that was beauty of the Internet: Unlimited word count! Seven page reviews! Unedited interviews!
“A perfect example is the Slashdot effect. It used to be huge to get a link from Slashdot. Today, it’s barely a blip.”
Really? I didn’t know that the phenom had cooled. When/why did that happen?
“This was part of a follow-up to a comment where I said, ‘I’m disappointed that it ended like this. I feel like I failed, that there was something I could’ve/should’ve done to make the magazines more successful.’”
Since you were the EIC, I understand your impulse to feel this way. However, unless you came up with the brilliant plan to market to MySpacers, CGM’s collapse had nothing to do with you.
March 23rd, 2007 at 6:10 pm
“Really? I didn’t know that the phenom had cooled. When/why did that happen?”
It has some impact, but fewer people can be bothered to click on a link. Nowadays, people stick to their own communities to discuss the articles, despite very few people actually reading said articles.
You see this on message boards too. Someone posts a link with some interpretation, and very few people actually check out the link itself.
March 23rd, 2007 at 6:11 pm
—-open quote—-
I think it also had something to do with our decision to have a more serious tone than others. We didn’t have silly nicknames, we didn’t share details of our personal lives, we didn’t put a lot of in-jokes on each page.
—-close quote—-
You mean, CGM wasn’t considering a “naked legs” contest, too? Now that’s classy…
/serious. Very good Q & A, and I appreciate you posting some of the “outtakes” here.
Regards,
March 30th, 2007 at 12:05 am
…I were a fish…
Anyway, now that I’ve gotten that out of my system:
I must say that I never truly took notice of the first person thing. Sure I noticed it subconsciously as much as the next guy - I could just FEEL that something was different from the mainstream trash aside from true unbias (as much as possible), real, legitimate wit, and a completely furnished writing style. But did I know what that one other difference was? Nope, it always eluded me. I feel complete now. I can die in peace.
On the subject of totally lame writing, and the lack of patience for the good stuff, I can’t even express how much I hate people who read a review just because it is the first one available. In fact, I can’t say I’ve ever trusted a review that didn’t come from CGM anyway. Although I am vaguely considering a very pricey subscription to EDGE…
By the way, I’m very interested in what your thoughts on STALKER: Shadow of Chernobyl are. With the magazine’s untimely demise (although in this one regard, I think I was always afraid of the possible result anyway) I’ll never get to have a true second opinion on the game. I feel like I’m in uncharted territory, and after having been branded the “STALKRE board guru guy” (typo intentional) as well as the resident bad guy of the board on GameFAQs several times (just for sticking up for the game) I feel almost lost amid all the controversy. I have become unsure of myself, and indeed my own opinions.
I need you to review STALKER, Steve. Or Troy, he’d do a good job too. (pay your rent first though!)
April 4th, 2007 at 1:28 pm
I enjoyed the interview. I already miss CGM, it was hands-down my favorite. We already subscribed to PCGamer and CGW when I insisted on subscribing to CGM — my husband initially ignored it, but he ended up agreeing with me that it was the only magazine of the three that targetted us: adult gamers with time constraints who want intelligent discourse about games. Honestly, previews and reviews are nice, and sometimes hook me on games I otherwise would not have noticed, but it’s the articles and columns that I really enjoy and get something out of.