Re: Purpose of this Newsgroup

From: "Roy 'Plod' Pollard" <plod@NOSPAMproweb.co.uk>

Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1999 00:00:00 +0000

Hi John,

John Lee <johnlee@hinterland.fesnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:385a7e20.3290829@news.freeserve.net...
> On 17 Dec 1999 12:51:01 GMT, madcentral@aol.com (MadCentral) wrote:
>
> >>>This isn't intended to be sarcastic (well maybe just a little) but
> >you've picked some terrible examples of what you see as being 'good'
> >websites.<<
> >
> >I guess that depends on how you look at websites.  There are plenty of
website
> >guru's out there (which you sound a bit like too) who feel that a website
> >should look like this or work like that.  Yet (more and more these days)
> >web-surfers are just general folk who want a pretty and informative
website.
> >All the ones I mentioned look fine to me and give the info I would want
from a
> >players standpoint.
>
> Potential players (such as me) are fickle - If they get the chance to
> see a good-looking site they'll look at it straight away. Design and
> 'eye-catch' work first on most people, followed by content second.
> >

We've talked about this before through email - But I think that you're
missing the fact that websites particularly Play By Mail games are almost
exclusively visited by people who are already in the hobby. The main problem
is getting people outside of the hobby to actually look at us - Once the
hooks into a few of them, we've got them.

So how to improve our presence on the web? Guess the best way is to pay for
small pieces of advertising space on more mainstream game sites. We did a
'test-run' of banner adverts for Day One on a couple of online Magazine
sites both in the UK and the US - granted they cost us about 50 dollars and
got as  a few thousand hits - but from that outlay we got a decent amount of
players. Granted our circumstances makes it easy for us to recruit, but I'd
say that introducing the idea of PBM into the minds of the mainstream would
almost certainly work.

> >>> These things are not only supposed to be sources of
> >information, but also shop windows for those looking to play the games
> >they're advertising.<<
> >
> >And your point is?
>
> My point is that a lot of PBM games 'shop windows' are downright awful
> - Second hand shops compared to boutiques..
> >

I agree. Ours is one of the best-looking PBM sites on the web (maybe people
will argue that the content is weak) for people using IE (still haven't
cracked Netscape yet) - I think we get most of our initial enquiries because
its 'nice to look at'
That said - there's merit in perhaps adopting a 'non graphical' button -
perhaps for the more cynical, existing PBM players.
Gloss is good but it doesn't swing for everyone
.
> >>> I can name three websites you mentioned above
> >which haven't had a single update for over three months - <<
> >
> >So?  If the information is there, its there.
>
> Correct. But like I said before - Why should a casual observer enter a
> shop to find lots of goodies when the windows are papered over with
> crayon drawings?
> >
> >>>and five
> >websites look so amateurish that I'd think a potential player would
> >compare them to other games websites and decide to stick with them
> >instead.<<
> >
> >Well, I play as well as GM and what I look for is useful and interesting
info
> >and a reasonably pleasant site.  I don't go over my A-Z of 'site
coolness' to
> >choose a game.  I choose it for its content.  Im sure most players do
too.
>
> Most players don't use the web - Most potential-players do. If a PBM
> company could get even a minute percentage of 'casual' games players
> to consider PBM after looking at their website, they'd potentially be
> on for a big increase in profits.
> You seem to respond to what I'm saying as if my ideas are strange - To
> me its pure logic that something must look good as well as 'being'
> good. If you guys can't twig to that then you're missing a significant
> chunk of commercial awareness.
> >
We're non-commercial but I'd agree totally with what you say. If we were to
ever go in the professional direction (hopefully never) I think our
experiences with web-based advertising and 'player acquisition' would stand
us in better stead than a lot of the bigger firms.

The only example of someone who's looking seriously at the webs potential
for PBM is (jeez I've forgotten his name!! sorry mate!) the guy who runs
Mindshift designs (think its www.mindshiftdesign.com) - If he gets his WS up
soon I'll be first in the queue one of their games - If only for the fact
that I'm web-site fickle.

> >>>I can name a number of PBM websites which MIGHT qualify for being good
> >- but you've not listed one of them - All of them produced by smaller
> >companies which perhaps see greater potential in web-based players and
> >so perhaps inject a little more imagination into their efforts<<
> >
> >How good a web-site designer a GM is has no bearing on how I choose a
game to
> >play.  Neither do opinions from self-styled 'knowledgables' on 'how a
website
> >should look'.
>
> No effect on YOU, probably not. I think I'm banging my head against a
> brick wall. I'm talking about publicising games to a potential player.
>
> Is it me or is no-one here able to see that the Webs a big potential
> market if only you up your efforts to appeal to a web-based audience?
> (Not aimed specifically at you, Steve)

We're listening John. Now how about you show us another of your lovely
examples? You could always do an overhaul of our own WS if you want
something to work with!
:-)

CU Saturday.

R
www.firstday.co.uk
Any inferred insults / threats are purely intentional.

References

Re: Purpose of this Newsgroup
johnlee@hinterland.fesnet.co.uk (John Lee)
Thu, 16 Dec 1999 00:00:00 +0000
Re: Purpose of this Newsgroup
madcentral@aol.com (MadCentral)
Fri, 17 Dec 1999 00:00:00 +0000
Re: Purpose of this Newsgroup
johnlee@hinterland.fesnet.co.uk (John Lee)
Fri, 17 Dec 1999 00:00:00 +0000