Front Page

Content

Authors

Game Index

Forums

Site Tools

Submissions

About

O
oliverkinne
October 26, 2021
132 0
MT
Matt Thrower
October 25, 2021
505 0
O
oliverkinne
October 22, 2021
463 0
D
DavidNorris
October 21, 2021
687 0
MB
Michael Barnes
October 20, 2021
3079 0
Hot
V
Varstriga
October 20, 2021
286 0
T
thegiantbrain
October 20, 2021
271 0
O
oliverkinne
October 18, 2021
708 0
GS
Gary Sax
October 16, 2021
505 0
O
oliverkinne
October 15, 2021
610 0

K2 Review - Digital Eyes

Board Game Reviews
B
BradHB
October 15, 2021
518 0
D
DavidNorris
October 14, 2021
543 0
T
thegiantbrain
October 13, 2021
299 0
O
oliverkinne
October 12, 2021
595 0
D
DavidNorris
October 11, 2021
902 0
O
oliverkinne
October 08, 2021
892 0

Sprawlopolis Review

Board Game Reviews
×
Bugs: Recent Topics Paging, Uploading Images & Preview (11 Dec 2020)

Recent Topics paging, uploading images and preview bugs require a patch which has not yet been released.

× Talk about whatever you like related to games that doesn't fit anywhere else.

Rodney Smith discussing Paid/Unpaid reviews

More
28 May 2019 13:59 #297738 by WadeMonnig

rafcordero wrote:

However, to me the difference is that while you can probably ensure *that* they write about you, you can't control *how* the story is told. And maybe that could be way for getting a bit of cash for producing content.


I don't know the details, so this may be off in small or large ways, but this is a bit how Geek & Sundry works. Companies can talk with the business/marketing department to purchase bundles of content. If any of that work is written content the editor assigns articles to the writers, however the content of that written work is not dictated by the marketing agreements. I wrote a number of articles to satisfy those requirements and never felt like I was doing anything dirty. My editor was clear with the requirement, and I'd use the opportunity to write about painting minis or something that wasn't editorialized content. G&S used a boilerplate disclaimer any time we wrote about that company within the marketing agreement.

G&S pays well below the market normal for freelance work. I have no idea how any outlet, in this industry or not, could pay employees without accepting funding from a person or company that could potentially create a conflict of interest if it wasn't managed correctly.


Case in point: BGG runs plenty of ads but still does a yearly fund raiser.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Rliyen, Vysetron, n815e

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
28 May 2019 15:03 #297741 by RobertB

WadeMonnig wrote:

rafcordero wrote:

However, to me the difference is that while you can probably ensure *that* they write about you, you can't control *how* the story is told. And maybe that could be way for getting a bit of cash for producing content.


I don't know the details, so this may be off in small or large ways, but this is a bit how Geek & Sundry works. Companies can talk with the business/marketing department to purchase bundles of content. If any of that work is written content the editor assigns articles to the writers, however the content of that written work is not dictated by the marketing agreements. I wrote a number of articles to satisfy those requirements and never felt like I was doing anything dirty. My editor was clear with the requirement, and I'd use the opportunity to write about painting minis or something that wasn't editorialized content. G&S used a boilerplate disclaimer any time we wrote about that company within the marketing agreement.

G&S pays well below the market normal for freelance work. I have no idea how any outlet, in this industry or not, could pay employees without accepting funding from a person or company that could potentially create a conflict of interest if it wasn't managed correctly.


Case in point: BGG runs plenty of ads but still does a yearly fund raiser.


That boggles my mind.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Rliyen, Gary Sax, WadeMonnig

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
28 May 2019 15:04 #297742 by mads b.
I honestly believe that being mentioned in a segment about "upcoming kickstarters we've played" is something I as a designer and would be publisher would pay for. And obviously I wouldn't demand a positive mention, but having professionals play a game and state a well argumented for opinion would be super valuable.

I also think you could make a very clear disclaimer describing the process. The only problem would be if a game just doesn't fit the players taste or if it has obvious problems. But vetting could solve the first issue, and the opportunity to request not having an opinion printed in very dire circumstances could be an offer you'd make and them the publisher would simply have paid for a playtest and much needed feedback.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
28 May 2019 18:30 #297749 by Msample

RobertB wrote:

WadeMonnig wrote:

rafcordero wrote:

However, to me the difference is that while you can probably ensure *that* they write about you, you can't control *how* the story is told. And maybe that could be way for getting a bit of cash for producing content.


I don't know the details, so this may be off in small or large ways, but this is a bit how Geek & Sundry works. Companies can talk with the business/marketing department to purchase bundles of content. If any of that work is written content the editor assigns articles to the writers, however the content of that written work is not dictated by the marketing agreements. I wrote a number of articles to satisfy those requirements and never felt like I was doing anything dirty. My editor was clear with the requirement, and I'd use the opportunity to write about painting minis or something that wasn't editorialized content. G&S used a boilerplate disclaimer any time we wrote about that company within the marketing agreement.

G&S pays well below the market normal for freelance work. I have no idea how any outlet, in this industry or not, could pay employees without accepting funding from a person or company that could potentially create a conflict of interest if it wasn't managed correctly.


Case in point: BGG runs plenty of ads but still does a yearly fund raiser.


That boggles my mind.


People are willing to throw free money at them, why not keep taking it?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
28 May 2019 20:52 #297754 by Sevej

G&S pays well below the market normal for freelance work. I have no idea how any outlet, in this industry or not, could pay employees without accepting funding from a person or company that could potentially create a conflict of interest if it wasn't managed correctly.


And then you have outlets who are willing to do it without the correct management. It's really tough.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
29 May 2019 08:16 #297757 by Vysetron

Msample wrote: People are willing to throw free money at them, why not keep taking it?


I run comprehensive ad/script blocks on BGG because their ads shatter the site's already iffy usability. As such I chuck a couple bucks at 'em each year. Bad as it can be, it's a vital resource.

I have TWBG whitelisted, of course.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Rliyen

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Moderators: Gary Sax
Time to create page: 0.132 seconds