More Evidence That Legacy Gatekeepers Just Don't Understand Modern Business Models
from the it's-not-that-hard dept
For a while now, we have written about how legacy gatekeepers need to adapt to modern culture and business models if they want to survive. The primary point of contention that keeps many of these companies from adapting is one of control. Many of them don't want to lose what remnants of control they have left in order to become enablers. This mindset is what will be the death of many companies as the world moves on without them.
Some companies are making at least a half-hearted, if not completely misguided, attempt at trying to be hip. However, it seems to have been about as successful as a 60 year-old trying to use modern slang in order to connect with kids. Take for instance this recent comment by Obsidian CEO Feargus Urquhart in which he describes an exchange he had with a publisher about Kickstarter.
We were actually contacted by some publishers over the last few months that wanted to use us to do a Kickstarter.
I said to them ‘So, you want us to do a Kickstarter for, using our name, we then get the Kickstarter money to make the game, you then publish the game, but we then don't get to keep the brand we make and we only get a portion of the profits’ They said, ‘Yes’.
If you can't see the huge glaring flaw in the unnamed publisher's approach, let me elaborate. This publisher wanted to use Kickstarter as the funding source for an as yet unidentified project, while still keeping every other aspect of the traditional publisher/developer relationship intact. This means that the publisher would pay no money upfront, limiting almost all risk for the success of the project, while reaping all the rewards. Seriously.
While it is great that this publisher had become aware of Kickstarter and its potential for success, the fact remains that those in charge do not understand it in the slightest. The draw of Kickstarter and other crowdfunding services is to help creators fund their works and bring them to market. Few potential backers will be willing to support a project in which the creator loses all rights and control of the work after creation. These services are about empowering creators. A deal, such as the one above, in no way empowers the creator.
Hopefully, this is just a simple misstep as the publisher learns to walk the unfamiliar path of a new business model. We can hope that this publisher learns from this mistake and will take the time to better understand the culture behind crowdfunding and can find success by adapting itself to this culture rather than trying to shoehorn crowdfunding into its current business strategy. Because if it isn't willing to adapt, it might as well give up now.
Filed Under: business models, middlemen, publishers
Companies: kickstarter, obsidian
Comments on “More Evidence That Legacy Gatekeepers Just Don't Understand Modern Business Models”
Well...
I’ll give them credit for TRYING at least.
After all, if they don’t try, they’ll never learn, right?
Re: Well...
I think even if they did try, they’d still never learn…
Re: Re: Well...
They’ve been trying since the invention of the player piano, and they haven’t learned yet.
I think it’s bad that they not only don’t understand their own bullshit in these situations, but that they expect others to understand or reflect that same bullshit.
Re: Re:
Lol yeah. Its pretty sad when its basically you do all the work while we gain all the benefit for doing a whole lot of nothing.
Trying to learn from SACEM?
Sounds like the publishers are trying to learn from SACEM. We’ll take money people want to pay you directly, and then we’ll give you back a portion of it. Just trust us, we’re doing it to help you…
Re: Trying to learn from SACEM?
They probably have a point in that regard, but the solution is questionable at best:
“We cannot compete against a government monopoly. The only way to solve this problem is to give us the same kind of monopoly tools!”
Modern slavery
Record deals are the last remnants of legalized slavery.
Totally compares to what the Irish went through when immigrating to the US working in coal mines.
Also did you know they cant pay the royalties on some of the Star Wars movies because they didn’t make money? Yeah… slavery indeed.
Re: Modern slavery
The last remnants of slavery? Hardly. Slavery is all around us my good man. The capitalists control the means of production and if we want access to the means to live, we need access to that production and so we have to whore ourselves out to them. They own the factories, the farms, the hospitals and power plants. Because they own all that, they own us. Give the rich the power to control food and energy, and they will be able to control the people.
The idea that slavery is gone is a myth, it’s just been integrated into our very culture so well that we don’t see it.
Of course legacy gatekeepers understand business models.
The object is to maximize your profits as much possible while minimizing your risks as much as possible.
And as Wall Street bankers at places like WaMu would tell you, who cares about future revenue when you can make LOTS of money NOW! So you make $50 million in a few years and then your company goes bankrupt, you still made big money during those years, and can go work for some other ‘sucker’, erm, ‘company’, once the last one goes bust.
Tactfully yours...
I believe “in tact.” should be ” intact.”
Re: Tactfully yours...
Seems Zach is out of touch.
Re: Re: Tactfully yours...
Do you know where he could get more touch?
=P
Re: Tactfully yours...
Thanks. Fixed. Not sure how the typo makes me out of touch though.
Re: Re: Tactfully yours...
I assume it’s a Latin pun from the root words, “in” and “tactus”.
More From Obsidian
Here is a great interview with Obsidian’s Chris Avellone about Kickstarter and dealing with publishers:
http://techland.time.com/2012/09/21/project-eternity-chris-avellone-interview/
Some highlights about publishers:
And this one:
The only thing publishers have to add to a project is the money, and that’s fine, but now they don’t even want to put up the money!
Re: Re:
They never wanted to put up the money, they just never had a way to pin that on someone else, until now….
Which is funny because that was the only part that kept them from being chopped out of the process.
Publishers are going to figure out that what they really own, and should only own, is a box full of copies of someone else’s stuff. The fact that they own the IP of someone elses work has been something that’s detrimental to the progress of their industry for a long time, although it has been great for their control of it.
Re: Re:
This is sort of hard to say. Most software teams consist of a few dozen to a few hundred individuals that come and go. By having the investor hold the IP, at least one developer can’t just take the project and run off. Where it becomes detrimental is after the project is over, that publisher retains the IP and causes headaches if the developers want to bring the project back or do an off-shoot.
All of my rofl-copters… all of them
I see this everyday, square peg round hole.