[Deptheads] Meeting notes

[Janice Sellers]

Eric,

On 10/15/09, Eric Burgess <erburgess at gmail.com> wrote:
> 1) On whether the board game guests are a draw: Someone can check the
> numbers if they like but if you look back at the data, I think you'll see a
> bump when we brought in someone big (like Knizia, Jay Tummelson, Steve
> Jackson and Schacht) and you'll see not much when we punted (Dan Verssen,
> Tom Jolly).

Steve Jackson is not considered a board game publisher in the
indsutry.  He is still primarily an RPG publisher.  That said, he does
consistently bring people in.

Jay Tummelson is not a big name.  He isn't even a publisher.  He's an
importer.  I still can't believe we not only featured him as a guest
of honor, but fell over him to the degree we did.

> 2) I don't think doing what Mondo did makes any sense. Alan has been to our
> conventions many times in recent years - incidentally - he came out to meet
> Knizia and Schacht. I don't think scheduling a guest to tamp down an old
> rumor makes fiscal sense.

Alan has attended our conventions.  We have not had him come as a
guest.  Whether or not we should is a separate issue.

> 3) Bringing in well-known guests is a marketing bonanza for us. We get
> picked up by the national board game media and that's a lot more exposure
> for our brand. It shows this convention is a serious contender against
> Kublacon and other competitors.

Yes, it does garner us excellent publicity -- as a board game
convention.  If that's all we want to be and all we want people to
come for, that's great.  But if we want more than that, we should
promote other areas of gaming with guests also.

> 4) I have no issue with multiple guests - in fact, I think it makes sense
> but we should get a good list and market it effectively. Kublacon always has
> a list of guests and although regulars are always there (they have about ten
> regular 'special guests'), they also get a marquee name. Put Alan and many
> of these other guys on the list, fine.

KublaCon does excellent marketing, and we should definitely learn from
them.  They're also very cost-effective, because most of their regular
guests are either local to the Bay Area or attend on their own dime,
and it doesn't cost them anyhing to promote all of them on the Web
site.  I floated using that concept for our cons a while ago, but
nothing has come of it so far.

> 5) I have yet to hear a guest that will draw in the crowds for the RPG,
> minis, or other parts.

Games Workshop has that kind of draw, and we have discussed bringing
in one of the big names from the company, but it hasn't happened.

> 6) CCGs were flash in the pan. They were a fad. I think it is silly to
> compare them to board games or RPGs or minis. 15 years on from Magic, they
> are a blip for the con. Board Games were a big part of the convention when I
> started attending in 1986 and they are big now - even bigger. And - sorry to
> the rest - but they are the most approachable games to bring in families and
> casual gamers to build attendance. No other type of games will ever grow
> like that. I think we should just get over that idea.

I don't know what your experience in the industry is, but I have been
working in it for almost 20 years.  The bulk of my experience has been
in manufacturing and publishing, but I also have worked retail and
distribution.  RPG's used to be what drove the industry, then it was
cards.  Now it's Euro games.  I remember when family/board games were
moribund and companies were dropping like flies.  They were revived
when Tummelson's former employer took a risk and started importing
family games from Germany, where they were huge.  (Coincidentally,
that same company was the one that took the biggest risk on Magic and
helped it spread and become popular.)  I don't know how long the
current state of affairs will maintain itself or if a new craze will
come along.  But board games have not always been the draw they are
now.

Janice