I’m not a regular reader of the Penny Arcade Report. However today I came across Senior Editor Ben Kuchera’s post on The Cut; a subsection of the Report Kuchera describes as a place to “point to stories that are worth reading.”
Glancing through the archives, The Cut usually posts links to other gaming news sites or news articles pertaining to video games. The post I spotted led to the blog of UK-born game designer and founder of Positech Games, Cliff Harris.
The post in question pertained to marketing of independent titles and consumer reaction to pricing. Mr. Harris recently released a title through Positech Games and discussed the psychology of his pricing strategy and consumer feelings of post-purchase rationalisation.
Mr. Harris states he has enjoyed a career in game development and programming; working for Elixir Studios and Lionhead Studios, formerly headed by Peter Molyneux. However there seems to be no indication of any reason why Mr. Harris’s opinions on pricing and marketing should be accepted as credible or reliable.
Kuchera’s post on The Cut explains Mr Harris’s blog post was chosen because it, “does a great job of explaining the other side of the coin, and the value that can be found in pricing your game slightly higher than people expect.”
Yet, there didn’t seem to be any reason why Mr. Harris’s was a particularly credible source. He has worked in the video game industry and as an independent developer, but mostly as a programmer and designer. He does not list any formal education or work experience in marketing or consumer behaviour, other than marketing his own games.
Mr. Harris openly admits, “I have a problem with selling my games.” He posits this is because they are “complex strategy (games).” If he feels his product is difficult to market, why is he in charge of marketing them? Does he have little confidence in his ability to sell his product to anyone other than the intended audience?
It calls into question why readers should take Mr. Harris’s advice. His blog post is mostly based on conjecture, limited experience and personal opinion, and yet Mr. Kuchera has argued Mr. Harris’s marketing strategy is a viable method for marketing independent titles.
“But this post does a great job of explaining the other side of the coin, and the value that can be found in pricing your game slightly higher than people expect. It sends a message, and a higher price may actually be more attractive to consumers who buy and play games in certain niches.”
It also does a great job of trying to sell you Positech’s latest title:
The blog belongs to Mr. Harris and he can sell whatever he likes from that platform. The difference is: now it has The Penny Arcade Report stamp of approval. This guy knows what he’s talking about. And there are plenty of opportunities to buy his game.
I don’t believe it was Mr. Kuchera’s intention to drive sales or that he had any ulterior motives to linking to Mr. Harris’s blog. But the connection is now there for all to scrutinise.
The saying goes: ‘A journalist is only as good as their sources.’
When a journalist’s sources lack credibility, it reflects poorly on the journalist. Journalists should instill a certain amount of trust in their audience. We follow their work because we believe in them. We trust them to be honest and think critically about the resources they utilise.
If a trustworthy journalist directs readers to a source arguing against man-made climate change, there is a certain understanding the journalist knows their source is not hiding an agenda. However if the source also loudly proclaims themselves to be a board member of an fossil fuel or automotive lobby, it affects not only my trust in the source, but my trust in the journalist. It shows that either the journalist did not investigate their source accurately or that they have a strong bias against man-made climate change.
Penny Arcade - and The Penny Arcade Report- is an enormous brand in the video game community. Mr. Kuchera himself is well known and commands a great deal of respect as senior journalist in the media.
Leading his audience to a posting like this shows a lack of critical thinking on Mr. Kuchera’s part. I asked Mr. Kuchera, via Twitter, what his reasoning was for highlighting Mr. Harris’s post.
@VidyaDave Interesting story by someone who knows what they're talking about. That's why I put anything in the Cut.
— Ben Kuchera (@BenKuchera) November 26, 2013
@VidyaDave I don't think my audience is stupid. They can read the "about" page and make up their own mind.
— Ben Kuchera (@BenKuchera) November 26, 2013
@VidyaDave You strike me as someone who is a whole lot of fun at parties.
— Ben Kuchera (@BenKuchera) November 26, 2013
Determining the legitimacy of a source can sometimes be an easy task. Received information about upcoming consoles? Sounds pretty easy to verify: simply ask to see some proof they work for the company they claim to. Or they have access to the materials they claim to hold. If they can prove it they must be legitimate, right? Well, no.
For months gaming sites reprinted rumours regarding the specifications of the Playstation 4 and Xbox One in the months before launch. Months before they were officially announced. Most were prefaced by claims the information was sent by an anonymous source and could not be verified. One such anonymous source revealed they had lied in an attempt to see how willing the media was to print baseless rumours. Not before the story was picked up by Yahoo [link dead], CNET, GamerRanx, VentureBeat, Gizmodo, VG247 and others.
The anonymous tipster, “made up every single word of it along with a couple of specs copied from other rumours ... appearing on the Internet.”
It sounded just plausible enough for game journalists to believe it to be legitimate, without any of the actual proof to back it up. VentureBeat’s Devindra Hardawar apologised and quickly changed the topic. Pocket-Lint writer Rik Henderson - reportedly the originator of the news coverage- justified the article because, “it is impossible to completely verify every piece of information,” and, “there were no outlandish claims - such as the next Kinect will be a inside a hat or the new controller will look like Charlie Chaplin's moustache.”
Several journalists felt the ‘rumour’ disclaimer was enough to absolve them of any responsibility regarding the legitimacy of the leak. Most disturbing was GamerRanx writer Alex Co’s opinion on the rumour,
“While I can't vouch for the site's credibility or its "source," we wouldn't be doing our job if we didn't report it at all, would we?”
VG247 writer Dave Cook felt that the hoax was a learning experience for journalists,
“Perhaps the rumour label should stop being used by the press – because we all do it – as a get-out clause...should we just avoid unverified sources altogether, even if some of them do turn out to be true in the end?”
The real question for gaming journalists to ask themselves is: What is more important? Posting any rumour as news, or jeopordising your reputation?
We shouldn’t rely on journalists to the extent we shut our brains off and take everything as gospel. Journalism doesn’t relieve us of our need to think critically about the messages we are fed. There should however be that trust in what the media reports. Journalists can’t release information out into the world and wash their hands of it; blaming the reader for not thinking critically enough. Nor can they complain when readers don’t have that trust. It has to be earned.
Young or impressionable independent developer might see a post like on The Cut and, with trust in Mr. Kuchera's judgement, believe in Mr. Harris's assertions that one can successfully sell a product by pricing high and avoiding sales. This could lead them to eschew certain opportunities for more visibility at a lower price (e.g. selling their product as part of a Humble Bundle) but ultimately harm their sales.
That's just one example. It doesn't mean Mr. Kuchera is now responsible for the downfall of any indie developer who reads his work. But it shows how trust in journalists and their work can influence the lives of their readers.
Young or impressionable independent developer might see a post like on The Cut and, with trust in Mr. Kuchera's judgement, believe in Mr. Harris's assertions that one can successfully sell a product by pricing high and avoiding sales. This could lead them to eschew certain opportunities for more visibility at a lower price (e.g. selling their product as part of a Humble Bundle) but ultimately harm their sales.
That's just one example. It doesn't mean Mr. Kuchera is now responsible for the downfall of any indie developer who reads his work. But it shows how trust in journalists and their work can influence the lives of their readers.
That's part of the job. Journalism isn’t just about reading your email, writing a few paragraphs, slapping a photo on and getting 500 pages hits before the end of the day. It requires critical thinking and analysis, investigation skills, ethical considerations. These aren’t things one can stash into a drawer and pull out only when a big story comes along. They dictate everything a journalist produces.
No comments:
Post a Comment