A simple thank you

[Murph]

Well, that worked better than I thought it would. Back on track and everything, which is good, because this is an interesting thread.

As to publicity and marketing, I know exactly the difficulties being described with niche markets. I'm helping a friend develop a board game for Columbia Games based on the Peloponnesian War (Pre-Roman Athens vs Sparta - but I'm sure most everyone on this forum does NOT need me to tell them that). Board wargaming is as niche as niche markets get, so the way we're doing it is developing the game, setting up options for pre-sales and printing and shipping dependant upon the amount of interest as shown by pre-sales numbers.

Of course, we both have other jobs... But the niche problem is the same. Actually, sometimes the thing to do is really burrow into your specific niche - for example, this game is going to be: 3 hours long, 2-player, at least 2 scenarios, using the core block rules - everything else is up in the air, but with boardgames, you almost have to pick a niche and go with it.

It's not exactly the same with computer games of course, there are notable cross-genre (and what's a genre but a pretty big niche, really) successes - sweet Rome: Total War, my copies in the mail.. But by-en-large, cross-genre is more of a risk than simply doing something within established fields. Hence all the Diablo, or Warcraft or FPS clones out there.

So yes, how do you do niche marketing? Word of mouth is best, really, although making your product available in demo form is a good way to get people (like me) interested. I absolutely agree that a full-page ad in PCG is not the way to go for Dom2, but similarly, neither is investing all the money in server architecture and software development so that a few people can buy and download the game Online. I mean, the point of any business is to figure out the way that works best for you - that is effective both in terms of cost and time and customer happiness. If Shrapnel feels that they found there solid ground on this, wicked, because it means that we can get the benefits of great developers work, AND that they can get the benefits of our cash money.

Oh, and Saxon and deccan, I've been to south america where free trade and privatization, enforced by the World Bank and the WTO have allowed multi-national corporations to gain control of water supplies and other essentials of life. I'm all for limited free trade and privatization, but I have grave concerns about "free" trade that the WTO enforces, which does not allow countries to stop selling products or resources once they start.

I live in an area with vast water and energy resources, and as the water and envery shortages get worse in the next 20 years, I fully expect to see armed US soldiers on the dams and rivers that flow past my door, and free trade will justify their being there. But that's a whole other can of worms.

[deccan]

Murph said:
I'm all for limited free trade and privatization, but I have grave concerns about "free" trade that the WTO enforces, which does not allow countries to stop selling products or resources once they start.

I'm not sure what that means. How can countries be forced to sell things they no longer want to sell?

Murph said:
I live in an area with vast water and energy resources, and as the water and envery shortages get worse in the next 20 years, I fully expect to see armed US soldiers on the dams and rivers that flow past my door, and free trade will justify their being there. But that's a whole other can of worms.

Water and energy resources issues are normally subject to specific (and sometimes very old) treaties that fix prices and supplied quantities between countries, hence creating huge distortions, and not directly through free trade (i.e. varying prices and quantities traded according to supply and demand).

But this is really a whole other can of worms.

Start an OT post on this subject and I'll happily jump in.

[atul]

deccan said:

I'm not sure what that means. How can countries be forced to sell things they no longer want to sell?

Perhaps because they're obliged to do so by treaties they've had to sign in exchange of loans and such?

The book's obviously biased, but nevertheless I found Michel Chossudovsky's book "Globalization of Poverty" a good read. If nothing else, at least it gives several case studies on subject of How Can I Totally Mess Up Weaker Economies. Such education is always good for aspiring rulers of the world.

[Murph]

I'm not sure I want to get into a full-on OT thread on the subject of neoliberal trade policies, but basically with GATT (general agreement on trade and tariffs) and the WTO, if country A starts selling, say, water to country B, and then is running short on water and wants to stop, GATT obliges Country A to pay Country B for basically "lost profits", which means that if Country A can afford whatever Billion (depends on the size of the treaty, but we're talking fat, fat cash in any case) then they can stop, unless of course the WTO rules that what Country A is doing is an "unfair barrier to trade", and then they can FORCE Country A to keep selling water - even if they are experienceing drought or something. And in the Last decade, %80 of rulings on matters in this regard have gone towards Country B. Sweet, sweet water.

So anyway, it's pretty easy to mess w/less wealthy and powerful countries in the present world trade market. I think I'll glance over the Globalization of Poverty, and if anyone wants a different (and admittedly biased, but at least they admit it) view of the benefits of globalization, check out the New Internationalist Magazine.

[Saxon]

As always, these forums get off topic, but that is the reason they are so much fun! If some one does want to open an OT thread on this, please let us know, it would be interesting.

The free trade/liberalization debate has strong proponents on both sides and the earlier stated sources represent one half. If anyone really wants to give this a fair treatment, have a read of what has been listed before, but also have a look at some of Milton Friedman’s work, especially Freedom to Choose. A depressing, but enlightening book is Fishing in Africa, which will give a first hand account of how people die when governments start meddling with economics.

As a final point, I would like to posit, with no offense intended to Murph, that living and working in a country gives a very different view of the country than touring it. After eight years in Kenya, I see it rather differently than when I first arrived, with a greater understanding. Let me give an example linked to this discussion. And yes, this is a soapbox of mine, but living in a society with so many visibly poor around me, I have grown sensitive to the issues.

When I got here, I needed to buy a car. The tariff on imported minivans was something like 70 or 80%, I forget the exact figure, but I know that it was 100% tax on a new car. That is right, if you bought a new car, you paid 100% tax. I bought a used car, as I could not afford a new one. This tax was intended to protect the local manufacturing sector, but forced me, and all Kenyans in the market, to buy low quality goods. It also drove the product out of the reach of most people.

Later, I read about the job losses caused when some local minivan production plants were closed. This was because Kenya had removed the trade tariffs on imported minivans, making the Kenyan factories uncompetitive. Several thousand jobs were lost and I saw this as the IMF being evil and hurting Kenyans. They also cut the car tax way down, I think to around 20/30%, which made newer cars more attractive. This caused my old second hand car to lose even more value, so this free market move cost me some cash. In the short term, I was pretty grumpy and convinced the IMF was evil.

What happened next? Well, for me, my next car purchase was great. I got a much newer car for the same price. So did every other Kenyan in the market. Instead of being forced to buy old clunkers, we could now buy decent cars. And, some people could now buy the clunkers, access to the market had become easier. This really showed up in the minivan industry.

Kenyans rarely take buses, they mostly take minivans, which are run as small businesses. Before the tariff cuts, locally assembled ones were used and there were not that many around. However, when the tariffs cut, people could afford to enter the market. Suddenly, we were flooded with cheap minivans. We had more choices of public transit, waits were shorter, new routes opened, more people had jobs running them and costs stayed the same. For eight years, the price of public transit stayed the same, while inflation drove everything else up. My grocery bill has doubled, but the cost of taking public transit to work is exactly the same.

Now, seven or eight years ago, several thousand people lost their jobs because a tariff was removed. In the intervening years, millions of Kenyans have benefited from an improved transportation network, cheaper cars, new jobs in transportation and dropping costs, adjusted by inflation. I have not mentioned the rise of a huge taxi industry, backed by privatized mobile phones, but which would not be possible without cheaper cars, nor have I mentioned the benefits to farmers who can now get their goods to market, as the spin offs are so numerous.

In short, the liberalization of trade that looked and felt like a bad thing, has actually been a very good thing. This pattern has been repeated many times around the world, short term pain for long term gain.

[Cainehill]

That's fine WRT to some things - cars are a perfect example. But too many countries have "privatized" their water supplies, for instance, sometimes at the insistence of the IMF. The outside company comes in, and unfortunately, has stockholders, etc, and the company's only responsibility is to make the largest profit possible. Increasing efficiency doesn't get the largest profits, instead, cutting costs, lowering quality, and keeping prices stable or rising is. So the people wind up drinking bad water in the name of capitalism and the free market.

(I've lived in some countries that were like this, and my SO of 2.5 years is a native of one.)

Some things simply should not be privatized. Water supplies and other things the public health and welfare depend on; this indirectly includes such things as hazardous waste disposal, especially nuclear. (The USA privatized some government sections that handled nuclear waste, including taking Russia's waste and reprocessing it to make it useful for reactors again instead of useful for bombs. Oops - circumstances changed, the private company found it wasn't profitable to continue this, and stopped, leaving more bomb-capable waste sitting unprotected.)