Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

F***ing off for charidee

Bah humbug.

Two things have really got me annoyed this afternoon and frankly put me in something of a bad mood. This is a shame, because earlier I was in a good mood, having returned from lunch with a friend to find that my RPG shop had taken two substantial orders from France in my absence.

Both those orders came on the back of a little bit of digital marketing. I wrote a couple of blog posts. The first simply reproduced Dungeon Magazine's 2004 list of the 30 Greatest D&D Adventures of All Time, while the second explained what was wrong with the original article and suggested 20 more adventures. I then included both posts in an email newsletter, sent the newsletter to existing customers and posted about the articles on a couple of relevant facebook groups. Lots of interest, discussion, likes etc on the facebook page, and subsequently these two sales this afternoon.

Then I got this response on Facebook:


First off, it's not a list of 50, it's an old list of 30 and a new list of 20. Secondly, it's more of a list of "different" style adventures, not necessarily excellent ones. Thirdly, the whole article seems like click-bait. Pass."

I'm not going to answer back (that's not good PR!), but I am going to post a cowardly fisk here.

First off, it's not a list of 50, it's an old list of 30 and a new list of 20."
You're surprised by this? What part of the sentence "Dungeon Magazine's 2004 list of the 30 Greatest Adventures of All Time plus a further twenty less famous ones that are just as good (IMO...)" did you not understand?

"Secondly, it's more of a list of "different" style adventures, not necessarily excellent ones."
You see the acronym "IMO"? That means "In My Opinion". And in my opinion, all twenty are excellent. You may well have different opinions. The way these discussion threads work is that you post about what you think should have been on the list and what shouldn't, rather like everyone else has been doing.

Thirdly, the whole article seems like click-bait."
Technically, "click-bait" are posts designed to send you to a page where the full text of the article (or possibly not even the article you thought you were clicking on) is surrounded by display advertising which produces revenue for the site publisher. Since this isn't the case with these blog articles, they aren't technically click-bait. However, if you mean that the articles were posted simply to get people in the Facebook group "Tabletop Role-Playing Games"
to click through to the my online shop that sells Tabletop Role-Playing Games so that some of them might buy some Tabletop Role-Playing Games, then well, yes, obviously. Duh.

The other thing that has got me annoyed this afternoon is that someone tagged me to do that fecking ice bucket thing. I'm not doing it. My views are not that dissimilar to the Australian newsreader who called it out, and whom you might have seen on Facebook:

I'm sorry, but this is one of those charidee (not charity) things that is all about the egos of the people doing it. Don't get me wrong, it's a brilliant piece of marketing by the charity, and it's obviously a worthy cause, but...

  1. It's not my cause.

  2. I don't do peer pressure. I mean lots of people say this, but I really don't do peer pressure.

  3. I won't be blackmailed into giving money to a charity I don't normally give money to.

  4. In fact, I won't be blackmailed into doing anything just because of peer pressure. If you want to blackmail me, you'll need to try harder. Very hard in fact as I'm basically pure and good.

  5. I was already perfectly 'aware' of Motor Neurone Disease. I'm also aware of lots of other bad things in the world that have charities associated with them.

  6. I'm not vain enough to think that the world wants to see me stripped off and dripping.

  7. I don't have an infinite supply of £10s or £50s or how ever much you're supposed to contribute.

  8. I already do way more for charity (not charidee) than the overwhelming majority of people throwing buckets of water over their head do.

So there you go. Basically f*** the f*** off. I'm not throwing a bucket of water over my head just because you told me so, any more than I'm going to share that ridiculous story about Heineken sponsoring dog fighting, or that police warning about strangers who get into women's cars. But I am going to write original content for people who I think might be interested in it in the hope that it makes me some money.

Of course now I have to decide whether to just ignore the Facebook tag, or to tell the tagger why I won't be doing it. I might just say "No. Find someone else."


( 7 comments — Leave a comment )
Aug. 27th, 2014 06:42 pm (UTC)
Hear, hear on the icebucket thing, and on your response to the idiot rejection of what is as you say a polite and restrained specialist marketing strategy.
Aug. 27th, 2014 07:08 pm (UTC)
Thanks for that. I sometimes think when I go off on a rant, that I'm the only one. It's nice to hear that I'm not just being an angry loon.
Aug. 27th, 2014 07:42 pm (UTC)
No, it's not just you.
Aug. 27th, 2014 07:47 pm (UTC)
And again, thanks.
Aug. 27th, 2014 08:53 pm (UTC)
Justifiable ranting in both cases IMO!
Aug. 28th, 2014 05:54 am (UTC)
Sympathies, and re the ice bucket, you could just ignore completely, or if you like you could say, "No thanks!" I don't suppose the person tagging you meant to annoy you... -N
Aug. 28th, 2014 05:34 pm (UTC)
First off, it's not a list of 50, it's an old list of 30 and a new list of 20.

Oh dear. This fellow would appear to be a bit of a pettifogging bore.

I agree concerning the ice water as well.

Edited at 2014-08-28 05:34 pm (UTC)
( 7 comments — Leave a comment )