Co-Op Publishing – Thinking Out Loud

Now that I have officially been publishing board games for about half a year, some ideas have become increasingly interesting to me. Other than the typical questions that relate to the viability and profitability:

How do I get consumers to trust me, Tasty Minstrel Games, and the games I publish?
How do I get consumers to purchase the games on pre-order?
How do I help create buzz, hype, and contagious sharing of my games?
How do I encourage retailers to stock my games and request distributors carry the games?
Who do I trust for manufacturing?

One question that has been on my mind is the viability of a co-op or partially co-op publishing house. I suppose the answer to this depends on the parties involved and what I actually mean by a co-op publishing house. While reading this, please remember that I am thinking out loud.

What Is A Co-Op Publishing House?

The generalized idea for me is very simple. People that are interested in getting their board and/or card games published utilize the resources/expertise I have developed to bring their games to market. At the same time I utilize the investment capital they are committed to spending to bring their games to market. So the concept is actually very simple. Pay to play or something like that.

I feel like I need to reiterate what I just said, because I may have over simplified it. For this example, we have a hypothetical game designer named Gavan. Gavan has a game that he feels provides high quality game play, immersive theme, re-playability, and potentially low production costs. So, Gavan shops his game around to various publishers and realizes that either the publishers are not interested OR Gavan feels there would be insufficient compensation for his intellectual property. I try to respect both sides of the coin. A potential problem for Gavan is that he might not have the established network of resources to make the publishing go smoothly.

There may only be one opportunity for the game to be properly brought to market. If it fails or fails to meet the full potential, then that is a lost opportunity. I personally feel like Vinci / Small World is a GREAT example of this. Vinci is one of my favorite games. I always felt like it was under represented for how good of a game it is. Apparently so did Days of Wonder, so they re-themed the game and got some amazing artwork. Now Vinci has been reincarnated as Small World, which has pumped sales up tremendously.

Two publishers took what is essentially the same game and made a significantly different product. In comes the co-op publishing house as an opportunity for Gavan. Not only can he get his game published, but he can take on the financial risk himself while possibly getting an improved product and more sales. So, what are the pros and cons for the game designer.

Pros And Cons For The Game Designer

Pros:

Increased royalties and control over their own design when compared to typical publishing contract
Utilization of existing publishing and marketing expertise
Increased market exposure (game from a known publisher as opposed to an unknown publisher)
Increased distribution opportunities (by leveraging existing relationships)
More likely to be published by removing financial risk for publisher
More parties involved typically increases good ideas
Possibly using an existing development team

Cons:

Decreased royalties and control over their design when compared to self-publishing
Financial risk
Rejection for publication when providing capital for publishing will hurt more than normal

Pros And Cons For The Publisher

Pros:

No financial risk for bringing a game to market

Cons:

Risk that partially through the publishing project, the game designer will not have the money
Less control over a publishing project
Lower profit on games published this way
Messier contract and reporting requirements
Dealing with whining when you won’t publish a game despite having no financial risk

The Difficulties I Currently Foresee

This kind of format will have many difficulties. How will you verify that reporting is truthful and accurate? How will production payments be made? How will the revenues be split? How will you fund future reprints? How many games can be used as promotional giveaways? ETC ETC ETC.

The Obvious Synergies

There are a couple of things that I already do as a publisher of two soon to be released games Terra Prime and Homesteaders that are expensive. A new publisher would need to pay for these things also. Off the top of my head that includes ISBN Numbers and Bar Codes, international shipping, customs fees, advertising, trade shows, convention attendence, and the list probably goes on. The cost of these things all decrease per game as you increase the number of games that you publish. For example, I pay the same fee for ISBN numbers if I have any number less than 10. After that, I have the same fee for any quantity of ISBN numbers 11-100. Those are all fixed costs.

When I run a contest on Board Game Geek, it costs me the same amount of money if I promote 1, 2, or 4 games. I have a fixed cost to attend the GAMA Trade Show regardless of how many games I actually publish. The cost for shipping manufactured games to the United States goes down as I have quantities that fill entire containers, or the unlikely scenario of an entire boat. As I have more games to offer distributors I may consider the benefits of doing my own distribution.

All of these things stack to increase total profits. In the end you have smaller pieces of a larger pie. Don’t forget what matters is how much total pie you get. Please let me know what you think about all of these concepts. I am very curious!

Spread the word

Did you enjoy this article? If so, please blog about it, or share the post using any of the following services:

Tagged as: board games, card games, experiment, fulfillment, manufacturing, marketing, Publishing, Self Promotion

Michael Mindes

A lot to consider. As of right now, I think I would not opt to do this or offer this to any designers. There are just too many important angles and aspects to be considered. Currently, I have my hands full with trying to consider everything that I need for a standard publishing situation.

Thank you for all of the commentary regarding this situation. I find the feedback about the possibility of having a perceived dilution of game quality very informing. This is certainly the most problematic side effect that I would see.

fuzzypress

I am an independant printer and also do work on the digital print side,finding a way to produce games as needed has been something that should be of interest to all.I believe in the power to print as needed,not to have a warehouse filled with your product that you spent time developing and fine tuning.I would love to have the conversation continue so that a process can be developed so the cost to get your demo game out there and played so you can tweek and see how your mechanics fair in the real world with real gamers.Thank you again for this forum and i do think you are onto something with your marketing so that all can get the chance to afford a well designed game.Jeff

RedRookGames

Sounds like a great idea! Hopefully this will give new game designers a chance to get into the industry. That means more new games so we all win.

JeffSMays

One potential problem you may or may not have thought of... the fact that Tasty Minstrel will be attached to each game produced in this manner. Obviously, you will want to assure people that the co-op arrangement will not affect the quality of the games (I am thinking gameplay here, not components). While this may not be an actual issue, it may be a preceived issue. In my own case, I am severely limited to the number of games I can afford to buy, so each buy must be one I feel confident in (and for what it is worth, Homesteaders is currently in the running for one of those few purchases).

You have done a wonderful job promoting this through the recent BGG contest (thanks again for the mocirobadge and GG), and through the contest, the videos, and this blog, I would really like to help. Who wouldn't want to help a small new publisher? And given what I have seen of the game, I think it would play well with my group, but in the co-op format (while I really like the idea of a small publisher helping out other small designers) it might be harder for me to justify taking a risk without a pretty strong feeling of it being as strong as (I hope) Homesteaders will be. I am not saying I wouldn't purchase another title if it also got my attention, but it may make me hesitate a little, but if the games are good enough, BGG should be able to make up for this. Just random thoughts to consider.

Mark

I think the idea is interesting. It's certainly a 'put your money where your mouth is' type of scenario that would give serious incentive to designers to put out their best work. Of course, a lot depends on just how much money would be expected from the designer; I imagine many people don't have a ton of cash on hand and are not willing to take out a loan for such a gamble.

Jeff

This is an interesting idea, and one I've suggested in the past. To my mind, the real advantage to the publisher isn't the lack of risk, it's the ability to put more games out than one has in-house resources to publish; it lets you grow faster than you otherwise could. Even so, I suspect there's a reason that "P500" models are commonplace whereas "designer pays for print costs" are not -- in the former, pre-orders don't merely cover costs, they also point to demand that is predictive of future sales, whereas "designer pays" covers risk but doesn't necessarily indicate opportunity.

There are essentially two types of designers who might be interested in this kind of arrangement:
-- Wants to self-publish his game but doesn't want to go through the legwork of starting and supporting a business
-- Wants to license his game but no publisher will publish it

The former type of designer will be attracted to the arrangement but will expect a great deal of creative control over the artwork, title, theme, etc, as well as some input into the marketing, distribution, convention attendance, etc.

The latter type of designer would be happy just to see his name on a box, and might not demand as much creative input, preferring to leave those details to TMG.

The risk I see with the former designer (and the latter to some extent) is the potential perception by the gamebuying public that you will publish a game by any Tom, Dick, or Harry who will pay the production costs. QC, and combatting this perception, will be important.

The risk I see with the latter designer is that if you get in the habit of responding to submissions by saying "I can't publish your game myself, but if you pony up $5k maybe we can discuss it", designers could get the feeling that you are extorting from them and taking advantage of their desire to be published. Eventually, this will lead to submissions drying up.

For these reasons, I like the idea that Seth suggests, of framing the arrangement as a royalty-sharing agreement -- a contract you offer a designer could contain various terms, and the designer can choose which to accept (eg "$5k down with a 10% royalty, or $0 down with a 5% royalty", or whatever). It would be important to be very aboveboard about what sales range you predict for the game, and to indicate how the terms will apply to future print runs.

The ideal way to implement this would be to have a ranked list of the games you want to publish, and start at the top, offer terms to the designer, and then keep going down the list until you exceed your budget for the year (or quarter, or whatever). The more designers are willing to pay, the more games on your list you can publish. This fulfills the goal of enabling you to potentially expand your line more aggressively, and enables a designer who wants to accept more risk to potentially reap a bigger share of the profits. This is favorable and protects both the integrity of your brand and your reputation among designers, because it's ultimately a choice you're leaving up to the designer -- you aren't exerting any pressure or making it a condition to publication.

That's the only way I can see to making it work, unless someone comes to you /of their own volition/ and says, "hey, would you be willing to publish this game if I pay some of the print costs?" But make sure the contracts are very specific and air-tight in such a case. See the Age of Steam fiasco as exhibit A for what happens when companies try to partner without putting detailed terms in writing!

sedj

So to me this sounds like "hey designer that is considering self publishing... how about instead you pay me to publish your game? It'll save you hassle and possibly money!"

Which could be true - there are costs involved in self publishing, and so it's fair to offer a designer the chance to avoid all of those costs (both monetary and non-monetary - time and effort) and instead pay some price to the publisher. Their capitol investment might be the same, but instead of paying for various fees and costs, they would pay a fee to the publisher.

Shifting Skies Games had a similar idea to be a sort of 'label' for independent designers to publish under - the idea being that money is saved due to economies of scale. I don't think Boyan ever did end up publishing any games by other publishers though, so I don't know if that information is helpful or not.

So yes, I think the idea is sound - and it could potentially end up being a good deal for the designer compared to self publishing. The main difference between this and 'normal' publishing would be that the designer would put up capital, and in return get a larger royalty.

I will note that as the publisher in this scenario, you'd still be doing all the work, and more importantly your name (Tasty Minstrel) will be on the box, so there's always a danger of trashing the brand by publishing a bad product. So as you say, just because a designer is willing to put up the cash doesn't mean it should be an automatic deal. Hopefully Designers would realize that, but as you suggest, some may not.

The biggest question is this: IS it really a better deal for the designer than self publishing, after all is said and done? As the publisher, how much work will you put into ensuring the product is worthy of your label, and how much will you charge the designer for that plus the publishing service?

I think the better way to look at it is as I mentioned: normal publishing, but if you're willing to front the capitol, you'll get a better royalty. It's simpler to explain that way, makes more sense, and is largely the same thing.

Fez

Seems like a great idea when TM likes a game, but not quite enough to publish it yourself. It appears Dr. Finn's games is doing something similar. http://www.doctorfinns.com/games.html

Co-Op Publishing – Thinking Out Loud – Please Comment!