|
United States68 Posts
Gvien the recent dialog about journalism, I want to defend EGs perspective in a way that doesn’t seem to be happening right now. More importantly, I want to synthesize a lot of what has been discussed to take a more comprehensive, and capitalist, view of what is unfolding.
Let me begin with the “capitalist perspective.” This merely states that each character should act in his own (long-term) financial best interest. This means starting with how these characters make their money.
Mr. Baer noted that good journalism is about access to information. Thus, a journalist’s financial interest is in releasing information.
It is then important to ask, how does a journalist gain access to information? LiquidNazgul answered this for us: relationships with the source of information. Relationships are critical to a journalist’s income.
If relationships with teams matter, then the journalist must always consider the financial interests of the source. In our case, we’re looking at Slasher and EG. So what is EG’s financial interest?
EG is primarily a marketing organization (See ItG ep58 and others). Thus, EG’s financial interest is in controlling the flow of information. We immediately see the tension.
Since releasing information is always in the direct financial interest of the journalist, let’s look at how information release via Slasher impacts EG, and therefore, his relationship with EG.
A: Mutually beneficial
- e.g. An exclusive interview or a joint press release.
- This generates positive press for EG. Because EG is a marketing-driven organization, these have serious impacts on EG’s bottom line, and have a more outsized-positive impact on the relationship between EG and Slasher.
B: Neutral
- e.g. Idra goes 0-4 in MLG groups
- Ultimately neutral or even very slightly negative press isn’t a bad thing, because it keeps EG in the conversation. Again, as a marketing-driven organization, traffic is usually good. So this will, at worst, have no impact on the relationship.
C. Bad for EG
- e.g. Journalist tweeting “Jaedong to EG”
- Alex Garfield pointed out, because EG is a marketing-driven organization, these pre-emptive announcements have a big negative impact on EG’s bottom line, moreso than for a traditional sports team. The bigger the negative impact on EG’s bottom line, the more it hurts his relationship with EG, thus reducing the future ease with which Slasher will gain information to publish.
In light of this, should EG embargo Slasher? All that matters is what is in EG’s best interest. Gamestop may dislike such an embargo and retaliate somehow, and the chain of consequences continues. From a capitalist perspective, the correct decision maximizes their long-term financial interests. Neither altruism nor spite are appropriate justifications for a choice.
Most importantly, noone should spite EG for looking out for its own financial interests. It’s a business. The survival and proliferation of strictly for-profit businesses is the only real sign that eSports is a legitimate “industry” and not a glorified hobby.
Conclusion: Just as EG shouldn’t expect Slasher to respect their wishes, access to EG is something that Slasher shouldn’t take for granted, and that’s the way the system is supposed to work.
Afterthoughts:
Many (including all journalists) will say that, in an “ideal” world, all information should be always public. But we must remember that for all information to be always publishable is always in the best financial interests of the journalist.
In a “free” economy with “freedom of the press” the point is simply to ensure that each organization is free of influence from the government, and has nothing to do with influence on each other. Monopoly-busting regulation is one of the only things that is supposed to govern how business interact with each other (including press organizations).
In a PR battle between “Organization v. The Press,” also remember that “The Press” has much more experience and leverage when it comes to getting a message out, because getting messages out is simply what they do, and what is always in their financial interests. Thus, be mindful of the fact that, in such a situation, you will always see overwhelmingly more contribution from journalists protecting journalists than “business-people” protecting “business-people”. In this case, journalists defending themselves is simply “doing their jobs.” It is quite convenient.
Journalists provide a necessary and valuable service to the world. If that weren’t true, noone would get paid to do it. But journalism is not above reproach. I don’t blame any journalists for defending other journalists. But we must be mindful of the inherent incentives and biases within a system. I hope EG and Slasher can resolve this in a mutually beneficial way - I love me my eSports news.
  
|
I planned on writing something up regarding the relationships involved in journalism vs. PR, but as an addendum to any such article I might write, I would say that organizations need not look very far if they want to make the most of their own announcements.
The more people that are privy to information, the more likely it is to leak. A basic tenant in most organizations is the aspect of keeping things on a need-to-know basis, especially if it involves somewhat sensible material/information. If that means not letting players, or certain staff aware of the moves happening behind the scenes, that's one route to take.
If you're going to argue that you want to keep an open and fluid organization, you might have to get NDAs signed with partners (and even your own staff/players), and outside sources in whatever deals, promotions or moves you're making, if you're truly committed to being the ones orchestrating and announcing the information.
For someone as business-savvy as Alex, I'm surprised a lot of this has taken place. I'm sure we can definitely expect some changes in the future.
|
The problem is that we have no insight into what kind of deal would be worth cooperating for both sides, since no one knows EG's nor Slasher/Gamespots numbers. Plus, it's not exactly easy to predict certain what-if scenarios even for those having access to the metrics.
It's an open secret that it's about leverage and as a consequence about money. Two basic approaches would assume either:
- There is a set amount of money
It's about distribution. So neither EG nor Slasher are inherently wrong in trying to get the biggest share out of it. They are in fact, doing their jobs to the best of their ability (within legal and certain moral constraints) . Of course, it's the most simplistic way to look at it. But it is sufficient to cover the first of the teams' arguments: That Slasher is effectively "stealing" money from them. The point of contention would be whether it was theirs to begin with, since the traffic never existed before the information became public. In my opinion, there is too little debate about such a fundamental aspect.
- There is growth and decay
It includes the first approach, but with the notion that certain behaviors can either promote, stunt, invert growth, or be neutral. So instead of the question, which contribution yields what share, there is additionally the consideration of what contribution has what kind and how much impact. It is one thing to discuss which behaviors would be desirable, another to actuate a specific actor to do so. In absence of a binding governing body, it is accomplished through multilateral agreements, a system of incentives and repercussions and public judgment. Of course, everybody will plead in favor of themselves. The discussion to be had is to what extent we collectively deem those pledges reasonable. A simple "anything that hurts X in any way is always bad" is in my opinion insufficient.
In comes the problem I introduced at the start. Eventually, it is up to the individual actor to run his numbers. When frictions arise, it can be a sign of misjudgment. It also can be due to incompatibility of objectives and expectations. To put it simple, negotiations were not successful. Having the numbers of each side would help public judgment. Alas, there are sensible reasons not to publish them.
It leaves us unable to accurately state how much a certain actor would gain from a specific deal. We can only gather from a failed deal that obviously one or all parties deemed the deal not worth it.
|
Capitalism is always about hiding behind "the world is not ideal".
|
On January 18 2013 08:07 Dracolich70 wrote:
Capitalism is always about hiding behind "the world is not ideal".
boo hoo comrade, capitalism doesn't hide. its invisible
On a more serious note, obviously there is no right or wrong answer here. This isn't watergate and no crime has been committed. Some sports teams let reporters have scoops but controls pertinent information (such as who's injured and who won't be playing etc etc.). The relationship between EG and Slasher is strictly between them and its up to how they deal with each other. Obviously we don't want EG to have so much power that they control every bit of information about them, but also think how "the decision" would have sucked if someone leaked to which team Lebron was going. We should only care if the balance of power shifts too much to one side.
|
5003 Posts
On January 18 2013 08:07 Dracolich70 wrote:
Capitalism is always about hiding behind "the world is not ideal".
amusing part is capitalism is only justified when the world *is* ideal.
|
On January 18 2013 00:34 Arcane86 wrote:
The survival and proliferation of strictly for-profit businesses is the only real sign that eSports is a legitimate “industry” and not a glorified hobby.
Who cares about that?
What's wrong with glorified hobbies?
that's what it IS
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
