@neal5x5

It’s not. Origins is a major showcase for the industry to get things into the public eye in North America. I am sure that Origins will be back next year. Consumer shows have become a significant part of any companies marketing budget and the fact that more and more conventions are happening, and happening successfully, proves that.

@rastamann
But that is exactly what a trade association is supposed to do. This is not about Origins but about GAMA and who and what they represent. This is just the latest, and most public, step in a long series of struggles to define GAMA for a modern industry.

GAMA was created at a time when you could fit the names of all the board game publishers in the world on a small slip of paper. It was to be a way to help those publishers reach distributer and retailers with information about upcoming product. Early on they became a political tool to work with governments on things like trade tariffs, duties and taxes, and piracy

Now days there are tens of thousands of publishers as well as designers, artists, developers, sculptors, and more looking for representation. Along side the publishers and distributers you also have studios, manufacturing, design houses, licensing houses, and the retailers and consumers asking for a voice. Add to that things like Kickstarter and the tabletop game industry has grown exponentially without any substantial change in how GAMA operates.

Retailers got actual representation within the GAMA structure a few years ago but did not have voting rights (They are the Porto Rico or District of Columbia of GAMA) Designers and Developers are starting to be given credit for their work on many boxes but have no unified voice. When was the last time you were told who sculpted the miniature you just purchased?

Would a book get published without listing its editors? These are all people who the industry can not do without. People who, in writing, music, TV, Movies, Theatre and more would have been given credit for their work and have representation within the trade associations of those industries.

The fact the GAMA continues to ignore the groups it should be representing has been boiling in the background for quite some time. This is just the most public attempt to get a 50 year old association to grow up and actually represent its industry as it exists now, not last century.

As Erik says in his statement, this is not about a statement or about BLM or even race. This is about representation within a group. If GAMA was made up of people who actually include all of the groups that they claim to represent then missteps would be caught earlier and corrected, most likely in house before it becomes a public issue.

GAMA today announced the list of people to be voted to its board of directors, they are all males who represent publishers.

I fully believe that had this been the physical Origins show this would not have happened and that at next years Origins convention will not have any public issue. That it was a quickly created online attempt to say “here is our convention” allowed a smaller group to create a bigger wave and affect the public outcome. I do expect the GAMA Trade Show, the closed to the public industry get together, to be for more about what GAMA is and should be next year than it has in years past.

Limburger wrote:

the media industry is the only industry in which the names of the crew is mentioned at all.

You call it media but I will claim the books, TV, Movies, Music, and theatre are entertainment and what are tabletop games if not a way for the consumer to be entertained. Give credit to the people who do the work. Their names are often placed somewhere in the rulebook and many sites do track what information is out there (as a curator for OTT I have suggested we track this info here)

Limburger wrote:

And yet here’s the thing : if you know who made your favourite product … how are you going to use that info ?

You can’t exactly tell company X that you need more of designer Y’s models (or fewer of designer Z), because that’s not how companies work. Besides … you’re already have a way for that : vote with your wallet.

Thats just it, I want to vote with my money. I knew that I enjoyed many games by Richard Garfield so Bought Keystone more for his name than for the game marketing. The mechanics kept me for a while but it was Richards name that got me to give money to FFG.

Plaid Hat Games let it be known that Fernanda Suarez was the artist behind Ashes: Rise of the Phoenixborn  and Catalyst gave artist credit to Echo Chernik for her work Shadowrun and I have searched out and purchased artwork form both. Jordan Weismanhas created several games that I enjoy so I am more likely to purchase a game he has worked on because it will, most likely, be something I will enjoy.  I have also picked up games because Rick Priestley or Alessio Cavatore not for the merchandising of the game but because I knew the work of the person. Many of these people are freelance and do not work for a single company. The only way to find more of something you like is determined why you like it and seak out the same. If you don’t know who designed the game mechanics or drew the art then what criteria do you use? The Publisher? Do I buy and try every game from Fantasy Flight because I enjoyed Arkham Horror?

Limburger wrote:

Are you going to avoid buying stuff because of the names attached ?…Judge a book not for its cover, but for its content ? Isn’t that what an anti-discrimination message really is ?

I have not found a designer who I came claim “I won’t buy this because of them” but there have been many games that did not get my money for  pre order because I knew the work of the people involved and felt I would need to go to be FLGS and try before I buy. Knowing the designers is a way to get my money faster, not a reason for me to withhold any money.

Limburger wrote:

I think the biggest problem for this industry is that it relies on people interacting physically with the products.

I do not see this as a problem at all. To be at a table, whether with friends or creating new ones, playing games is all about the physical social interaction. If I did not want that physical interaction I can play video games (or the digital version of some board game)

Limburger wrote:

Trying to twist this failure to do what existing websites/channels have been doing since the dawn of time into a political message is sad and lazy….few (if any) within this industry saw the need for an on-line  presence.

Sorry, None of this is relevant to the discussion of giving representation. Live show, digital show, no show docent mater if we don’t have games to play

Limburger wrote:

Blaming outside factors for things like this is lazy and shows that the industry is unwilling to accept that they have been lagging behind for a long time.

No one is blaming outside factors. Please read the statement by Erik. The issue has been around for years. COVID and BLM were simply two more coals on the fire. Coals that happened to force public light onto the subject. Any blame is on the parties not listening to each other.

Limburger wrote:

To expect big events to return to form next year is to underestimate the impact it has had on how we consume news as a result….Only the big boys had the means to stay visible during the event.

Agin not relevant to the discussion but yes, I agree. I think the the largest (Tier 1 shows) in many industries will shrink considerably. May San Diego Comic Con will get back to being a show I might be interested in agin (I doubt it) and, I hope, may of the local Tier 3 shows are going to get bigger as people who don’t want to go to the Tier 1 shows still want the experience. IMO there will be more regional shows of smaller scale. More hands on, try this game and less “This is the next big thing”. This will force the marketing machines to change. Do you attend 5 Tier 1 shows with big announcements or find 24 regional shows that will allow you to demonstrate and playtest?

Hindsight is 20/20 but at the moment does any one want to be 2020?