<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Ask Jean Bey: the answers part 3</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.tabletopgamingnews.com/2008/04/30/14197/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.tabletopgamingnews.com/2008/04/30/14197</link>
	<description>Daily news, reviews and information for tabletop gamers of all interests.</description>
	<pubDate>Sun, 07 Sep 2008 13:56:37 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: cegorach</title>
		<link>http://www.tabletopgamingnews.com/2008/04/30/14197#comment-21491</link>
		<dc:creator>cegorach</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 May 2008 01:51:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tabletopgamingnews.com/?p=14197#comment-21491</guid>
		<description>Some good answers there, I'd just say a lesson that could be learned by Rackham is more proactive PR, as it would head off the need to appear defensive in retrospect. The language and cultural barriers do make it more difficult but the company has attracted a reputation for being non-communicative and it would be a very positive business move to reverse that perception. 

Not PR in terms of sales-speak, just more solid addressing of issues raised. People will always whinge, and you can't and shouldn't answer all, but there has been a sensation of stonewalling that actually makes the complaints worse, not better. I'd also suggest things like loosening the draconian forum policy of not mentioning other firms - other companies don't do it, their business doesn't suffer, and they don't appear to be so 'confrontational' by doing so. IMHO it's a silly rule and not conducive to discussion.

It's not as if R figures will often be compared negatively, is it? :)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Some good answers there, I&#8217;d just say a lesson that could be learned by Rackham is more proactive PR, as it would head off the need to appear defensive in retrospect. The language and cultural barriers do make it more difficult but the company has attracted a reputation for being non-communicative and it would be a very positive business move to reverse that perception. </p>
<p>Not PR in terms of sales-speak, just more solid addressing of issues raised. People will always whinge, and you can&#8217;t and shouldn&#8217;t answer all, but there has been a sensation of stonewalling that actually makes the complaints worse, not better. I&#8217;d also suggest things like loosening the draconian forum policy of not mentioning other firms - other companies don&#8217;t do it, their business doesn&#8217;t suffer, and they don&#8217;t appear to be so &#8216;confrontational&#8217; by doing so. IMHO it&#8217;s a silly rule and not conducive to discussion.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s not as if R figures will often be compared negatively, is it? :)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sentient Bean</title>
		<link>http://www.tabletopgamingnews.com/2008/04/30/14197#comment-21481</link>
		<dc:creator>Sentient Bean</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Apr 2008 22:23:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tabletopgamingnews.com/?p=14197#comment-21481</guid>
		<description>I don't like the tone of some of the answers but I did like this comment very much:

"Would you, under current circumstances, allow people to directly refer to miniatures from your old metal range, for example say, someone incorporating rules for using a Mid-nor army in their self-published game ?

 Why not (as long as we are sent an official written request)?  In any case, our copyrights need to be on the pictures and Rackham has to be mentioned in the credits indicating that these are pieces from the game Confrontation or AT-43 for instance. "</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t like the tone of some of the answers but I did like this comment very much:</p>
<p>&#8220;Would you, under current circumstances, allow people to directly refer to miniatures from your old metal range, for example say, someone incorporating rules for using a Mid-nor army in their self-published game ?</p>
<p> Why not (as long as we are sent an official written request)?  In any case, our copyrights need to be on the pictures and Rackham has to be mentioned in the credits indicating that these are pieces from the game Confrontation or AT-43 for instance. &#8220;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: LarkinVain</title>
		<link>http://www.tabletopgamingnews.com/2008/04/30/14197#comment-21471</link>
		<dc:creator>LarkinVain</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Apr 2008 18:22:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tabletopgamingnews.com/?p=14197#comment-21471</guid>
		<description>Not as exciting as parts one and two but good information nevertheless.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Not as exciting as parts one and two but good information nevertheless.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: redstripe (Nick)</title>
		<link>http://www.tabletopgamingnews.com/2008/04/30/14197#comment-21466</link>
		<dc:creator>redstripe (Nick)</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Apr 2008 17:59:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tabletopgamingnews.com/?p=14197#comment-21466</guid>
		<description>Thanks for the great answers, Jean Bey.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for the great answers, Jean Bey.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
