Yeah. I understand the reluctance. It is a psychological leap to make.

FWIW highly successful internet marketer Don Crowther says, and I quote, "1 of the top 5 mistakes online marketers make is: Not Testing!" The basic caution here being, never assume that any element of your internet marketing is working optimally: tweak it, test it, watch your metrics and tweak again, until you concretely identify what brings in the best responses. There are a whole lotta things about selling on the net that are counterintuitive. One non-fiction book seller I know, for instance, experimented with literally tens of different price points for his nf books - and found the single price that sold best was $8.97, specifically, by several percentage points of response. His theory was that the number in cents was just unusual enough to draw customers' eyes, and so make them take a second look at the item (and so lingering with it longer, end up purchasing). It widely outperformed the more traditional (and "intuitive") .99 figure.

At any rate, what works best for your material will continue to be a question mark until you actually test it. Think of it as an ongoing experiment with a cash reward at the end of the process. Good luck, and let us know how it goes! Once you're done melting down, of course. :D

Well, you know - if no one ever bought stories priced at $2.99, there would simply be no stories selling at that price at amazon (or any value greater than .99). ;) I respectfully suggest that your dollar-conscious metric (price-per-story value in a collection) is not the calculus used by all buyers. Besides, if you put one or two out at $2.99, and there are no takers, you can always lower the price afterwards. It is nearly impossible (from a buyer's perspective) to raise an item price once it's advertised as costing X, but very feasible to lower the price if/as necessary. Then people also perceive a bargain. Basic sales psychology, and unrelated to actual value of an item (if one can even put an "actual" price on subjectively valued art.)

I wish a tool by itself were totally a silver bullet. I find they can make the process easier but we still have to show up to work (!). LOL.
Congrats on the offer from Pink Raygun! Don't get discouraged, if they don't want one thing - I'm sure sooner or later you'll give them something they'll love. You have such a unique voice, more people deserve to hear it. :)

Ha! That's a striking thing to remember. That was a visceral sound, wasn't it? And an crazy yet sensible-in-context scene. I love quirky movies like this.

Hey, good point, and you force me to go googling to find out more. :) You're right, "As of 2377, the crew complement was at 146," says Wikipedia. I must have been thinking of ST:TNG numbers. Still, Voyager always felt like a larger mass, more distant crew in the background (outside of the star circle prominent in the stories), and Destiny seemed fewer/more intimate. Maybe because the ship was so big, and the few people in it rattling around like peas in a pod.

On a related note, social scientists observe that the most people we can comfortably keep track of with bonds of (relatively) close association is 150; beyond that number people in our network blend into others who are "out there" and not part of our really interactive connections. (It is no coinkydink that the average user on Facebook has an average of 150 friends). So both of these shows have a body count that is within that outer limit of 150, beyond which we (emotionally) deal with groups of "those people" rather than "my familiy and friends". The smaller the group, the more rapidly the "friend and family" association emerges. For this reason, I would argue that Destiny's crew must necessarily have become closer knit, simply because their numbers were 1/3 smaller than those of Voyager. I was amused by Colonel Young toasting the family they had become (in the last episode, iirc), including even the "crazy uncle" that was Dr. Rush. I think that's reflective of that small(er) group bonding dynamic.

Thanks for the link!

Glad you liked the article.
That concept of Weis's that you describe sounds interesting. I see the sense of it and am kind of surprised that we don't (yet) see more bio-techy angles on systems control (well, aside from whatever biotech is inherent in cyberpunk and its premise of hardwired human/machine interfacing). Definitely a great field for speculation.

Thanks, Em! The story would not be the same without your contribution. :)

Welcome back to the gaming fray. :) Glad to hear your friend is finding ways to enjoy the game without second-guessing GM decisions. I understand where that comes from, but it's a certain game killer for so many, many reasons. It's nice to have alternatives.

You're right, there are a lot of shows that are completely white and watched by black audiences. But any time one token black person is introduced to an otherwise all-white show, I question the motives and rationale behind it. There is also network-level concern about diversity and color casting - it is not dominant in the decisions made (obviously), and if the primary demographic is perceived to be white, it may not weigh in the casting/scripting decisions at all. But there have long been network diversity guidelines in place, and there are entire programs within the network umbrella intended to create diversity in shows. So the claim that board meetings simply don't think that way is incorrect. The diversity push has been institutionalized and is now at the heart of entire programming initiatives. Notably, this link which points to one such program, happens to be the program promoted by Disney for their productions, which lies behind the anomalous "black stewardess when there weren't any" decision. Decisions like this are no accident.