Gerstmann...-gate?

One particular event has been setting the gaming community (particularly in the US) aflame for the past weekend. It was revealed on Friday, 30 November 2007, that long time editor of Gamespot, Mr Jeff Gerstmann was released from the company. It was alleged that his employment was terminated due to pressure from Eidos, which was currently advertising heavily in Gamespot to promote a new game called Kane & Lynch. Jeff Gerstmann had given the game a score of 6.0, and said that the game wasn't very good. Apparently Eidos was very unhappy with Gamespot, and Jeff, and pressured the company into letting him go. The rumour also goes that Jeff was only notified of his termination of employment when he turned up to work and found his office locked.

The problem here is twofold: 1) Gamespot is a financial entity and a business. Which means they have to maintain their revenue sources, of which advertising counts for a lot. It would be naive to assume that they do not have to manage relations with game publishers, where most of this advertising revenue comes from. 2) As a creator of content, Gamespot is in a position whereby credibility to readers is also of utmost importance. Editorial independence is key to maintaining a high readership, which would in turn make them even more attractive to advertisers. The problem for Gamespot is balancing one against another.

If the rumours are to be believed, then it would seem that Gamespot favoured one over the other in this instance, and capitulated to their funders. They have also since pulled the video review that Jeff Gerstmann made, although the print version is still available. They have also disabled the user submitted reviews after an initial backlash where users were submitting extremely low scores to the game as retaliation. Gamespot has also released a statement denying any wrong-doing on their part.

Having their credibiliy damaged is a hard blow to them. One problem with games journalism is the low revenue sources, or at least, the limited number of sources. As I have said before, their sources of funding comes either from readers (and by extension, subscriptions) and from advertisers. And as I also said before, it would be naive to think they do not court the game publishers for more and more advertising dollars.

As such, it is important for Gamespot to be able to deliver a large audience, and demonstrate that they have more clout than any other online or print magazine. And to be able to attract readers, who have such a wide selection of alternative sources, their credibility is paramount. To be percieved by the gaming public as a unbiased, independent source of reliable news is the cornerstone of their business. And as a journalistic enterprise, readers expect that level of professionalism, and this is what attracts more readers. However, this situation with Jeff Gerstmann, if to be believed, has just shown that Gamespot doesn't have that independence, will capitulate to external pressure, and will take measures against their own people who defy them and their investors. The fallout from this situation would be reduced numbers of readers, low confidence from external and internal parties, low morale amonst their staff, which would in turn translate to them becoming less attractive to future advertisers.

Mainstream news networks depend on the veracity and timeliness of their reports, and this applies doubly so to game journalism; it is such a small niche area with a large multitude of alternative sources. And I think that even if the rumours are untruthful, and that there was no wrong-doing on the part of Gamespot, their reputation has already been tainted, and it would take a long while before they can build back up the confidence that audiences have lost.