NationStates Jolt Archive


Toward a Business Theory of NS Regions

Santa Barbara
18-12-2004, 17:34
Initially, I got to thinking about managing a region like a business, instead of a nation or region of states. After all, business management is usually more efficient, though of course not always. Plus, there's the appeal. Join the region becomes join the company!

This analogy holds fairly well. As Founder I may be 'owner' but I doubt I'm the only shareholder; technically, everyone here is similarly invested in into this region. At least, people check in to their NS's every so often and their NS's are here. That's a small, but measured spenditure of time. And time is a resource. Thus, an investment.

I guess whoever gets the most enjoyment compared to the time and energy they spend on NS, that is they have the highest Enjoyment:Investment ratio, is the most successful (profitable) when you look at it that way. In other words who has the most fun wins!

But then I began to think about the product. What, exactly, is the region's product, assuming it's a business? Well - the region itself!

Recruitment is no different from sales advertising, except that the product, what the recruiters are selling, is simply the region. The method of sale is for the customer, that is, the recruit or new nation, to join that region. In that case, the region is not filled simply with 'employees,' but rather employees and customers.

So my first theorem of the Business Theory of Regions:

Any Region is simultaneously Company, Product, and Consumer

And this is what NS gameplay tends to boil down to. Growth and sustainability. The most popular, the most populated regions - in other words, the highest volume of sales, brand awareness, recognition and loyalty.

Marketing dominates, not region crashing!

Region crashing or defending is, in fact, simply another kind of promotion. So is roleplay.

Why?

They all have the effect of continuing the sale of the region throughout NS. What some perceive as glory from battlefields and conquest, is really just another part of the consumer value package of their product.

Given that the consumer is any who joins a region for either short or long term, satisfaction of region members becomes of prime importance. Anything that attracts newcomers to the region is part of the value package, and satisfies the consumer's want or need. At least, enough for them to 'buy the product' by clicking on "move your nation to the region of."

Regional governments are the employees. These individuals choose to, usually actively, pursue the goals of making the region 'live.'

The truly anarchic regions are those with no one giving a hoot about the region at all. Usually, you'll find them as dying regions with a message board HQ with messages posted 100 days ago, and a region history box filled with nations ceasing to exist. Perhaps the residents are too busy roleplaying. Or maybe they have other reasons. But, they're not employees, they're citizens in an anarchic wasteland.

This is why I think anarchism is deeply flawed. With no one at the helm, chaos erodes functionality. The market becomes hampered. Infrastructure breaks down.

Of course, looking at the big picture, where do the Pacifics fit in? As well as Lazarus and the Rejected Realms? Simple. Government-subsidized businesses. Whether these regions market their product successfully or not, they will always get handouts of NS bodies to fill their ranks and ensure their continuation.

So my hat's off to all the successful region-owners out there, the ones who at some point decided to abandon the subsidied fare of the Pacifics and strike out on their own. Kudos!
Texan Hotrodders
18-12-2004, 18:10
Initially, I got to thinking about managing a region like a business, instead of a nation or region of states. After all, business management is usually more efficient, though of course not always. Plus, there's the appeal. Join the region becomes join the company!

This analogy holds fairly well. As Founder I may be 'owner' but I doubt I'm the only shareholder; technically, everyone here is similarly invested in into this region. At least, people check in to their NS's every so often and their NS's are here. That's a small, but measured spenditure of time. And time is a resource. Thus, an investment.

I guess whoever gets the most enjoyment compared to the time and energy they spend on NS, that is they have the highest Enjoyment:Investment ratio, is the most successful (profitable) when you look at it that way. In other words who has the most fun wins!

But then I began to think about the product. What, exactly, is the region's product, assuming it's a business? Well - the region itself!

Recruitment is no different from sales advertising, except that the product, what the recruiters are selling, is simply the region. The method of sale is for the customer, that is, the recruit or new nation, to join that region. In that case, the region is not filled simply with 'employees,' but rather employees and customers.

So my first theorem of the Business Theory of Regions:

Any Region is simultaneously Company, Product, and Consumer

And this is what NS gameplay tends to boil down to. Growth and sustainability. The most popular, the most populated regions - in other words, the highest volume of sales, brand awareness, recognition and loyalty.

Marketing dominates, not region crashing!

Region crashing or defending is, in fact, simply another kind of promotion. So is roleplay.

Why?

They all have the effect of continuing the sale of the region throughout NS. What some perceive as glory from battlefields and conquest, is really just another part of the consumer value package of their product.

Given that the consumer is any who joins a region for either short or long term, satisfaction of region members becomes of prime importance. Anything that attracts newcomers to the region is part of the value package, and satisfies the consumer's want or need. At least, enough for them to 'buy the product' by clicking on "move your nation to the region of."

Regional governments are the employees. These individuals choose to, usually actively, pursue the goals of making the region 'live.'

Of course, looking at the big picture, where do the Pacifics fit in? As well as Lazarus and the Rejected Realms? Simple. Government-subsidized businesses. Whether these regions market their product successfully or not, they will always get handouts of NS bodies to fill their ranks and ensure their continuation.

So my hat's off to all the successful region-owners out there, the ones who at some point decided to abandon the subsidied fare of the Pacifics and strike out on their own. Kudos!

Very good. A nice analogy and well-developed.

The truly anarchic regions are those with no one giving a hoot about the region at all. Usually, you'll find them as dying regions with a message board HQ with messages posted 100 days ago, and a region history box filled with nations ceasing to exist. Perhaps the residents are too busy roleplaying. Or maybe they have other reasons. But, they're not employees, they're citizens in an anarchic wasteland.

This is why I think anarchism is deeply flawed. With no one at the helm, chaos erodes functionality. The market becomes hampered. Infrastructure breaks down.

Not so good. You equivocate a state of anarchy (stateless chaos) with an anarchist society (classless democracy).
Santa Barbara
18-12-2004, 23:59
Heh... on that last note... Well, I like to call a spade a spade... I know it offends anarchists and anarcho-whatsists alike.

If it's classless democracy, it's classless democracy. If it involves stateless society it's anarchy. If people don't want their beliefs associated with states ANARCHY, they should not call themselves ANARCHISTS. Ya know?
Texan Hotrodders
19-12-2004, 00:08
Heh... on that last note... Well, I like to call a spade a spade... I know it offends anarchists and anarcho-whatsists alike.

If it's classless democracy, it's classless democracy. If it involves stateless society it's anarchy. If people don't want their beliefs associated with states ANARCHY, they should not call themselves ANARCHISTS. Ya know?

I don't suppose you know that there are actually two definitions of anarchy (at least in the gigantic unabridged Webster's Dictionary I have at home). The first is the "stateless chaos" definition, and the second is basically a society that has implemented anarchism, a political theory.

I understand that you would like anarchy (the second definition) to be given a more descriptive label, and so would I. Unfortunately, that's probably not going to happen anytime soon.
Tuesday Heights
19-12-2004, 01:10
Heh... on that last note... Well, I like to call a spade a spade... I know it offends anarchists and anarcho-whatsists alike.

If it's classless democracy, it's classless democracy. If it involves stateless society it's anarchy. If people don't want their beliefs associated with states ANARCHY, they should not call themselves ANARCHISTS. Ya know?

Then, show us examples of your spade instead of just saying its a spade, because so far the only thing you've said is propaganda not facts to back that up.
Santa Barbara
19-12-2004, 02:01
Can we perhaps get back on topic? The quotes in reference were, I believe, an editorial aside in the first place. I just think calling belief in 'classless democracy' or whatever 'anarchism' is misleading and, whether there are better phrases for it or not (I think it's rather the anarchists love the bad-ass cultural connotations that come with the term, the shock value if you will, the fact that just naming their belief inspires argument... like right now, even when anarchism really has nothing to do with the main article) I don't have to go along with an (intentionally) misleading term just because others do.

There is meat to this article, what I consider useful meat. Don't worry about the nits. ;)
Texan Hotrodders
19-12-2004, 02:06
Can we perhaps get back on topic? The quotes in reference were, I believe, an editorial aside in the first place. I just think calling belief in 'classless democracy' or whatever 'anarchism' is misleading and, whether there are better phrases for it or not (I think it's rather the anarchists love the bad-ass cultural connotations that come with the term, the shock value if you will, the fact that just naming their belief inspires argument... like right now, even when anarchism really has nothing to do with the main article) I don't have to go along with an (intentionally) misleading term just because others do.

There is meat to this article, what I consider useful meat. Don't worry about the nits. ;)

But they spoil the meat somewhat.
Tuesday Heights
20-12-2004, 02:00
This does sound like a very interesting idea.