Have you checked the trend for the word "MechWarrior"?
You might want to.
BattleTech isn't the only name associated with the brand, nor is the table top game the only way to introduce new players to the universe. There's a reason why BattleTech.com and bg.battletech.com are two different websites.
That said, how would you increase brand exposure and overall popularity? How would you bring in new players?
Just curious.
(I'm trying to sound snarky, but I'm honestly interested.)
Actually I did look for that but I took it as granted that everyone would intuitively understand that Mechwarrior word is firmly related to computer game news while battletech is related to tabletop and setting. However, see how BattleTech word is languishing while Mechwarrior is upticking with the news about computer game(s). Thus Battletech as a tabletop setting has little brand value while mechwarrior as computer game has plenty of traction.
Trends point that computer game is not associated with tabletop or setting and players with computer game interest do not have interest towards tabletop and setting. There is obviously no serious crossmarketing/promotion and whatever there is it surely does not work. MWO and BattleTech.com do not appear to direct new people to tabletop at this moment.
Will there be flood when MWO actually starts? The answer is yes (look the spike how computer game made tremendous kick in battletech when announced) but it will be very short turnover (no computer game and collapse of interest towards tabletop). However, if MWO is running it should produce a nice boost of people who at least look at the tabletop, possibly even buying something. If spike holds true there should be doubling in exposure rates. Not sales but there should be remarkable rise in daily posts in web sites.
How successful MWO will be? The answer is that it goes head to head with Hawken. Both are Mech games but are also different in that MWO is slow tempo and Hawken is fast tempo. Will market hold both? The answer is that this is a niche and in my personal preference Hawken has upper hand.
---
Generally you need to market heavily (that means advertising) to get news that increase interest. That requires money which computer game people have. If you do not have money you need to sell the product by being in trade fairs and conventions or having large pool of people who promote it. Another way that I'd like to see (and which was very hot in gaming) is ladder.
1) For me the CGL seems to go the "compulsory" trade fairs which is acceptable but going to all local conventions just for cheap karma points should be norm.
2) Commando activity is one of those things that looks good on paper but I have not seen anything showing its effectiveness. I believe that this is the great untapped resource which can get results at relatively short time interval.
3) I'd also like a ladder but that requires dedicated person in CGL and it would fit best to organised group activity (see Germany in late 1990's for ideas). Perhaps using old MFNA as a template. Gaming people are competitive and it could be similar way to start gaming for real like in 1970's.
4) Fiction is surprisingly easy way to sell and promote. Kindle is obviously easiest way to snare computer gamers and impulse buyers. You buy nowadays books at 1 USD which is good threshold for impulse buyers. My quick glance was 2.99 USD for "BattleTech: Hector" (at least for me) which is ridiculously high price for something written by nobody. Reasonable pricing should be the key.
5) General amateurism in FanPro/CGL has hurt sales and will hurt sales in long run. My friend said that CGL is a hobby pretending to be a company and it is true. Lots of small irritants could be fixed by simply stepping up the game and looking hard at internal functions of company.
---
Then there is the product. In my view the "in depth setting" isn't that important to newcomers but rules very obviously are (so they want to try it again). Thus any fixes to product must take a long hard look at the rules themselves to make it match modern tastes (more figurines in field yet faster game play). Setting up game must be very fast too (printable play aids and unit sheets) and preferably available in a single intro box. Game setting itself is something that hobbyists like to argue about and it should be interesting (have hooks that catch your imagination) and matching people's current tastes.
Notice that new product does not automatically mean it is sold. Current crop of players may try it but tabletop company must rely on word of mouth ("I really like the new/better/improved/fast rules") to get others try it compared to "big setting changes" ("You know Republic of something created by nobody because designated hero was actually hated by every single fan has actually changed to something else no one outside game itself cares") which interest only the existing buyers. The new setting might be created and promoted as a way to lure retired battletech players back (and I doubt it is actually very effective in it). However, it isn't effective way to get more people from general pool of existing tabletop/computer players to try it. They do not care about the setting but they do care if it a fun game to try.
The setting changes themselves should reflect modern tastes and social norms. There is a lot to work on. The current writing is very pedestrian and very different in style to space opera roots of BattleTech. However, whatever you do with factions it is important to understand that you need very simple but strong basic description that sets each faction clearly different from each other. Vague descriptions (this plagued individual Clans when they were introduced) clearly hurt setting in the long run.
Finally, is timeline/plot important? In longer view the answer is that it is far less important than I originally imagined. The settings where timeline works (Pendragon) work because it is openly stated and we know where we go. Players are small cogs in bigger wheels and things do go where they will go. The settings where timeline doesn't work (World of Darkness, BattleTech) the changes are inadequately grounded (and thus seem to come out of nowhere) and there is tendency towards "gimmicks" to create momentary shock. They are uniformly described as "stupid pills" and rise from two reasons: poor game developer (who is responsible for line and has done poor work) and amateurish writing (bad writers who work for pittance who above mentioned game developer cannot keep in line).
In my view the products themselves must always be self-contained. The idea that product A has some information that may or may not be true unless you reference it from product B that you may or may not have bought is tremendously frustrating because product is ultimately not complete. Furthermore those products are gaming hooks and should have additional support to gaming either through ideas or direct gaming rules support.
