Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 Talys wrote:


But anyways, the #1 thing I'm looking for in a miniature gaming magazine is photos of nice miniatures, and the #2 thing is the context in which those models might be useful. I happen to be a person who is excited for each issue of Warhammer Visions, which effectively has nothing in it *but* photos of models.

Except, it's not actually a miniature gaming magazine you're looking for, then, but a miniature catalog.

No, because I don't want to see box art (except for stuff that hasn't come out, yet). I want to see other people's original, creative renditions. Perhaps be inspired to try something.

The game, as I've said, is still important to me, because it gives a context for building the army, and a purpose for the army after it's built. So I like to see and hear about changes to the game; I just don't care much one way or the other how the tweak it or about balance, because we balance 40k "the AoS way" anyhow, where if something looks wrong, we just fix it before we start. I mean, I know it sounds radical and all, but if you know those Dark Eldar are gonna lose against the Necron.... just adjust what's in the Decurion so that it evens up a bit, or toss the Dark Eldar a bone.

So to put it another way, what bothers me is when they take out Vect; what doesn't bother me is when they nerf Wyches.

One may argue that with Internet resources, painting guides in books and videos are "not necessary, because better stuff is all out there". Yes, there are awesome resources on the Internet, but it takes a lot of work to find stuff, and a great deal of it is contradictory. On forums it gets downright argumentative. As someone who has helped more than a hundred people start out with their miniatures or improve their painting, and who regularly PMs folks and gets PMs from folks on Dakka (sometimes, I just want to avoid the "this paint is better than that paint" debate, which is a total waste of time), there isn't a better "how to get started" guide than Duncan Rhodes' video that comes with the Citadel book. It's cohesive, easy to understand, and something that anyone who is getting started can follow; and if you follow it, with a little practice, the models you paint will easily be within the top 20 percentile of the gaming tabletop universe.

Compare it for example to MiniWargaming, which has a brick ton of videos (I've seen, or at least listened to, a lot of them) -- if someone is starting out, it's not nearly as useful a resource, and you can get lost in a maze of some decent stuff, versus a lot of just watching a paintbrush in speed mode.

To take it back to GW's financials, GW caters to one group of customers nearly to the exclusion of another group. Is this good? Will it work? I'm a more inclusive type of guy, so my natural instinct is to build products that make more people happy, not fewer.

However, if a company were to decide to make only ONE group happier, which group spends more money? The group that prioritizes paints, models, and collects, or the group that prioritizes gaming? I don't know, but I actually suspect that it doesn't matter. Contrary to the CW here, I don't think GW is doing it for the money; they're doing it because this is what they like, and they're supporting hobbyists that are like them.

 Talys wrote:
Contrary to the CW here, I don't think GW is doing it for the money; they're doing it because this is what they like, and they're supporting hobbyists that are like them.

Let's all take a moment to ponder this statement everybody.

 Talys wrote:


However, if a company were to decide to make only ONE group happier, which group spends more money? The group that prioritizes paints, models, and collects, or the group that prioritizes gaming? I don't know, but I actually suspect that it doesn't matter. Contrary to the CW here, I don't think GW is doing it for the money; they're doing it because this is what they like, and they're supporting hobbyists that are like them.

Why does it have to be one or the other? Are they mutually exclusive?

Of course not, which is why GW pandered successfully to both miniature collectors and gamers (of all varieties) for many, many years.

About the last point, I have no doubt that GW's creative department is still crewed by gamers and hobbyists like many of us. But, we have read quotes from several ex-studio workers (some of whom effectively helped build the company into what it is today, and were responsible for most of its IP) who have all said the same thing; all of the new releases, the direction in which the company travels with everything, are directed and filtered by the sales team. You can make any statements you like about 'feeling' things, this is straight from the horse's mouth. The horse that fething made 40k, amongst others

If this means that these releases are good for you? Well that's great, you're lucky, congratulations. But you must, must look up the word 'subjective', and realise that GW effectively saying 'nope, sorry you're not catered for' is possibly not the most customer-pleasing route to take when you consider that they did cater to those customer sub-sects for the vast majority of their history. Producing games that could be regarded as actual 'miniature wargames', not 'my wallet is bigger than yours', was one of those areas.

By the way, I don't think they're TOTALLY ignoring profits, Az -- not to take it the wrong way -- but their support for the painting / modelling / collecting crowd is not just, "well, these guys spend more money".

Whether anyone thinks they do a good or bad job of it, they obviously like that crowd more, and I don't think it's only because they've got deeper pockets (which might not even be so, anyways).

@Pacific - Of course it shouldn't have to be mutually exclusive. That's why in the paragraph before, I said if it were up to me, I'd be more inclusive

Obviously, things must at some point to filtered by the sales team, because, like, they do have to stay in business. But that doesn't drive *why* the do things the way they do, and even with the constraints placed by the sales department, they have some freedom.

 Pacific wrote:

If this means that these releases are good for you? Well that's great, you're lucky, congratulations. But you must, must look up the word 'subjective', and realise that GW effectively saying 'nope, sorry you're not catered for' is possibly not the most customer-pleasing route to take when you consider that they did cater to those customer sub-sects for the vast majority of their history. Producing games that could be regarded as actual 'miniature wargames', not 'my wallet is bigger than yours', was one of those areas.

I agree. And I'm not saying pissing off a large portion of your customer base is a great idea -- though I do think their games ARE miniature wargames, and that they are fun, too. And more fun than their competitors' -- though on Dakka I'm probably in the minority, I'm certainly not alone in this preference.

Herzlos wrote:

 jah-joshua wrote:

No Quarter is a great magazine, but that does not make Visions a bad magazine...

No, Visions is a pretty bad magazine in it's own right. Duplicate pictures, poor framing/placement (cutting out detail in the centrefolds), essentially no actual written content. It's objectively worse than every other gaming magazine in production in every measure other than "pictures of GW mini's". It's certainly not ahead in terms of cost, reading time, tutorials, inspiration. I can't read an issue of WI or WS&S without wanting to start a new project, Visions just leaves me wondering why I bothered.

Sure, it has pretty pictures of GW mini's, but they are often rehashed and usually available on the website.

I guess someone has to like Visions though, if it's still on the go.

no, Visions is a pretty bad magazine for you, and anyone else who doesn't like it...
as someone who lives abroad, a thousand miles from the nearest GW retailer, i still get excited each month when it is time for a new issue to download on the iPad...
the iPad layout is flawless, so i have not seen what you mean with duplicate pictures and poor framing, aside from one photo someone shared of an Empire cannon in the print version...

i buy Visions because i want to see the 2/3 of the mag that is not just new releases...
there is Army of the Month, with nicely photographed hobbyists' armies presented on GW's beautiful tables...
there is Parade Ground, with various competition minis from around the world...
there is Kitbash, with great conversions...
there is Blanchitsu, with many different people's take on Inq28...
many of these "pictures of GW minis" are ones that i had not seen online before...
i would say that at least half of the content is stuff that i would not have seen otherwise...

i get that you may not like it, but it is worth the price for me...
i don't need actual wargaming content, nor do i need tutorials...
i do want to see competition quality minis, cool Inq28 minis, and great conversions...
sure i can find some of those things online, but Visions shows my plenty of stuff that i have not stumbled across on the internet...

@Tannhauser: with 2/3 of the content being user submitted, i think that it is really unfair for people to just dismiss Visions as a catalog...
why wouldn't you be stoked that fellow hobbyists have a chance to be published in a showcase magazine???
why be so dismissive???
i get that it is not a proper "wargames magazine", but it is a lot more than just a catalog...

cheers
jah

 jah-joshua wrote:

Herzlos wrote:

 jah-joshua wrote:

No Quarter is a great magazine, but that does not make Visions a bad magazine...

No, Visions is a pretty bad magazine in it's own right. Duplicate pictures, poor framing/placement (cutting out detail in the centrefolds), essentially no actual written content. It's objectively worse than every other gaming magazine in production in every measure other than "pictures of GW mini's". It's certainly not ahead in terms of cost, reading time, tutorials, inspiration. I can't read an issue of WI or WS&S without wanting to start a new project, Visions just leaves me wondering why I bothered.

Sure, it has pretty pictures of GW mini's, but they are often rehashed and usually available on the website.

I guess someone has to like Visions though, if it's still on the go.

no, Visions is a pretty bad magazine for you, and anyone else who doesn't like it...

cheers
jah

Which seems to be the majority - my local bookstores dropped it two issues in.

The obvious reason being that the magazine did not sell. (Obvious on all levels - since I saw what stock they had, and what they ended with....)

If a magazine does not interest the intended audience, then it is a bad magazine.

Visions is one such bad magazine.

The Auld Grump

@TheAuldGrump: we could go around and around all day...
i like the mag, so obviously, it is not a bad magazine to me...
how am i not a part of the intended audience???

as this is the financials thread, i am just trying to explain why 75% of my hobby spending goes to GW, not get into arguments about why people dislike anything...
how you spend your hobby money is your prerogative...

GW minis, books, and mags happen to be the products on the market that i enjoy the most...
what floats your boat may be different, for completely personal reasons, which is totally understandable...
if i am in the minority of fans, that doesn't make my likes wrong, just different to yours and many others...

to me, there is great value in all of my purchases...
i don't regret a single penny i have ever spent on GW products, and am even able to make a living off of my time spent enjoying their settings and models...

cheers
jah

To be fair to Talys's point that maybe GW like painters not gamers, GW have spent the past 15 years gradually reducing the number of game systems they publish from dozens to three, only one of which actually has been published in the past 15 years. It isn't a production schedule you would expect from a games company.

Osprey is currently putting out a new rulebook every two months.

Guys GW are very healthy. Who ever wrote that a 16% margin is just about breaking even isn't in the real world! I work in agriculture, I put food on your table, it's a massively high cash flow business with margins around 2 to 3 %. And we survive and some years we actually do pretty good we just have to do a lot of it! I would and many business's would cut their limbs off for the type of figures GW show. Yes sometimes they make bad decisions but so does everyone, sometimes they will leave you scratching your head but sometimes I look back on decisions I made in my business and wonder what I was at. That's life business and all in between. I just bought that realm gate wars novel and I'm heading to bed thinking I must be mad.....I don't even know who wrote the flippin thing.

@Knockagh - yeah, this is what I have said before. Most CEOs would give their left nut to have a company that generates 16% NET profits on GW's revenue numbers, especially when this is after more than that is reinvested into future product.

 jah-joshua wrote:
@TheAuldGrump: we could go around and around all day...
i like the mag, so obviously, it is not a bad magazine to me...
how am i not a part of the intended audience???

as this is the financials thread, i am just trying to explain why 75% of my hobby spending goes to GW, not get into arguments about why people dislike anything...
how you spend your hobby money is your prerogative...
cheers
jah

It is here because this is a Financials thread.

If the magazine is not selling, and evidence supports that it is not selling, then financially it is a BAD MAGAZINE.

Because bookstores have dropped the thing it is a BAD MAGAZINE.

Get it now?

I did not say 'pretty pictures bad!'

I said 'It does not sell'.

Personally, I really do not like the magazine, but that would be okay if it was selling in spite of my dislike. I had stopped reading White Dwarf years before it disappeared from the shelves - but it was still on those shelves until Visions took its place.

And that is why Visions is a BAD MAGAZINE - it replaced something that was at least selling well enough that it was kept on the bookstore shelves.

It decreased the exposure of the company.

And that is financially a bad thing.

The magazine market is pretty miserable to begin with - if you have ever hear Lisa Stevens of Paizo talking about 'the evil, organized crime controlled, magazine industry' then you know why. (If you haven't, then go looking for Auntie Lisa's Story Hour - from PaizoCon and GenCon. They are fun to listen to.)

Mind you, I also think that Visions is a bad magazine in the sense that I have no urge to read it, and it does not have enough pages to hang on the nail in an outhouse.

But the reason I felt it worth mentioning is that it is not selling.

And so, financially, is a BAD MAGAZINE.

So, if you want to 'go round and round on this', bear in mind that what I am saying is based purely on the circulation - which has dropped.

Not on the fact that I have no interest in the damned thing.

The Auld Grump

Honestly, I think the magazine, like a lot of GW, is kind of financial mill they're using to hide numbers that are worse than it appears.

Just think about how every time they have a new release, or this magazine, a lot of store are obliged or even required to buy them. That's a whole lot of pre-sold items on top of the die hards picking things up at random before reviews.

Knockagh wrote:
Guys GW are very healthy. Who ever wrote that a 16% margin is just about breaking even isn't in the real world! I work in agriculture, I put food on your table, it's a massively high cash flow business with margins around 2 to 3 %. And we survive and some years we actually do pretty good we just have to do a lot of it! I would and many business's would cut their limbs off for the type of figures GW show. Yes sometimes they make bad decisions but so does everyone, sometimes they will leave you scratching your head but sometimes I look back on decisions I made in my business and wonder what I was at. That's life business and all in between. I just bought that realm gate wars novel and I'm heading to bed thinking I must be mad.....I don't even know who wrote the flippin thing.

A 99% margin means nothing if you're not selling any product.

I know my view on this differs from those in the US and the UK but GW is as good as dead here.

@theAuldGrump: i get why you think it is financially a bad magazine...
i just disagree with you...

you are making assumptions that Visions is not reaching its intended audience...
you are also making assumptions that your local area is representative of the whole world...
you also seem to be leaving out the switch to digital magazines by the customers...

a magazine that is not selling as well as it could does not equate to not selling at all...
a magazine that is still considered valuable enough for GW to publish every month would indicate that they don't agree with your assessment of it being a bad magazine...

i happen to think it is a very nice magazine, and and am happy give them my money for it...
things that i consider to be bad don't get my money, so there must be some good in the mag, if a portion of the community are still buying it...

cheers
jah

 jah-joshua wrote:

a magazine that is not selling as well as it could does not equate to not selling at all...
a magazine that is still considered valuable enough for GW to publish every month would indicate that they don't agree with your assessment of it being a bad magazine...

GW changing the format, which I believe happened recently, has historically always been a reaction to their magazine(s) not selling well enough.

 jonolikespie wrote:

Knockagh wrote:
Guys GW are very healthy. Who ever wrote that a 16% margin is just about breaking even isn't in the real world! I work in agriculture, I put food on your table, it's a massively high cash flow business with margins around 2 to 3 %. And we survive and some years we actually do pretty good we just have to do a lot of it! I would and many business's would cut their limbs off for the type of figures GW show. Yes sometimes they make bad decisions but so does everyone, sometimes they will leave you scratching your head but sometimes I look back on decisions I made in my business and wonder what I was at. That's life business and all in between. I just bought that realm gate wars novel and I'm heading to bed thinking I must be mad.....I don't even know who wrote the flippin thing.

A 99% margin means nothing if you're not selling any product.

I know my view on this differs from those in the US and the UK but GW is as good as dead here.

I agree. But GBP 120m isn't "not selling any product". I don't know where you live, as it shows a little American flag


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jonolikespie wrote:

 jah-joshua wrote:

a magazine that is not selling as well as it could does not equate to not selling at all...
a magazine that is still considered valuable enough for GW to publish every month would indicate that they don't agree with your assessment of it being a bad magazine...

GW changing the format, which I believe happened recently, has historically always been a reaction to their magazine(s) not selling well enough.

The new format (in printed form) is WAY better than the old one. It was also about a year old, and due for a review. It isn't the best selling magazine in the world for sure, but for people interested in photographs of miniatures (a very specific niche), it's great.

I think it gives me a US flag when I'm on my phone, I'm in Australia.

Where we have heard from multiple sources that FLGSs GW sales are drying up and in more than a couple fell from 50%~ to 10-15% of their revenue. Not sales, revenue. In a country where single character blisters have broken the $60 mark. The Combat Company, which prides itself on being the largest FLGS in the southern hemisphere (I have no way to verify that, but they are large enough to have their own con) said when 7th ed 40k came out Dystonian Wars 2nd ed, released within a week of it, was outselling 40k 7 to 1.
They normally enjoy showing off the PALLETS of stock they get for new things like the recently releas Halo fleet battle game. They didn't make one mention of Age of Sigmar anywhere, not even the newsletter they sent out shortly after it was released that told us all about the new stuff they just got in and are getting. That is the biggest red flag for AoS locally imo.


Anyway, I ranted enough. Point it in Australia GW gaming is really drying up in a lot of places.

 jonolikespie wrote:
I think it gives me a US flag when I'm on my phone, I'm in Australia.

Where we have heard from multiple sources that FLGSs GW sales are drying up and in more than a couple fell from 50%~ to 10-15% of their revenue. Not sales, revenue. In a country where single character blisters have broken the $60 mark. The Combat Company, which prides itself on being the largest FLGS in the southern hemisphere (I have no way to verify that, but they are large enough to have their own con) said when 7th ed 40k came out Dystonian Wars 2nd ed, released within a week of it, was outselling 40k 7 to 1.
They normally enjoy showing off the PALLETS of stock they get for new things like the recently releas Halo fleet battle game. They didn't make one mention of Age of Sigmar anywhere, not even the newsletter they sent out shortly after it was released that told us all about the new stuff they just got in and are getting. That is the biggest red flag for AoS locally imo.


Anyway, I ranted enough. Point it in Australia GW gaming is really drying up in a lot of places.

Ahhhh, okay. Yeah, I totally get that GW's pricing in Australia sucks in the worst way.

This is a bit contrary to GW's numbers, though -- GW has 43 stores in 2015 in Oz up from 40 the year prior (though the number of 1-man stores went up from 29 to 36). The retail and trade sales are up slightly, though essentially flat.

Unless by "sales" versus "revenue" you mean unit sales, rather than dollars sold -- which would be true in all regions. I think we all agree that GW sold fewer models and books, generally speaking, at a higher price -- without any specific information to break that down.

Since I don't think it's because an Australian peed on Tom Kirby's shoe, I am really curious as to why the cost of doing business in Australia is so much more expensive than every other region.

We have high expenses and cost of living, but in today's retail world you still need to be able to compete with online retailers.
The part that stings is that they have made it against the rules for retailers outside of Australia to sell to us so we can't just pay American prices + shipping and get things still at 2/3rds the price (we could do that for a while and it was great).

Opening more stores down here doesn't surprise me, it seems that because it worked in the UK GW believes more stores = more money.
Anecdotally a friend in Sydney had a really great FLGS, then a GW store opened literally across the road. No idea if that GW is still open but by all accounts it was just sad seeing it totally empty while the FLGS continued to see tons of customers.


Funny thing is we are a county with an excess of space, it is probably the ideal country for GW to drop a battle bunker in every major city and hit that market saturation they have in the UK. As it is one man stores are just sad when every FLGS is capable of hosting 30 person events easily while the local GW needs to close to host an 8 man event.

 Azreal13 wrote:

 Talys wrote:
Contrary to the CW here, I don't think GW is doing it for the money; they're doing it because this is what they like, and they're supporting hobbyists that are like them.

Let's all take a moment to ponder this statement everybody.

I'm at work and I'm afraid that if I ponder it too much people might start looking at me weirdly when I fall off my chair in a fit of hysterical laughter.

 jonolikespie wrote:
Anecdotally a friend in Sydney had a really great FLGS, then a GW store opened literally across the road. No idea if that GW is still open but by all accounts it was just sad seeing it totally empty while the FLGS continued to see tons of customers.

Parramatta's the same deal. AoS launch weekend, I think they may have had a few tumbleweeds in the store, but no customers. Meanwhile, the gaming store right above it, packed to the rafters with people hoarding the new Magic expansion.

GW that was 5 mins up the road from me? Couldn't make enough to pay the rent. Ditto for the one in North Sydney. Ditto for the one in Chatswood, but that one's still open... on the other side of Chatswood, in the part of that suburb where all the store signs are in Korean, and near where the old Video Ezy used to be (a complete dead zone!).

GW in Australia? It's on fething life support!

Maybe us Aussies should all pool our vast amounts of excess wealth that we have due to our higher minimum wage and invent a machine that allows us to cross into alternate realities. We can visit Talys then, and see what it's like to live in a world where GW is awesome.

 Talys wrote:

This is a bit contrary to GW's numbers, though -- GW has 43 stores in 2015 in Oz up from 40 the year prior (though the number of 1-man stores went up from 29 to 36). The retail and trade sales are up slightly, though essentially flat.

IIRC, they had a small surge in sales when the regional trading rules went up. I think they expected that blocking people from buying overseas would push all of those sales back into Oz. What happened instead is that people eventually either found ways around it or gave up and started looking for alternative games.

I would be very surprised if that store count continues to increase for anything other than the short term.

 Vertrucio wrote:
Honestly, I think the magazine, like a lot of GW, is kind of financial mill they're using to hide numbers that are worse than it appears.

Just think about how every time they have a new release, or this magazine, a lot of store are obliged or even required to buy them. That's a whole lot of pre-sold items on top of the die hards picking things up at random before reviews.

Visions is not a required stocking item. White Dwarf is autoship (you tell them how many, it comes every week); Visions stores have to explicitly order. I know this because my store misses it sometimes, and then I have to go to a different store to grab one >.<


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Maybe us Aussies should all pool our vast amounts of excess wealth that we have due to our higher minimum wage and invent a machine that allows us to cross into alternate realities. We can visit Talys then, and see what it's like to live in a world where GW is awesome.

All you need is an aerospace transport vehicle, the first of which was invented slightly more than a century ago. They now have these really large versions and it's pretty cheap. And mostly safe. But don't use Malaysian. Or set waypoints over warzones. Just purchase transport the alternate reality of Kan-A-Da

Hey, just for kicks, let me demonstrate how much better us Canucks have it.

Age of Sigmar boxed set is CAD $150. I purchased 2 copies at 33% on launch day (25% is not hard to get) -- CAD $99. In USD, that's $74.25.
In Australia, the box set is AUD $200. That's around $150 USD, and I understand significant discounts are uncommon.

See? ALTERNATE REALITY. (To be fair, the best price most people can normally get it for now is CAD $112.50 -- or about $84 USD, which is 25% off)

If you really wanted to build your 10,000 point army, it would be a lot cheaper to buy a ticket, fly to Vancouver, book a 5-star hotel suite for a night, buy your stuff, and fly back.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

 Talys wrote:

This is a bit contrary to GW's numbers, though -- GW has 43 stores in 2015 in Oz up from 40 the year prior (though the number of 1-man stores went up from 29 to 36). The retail and trade sales are up slightly, though essentially flat.

IIRC, they had a small surge in sales when the regional trading rules went up. I think they expected that blocking people from buying overseas would push all of those sales back into Oz. What happened instead is that people eventually either found ways around it or gave up and started looking for alternative games.

I would be very surprised if that store count continues to increase for anything other than the short term.

I see. That makes sense! I wonder why they would have popped more stores.

Were I in Oz, I probably would not buy GW models either. The price difference just seems way too huge, and I'd feel discriminated against.. Mind you, I recall a buddy in Australia bought a game console (can't recall, XB1 I think, but might have been PS4), and was complaining that he overpaid, too.

 jah-joshua wrote:
you are making assumptions that Visions is not reaching its intended audience...

What is it's intended audience? Because I genuinely don't know.

What I do know is that I barely see anywhere stocking it, and even my FLGS (largest GW reseller in the country by quite a margin) only sells maybe 1 or 2 of them a month. The 3 copies sit in the local chain newsagent here whilst the stacks of WI, WS&S and MW whittle down, it's no longer in the smaller newsagents. They even admitted in the annual report that the sales were disappointing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Talys wrote:

This is a bit contrary to GW's numbers, though -- GW has 43 stores in 2015 in Oz up from 40 the year prior (though the number of 1-man stores went up from 29 to 36). The retail and trade sales are up slightly, though essentially flat.

It's not really contrary. The increase of 15 one-man stores means that they likely closed 12 stores in expensive areas and moved them to backwaters, with a 3 additional backwater stores. That's not a growth by any stretch, and is just a massive cost saving measure that hurts growth. In real terms it means a reduction in staff (by at least 12) and most likely a reduction in total rent/liabilities as well.

@Herzlos: i would think that the intended audience for Visions are people like me, who are unapologetic fans of GW's miniatures and settings, and who put a higher priority on converting and painting of those miniatures than the gaming aspect of the hobby...
people who want a magazine dedicated to what fellow hobbyists and HQ staff are doing with their GW models, without space having to be dedicated to rules, other companies' games or minis...

all of the alternative magazines mentioned here will have a lot of things that i am not interested in, or only have a very passing interest in...
take Ravage for example, it will have an article on Infinity background that i am into, a Jen Haley painting article that is interesting (simply for a chance to read a different perspective on painting, which i enjoy doing), an X-wing article which i am mildly interested in reading, a Dark-Age battle report which is fun, a Zombicide article which i have Zero interest in, some boardgame blurbs that tell me about a game i will never buy, and a set of Sedition Wars scenarios that i have zero interest in...
for $5, i am happy to buy it for some bog reading each month...

for $3 more (less with a subscription), i get Visions, filled from back to front with things that i am 100% interested in...
i get to see pictures of the new releases that are presented differently to the online store pics, the same with the Forge World pics...
i get to read about the army of the month, and a little battle report with the that month's studio releases...
i get to check out some cool conversions by the staff, with nice paintjobs...
i get Blanchitsu, with the great Inq28 collections, and i get to pour over beautiful Golden Demon minis, that make me say, "how did he do that effect, or build that base, and how would i do it differently???", which inspires me to progress my skills...

even better, i get all of that on my iPad, a thousand miles and a border away from my local shop, and can access it on the day it is available, and have it at my fingertips even when i don't have internet access...
when living in the Third World, especially during hurricane season, the power goes out a few times a week, and having Visions downloaded on my iPad has saved me from complete boredom on many a hot sweaty night...

keep in mind, i did not say the mag is selling as well as it should, just that i don't find it to be a bad magazine at all...

cheers
jah

Fair enough, but the seemingly awful sales of Visions seems to imply that few people share your exact set of requirements in a magazine.

Personally, I tend to gloss over the painting sections unless it's something I'm particularly interested in and spend most of my time reading the game reviews, scenarios and history. To me Visions is useless, and WD:W is little better.

I got bored of Blanchitsu almost immediately, as far as I can tell it's the same mini's all the time.

Though in defence of WD:W and WH:V; maybe the in-store sale are so poor because all the superfans are buying it a table? But if so, why doesn't the same apply to the rest of the industry?

Herzlos wrote:
Fair enough, but the seemingly awful sales of Visions seems to imply that few people share your exact set of requirements in a magazine.

It doesn't really matter. What matters is if it sells well enough for GW customers as GW define them.

For example, AoS is a game made for collectors, IMHO - so that they can easily play with their favorite GW models when they feel like it. If you like game systems for themselves, that's not really a good rule system - because everything is about the model, even if it is not really relevant for game purpose.

The true question is to know if that will be sufficient to sell enough products on the long term. We shall see in the next financial report, that should be very interesting.

 Azreal13 wrote:

 Talys wrote:
Contrary to the CW here, I don't think GW is doing it for the money; they're doing it because this is what they like, and they're supporting hobbyists that are like them.

Let's all take a moment to ponder this statement everybody.

It is a Zen Kōan, no?

Visions......... Shiver trickle down my spine at the mention.... It's great that people like it but it annoys me no end that I can't get white dwarf anywhere but GW. I used to be able to pick it up in a few places including super markets along side the house hold food shop. Now I'm expected to subscribe or get in the car drive 25 minutes out of my way pay £4 to park my car and try and buy WD on a Saturday. But more times than enough it's sold out and I have wasted my trip. So now I've given up. I no longer get the magazine I loved for years and I have no interest in visions. But this thread is about finances folks....

 Talys wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:

Knockagh wrote:
Guys GW are very healthy. Who ever wrote that a 16% margin is just about breaking even isn't in the real world! I work in agriculture, I put food on your table, it's a massively high cash flow business with margins around 2 to 3 %. And we survive and some years we actually do pretty good we just have to do a lot of it! I would and many business's would cut their limbs off for the type of figures GW show. Yes sometimes they make bad decisions but so does everyone, sometimes they will leave you scratching your head but sometimes I look back on decisions I made in my business and wonder what I was at. That's life business and all in between. I just bought that realm gate wars novel and I'm heading to bed thinking I must be mad.....I don't even know who wrote the flippin thing.

A 99% margin means nothing if you're not selling any product.

I know my view on this differs from those in the US and the UK but GW is as good as dead here.

I agree. But GBP 120m isn't "not selling any product". I don't know where you live, as it shows a little American flag


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jonolikespie wrote:

 jah-joshua wrote:

a magazine that is not selling as well as it could does not equate to not selling at all...
a magazine that is still considered valuable enough for GW to publish every month would indicate that they don't agree with your assessment of it being a bad magazine...

GW changing the format, which I believe happened recently, has historically always been a reaction to their magazine(s) not selling well enough.

The new format (in printed form) is WAY better than the old one. It was also about a year old, and due for a review. It isn't the best selling magazine in the world for sure, but for people interested in photographs of miniatures (a very specific niche), it's great.

But the change in format also happened too late to help circulation - it is not on local bookstore shelves - White Dwarf was.

While I was not buying White Dwarf other folks were, enough that the bookstore kept ordering the magazine.

Folks did not buy Visions.

So the bookstores dropped it - removing some of GW's positive exposure.

As far as exposure is concerned, neither subscriptions nor GW stores matter - the folks that go into GW stores already know about GW, as do folks getting a subscription.

So the majority of current circulation neither affects nor effects exposure.*

The initial two issues to hit the shelves - and the only two issues to hit the shelves locally - acted as a deterrent not an attraction.

I think that GW simply classifies exposure as one of those things like market research and advertising... something to be avoided.

The Auld Grump

* For what it is worth, Commodore Business Machines made a similar decision, and only advertised the Amiga in Amiga targeted magazines... again, people that already knew about the product that they were advertising.

Commodore has been out of business for quite some time now, but used to be bigger than GW is now....

Does Visions actually have any conversions in it?

From everything I've seen of GWs current approach they appear to view conversions as something to be avoided.