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.

rigeld2 wrote:

Loborocket wrote:
Well if you believe that at face value then either the folks doing the hiring at GW are really dumb, or you are way more gullible than I would have originally thought.

It seems like the former surprises you and you don't believe it.
It shouldn't - they (proudly) don't do market research, say things like

We know of what we speak. One day 3-D printers will be affordable (agreed), they are now, they will be able to produce fantastic detail (the affordable ones won't) and they will do it faster than one miniature per day (no, they won't, look it up).

They won't produce fantastic detail faster than one miniature per day? Um...

There's other things that show his delusions and how they steer the company, but the "attitude over skill" isn't one I'm surprised about. Multiple times he compares himself to Steve Jobs and GW to Apple. That surprises me more than hiring for attitude.

I think that is the fundamental difference between our opinions. I don't see GW as a company as a bunch of knuckle dragging mouth breathers. I think there are plenty of people who do see them that way.

I don't think you become the leader in your market sector by being dumb about how you do things. I do know often times when you reach the top there are a bunch of people (including customers) who look to condemn every move you make as dumb and characterize everyone in the company as an imbecile. This usually goes hand in hand with accusing the company in question about being in it for nothing but money and out to screw customers over.

I am not ready to do do that to GW. I think they make a decent product I am willing to spend my money on. It is not perfect by any means, but I am happy with my decision to play the game and collect the models.

I've seen many companies that were run like idiots but got lucky in a particular niche and used that to catapult to success. GW is probably one of those. Most everything they say and do indicates not only being oblivious to modern things (such as social media and something beyond retail shops) but boundless arrogance as well.

Loborocket wrote:
I think that is the fundamental difference between our opinions. I don't see GW as a company as a bunch of knuckle dragging mouth breathers. I think there are plenty of people who do see them that way.

Probably the people who take the time to look up what Tom Kirby says all the time.
Handwaving social media away? Bad decision. Even allowing the Spots issue to happen? Bad decision. How the Spots issue was handled? Poorly.

I don't think you become the leader in your market sector by being dumb about how you do things. I do know often times when you reach the top there are a bunch of people (including customers) who look to condemn every move you make as dumb and characterize everyone in the company as an imbecile. This usually goes hand in hand with accusing the company in question about being in it for nothing but money and out to screw customers over.

Normally it's the vocal minority who "bash" a leader. It's not a minority anymore.
And it's not hard to become the market leader in a niche marker.

I am not ready to do do that to GW. I think they make a decent product I am willing to spend my money on. It is not perfect by any means, but I am happy with my decision to play the game and collect the models.

You do understand it's possible to criticize a company's leadership and still enjoy the product, right?

The GW who became the market leaders and the GW of today are alike in name only.

Also, the GW of the early 90s that grew into an international company did so off the back of trade partners and distributors and demographics. The children of the baby boomers were growing up and GW was at the right place at the right time, with the right trade partners.

Then the LOTR thing happened. GW raked in the cash off a license. As LOTR faded, the problems with their core games became more and more prominent and the last 10 years has basically been GW pissing away their own market dominance.

 frozenwastes wrote:
Also, the GW of the early 90s that grew into an international company did so off the back of trade partners and distributors and demographics. The children of the baby boomers were growing up and GW was at the right place at the right time, with the right trade partners.

Then the LOTR thing happened. GW raked in the cash off a license. As LOTR faded, the problems with their core games became more and more prominent and the last 10 years has basically been GW pissing away their own market dominance.

I don't know anything about their trade partners, distributors, or demographics, so I can't speak to that at all. (I doubt many people could without intimate inside knowledge of the company, but that is a whole different topic.) What I will say from my own experience and observations, game companies in general probably suffered over the last 10 years (pretty much every sector suffered 2008 til about a year and a half ago.) I think this trend is reversing itself and tabletop gaming is seeing a resurgence. I think the market is looking to have a different gaming experience than the virtual and computer games of the early 2000's.

I my view GW is now retooling their company to make it easier for them to sell direct to their customers (cutting some cost along the way). They are also making the game be more approachable in general. There is a shift to be able to buy the models you like and play them (unbound) there is a move to make the game flow on the table better rather than just a dice fest (Maelstrom missions). A push to get everyone playing on the same footing (release of all major codexes over the past year or so). Some of these moves will alienate some of their existing customer base simply because as humans we are resistant to change, but I think these changes are an attempt to open the game to new customers who in the past may have been intimidated by having to buy a specific army (that may or may not work), or by a game that felt "old". Now those new customers can perhaps come to the game easier. So actually i think GW is pretty good at what they are doing.

In many cases companies need to do this kind of thing. They are always looking for growth, ways to find NEW customers. Sometimes the things done to find new customers and sources of revenue come at the expense of some of the existing base of customers but it needs to happen to make the company grow. From my perspective the changes GW has made over the last year or so go towards this end.

So while many people don't like GW and don't think they know what they are doing, I am in the opposite camp and think they know EXACTLY what they are doing. And of course opinions are like a-holes, everyone has one!

Lob,

It is kind of hard to say that GW knows exactly what they are doing when the company experiences a 50% drop in profits while the industry at large experiences double digit growth.

The TTG industry has been growing for years now at what appears to be a really fast rate. And all the while this growth has been going on, GW's profits and unit sales have been in decline.

With a 50% drop in profitability, mightn't GW want to concentrate on re-engaging with its extant customer base, rather than trying to engage with prospective customers?

It is kind of hard to say that GW knows exactly what it is doing when every year the CEO's statements directly contradict his statements of the previous year. Seriously, check it out. If you read Kirby's statements, each one directly contradicts the previous year's statements. This year, of course, the most glaring contradiction was Kirby's complete 180 on litigation.

GW is so far behind the curve in terms of table top wargaming that it is laughable. Just look at that WHFB app the company just released. Look at the company's game design. Look at the company's stance on social media.

GW is in crisis mode. The company is flopping around like a fish out of water, hoping that the sheer power of its directionless flailing will land it back in the water. The executive staff is doubling down on some of the company's worst decisions because that's all they know how to do.

The 'changes' being implemented are, in my personal estimation, A) not at all innovative, B) completely ignorant of where the market is headed, and C) too little too late.

If GW's profits tanked because the company aggressively reinvested in developing a hot new, trim, skirmish-style wargame with progressive rules and a spanking new product line I would be singing a different tune. If GW was using the power of its market presence to bleed out competitors with aggressively competitive pricing, I would be singing a different tune. If instead of retracting into progressively narrower product lines, GW was expanding into a more diverse portfolio of products aimed at different subsegments of the market, I would be singing a different tune.

GW is doubling down on 40K, retracting WHFB into obsolescence, and tossing everything else it can overboard in order to keep the ship afloat for a little while longer.

Loborocket wrote:

I don't know anything about their trade partners, distributors, or demographics, so I can't speak to that at all. (I doubt many people could without intimate inside knowledge of the company, but that is a whole different topic.)

You can look around your own country. You can get old white dwarfs and look at their independent trade partners and where they are. You can look at out GW used to sell through normal distribution channels until the late 90s. You can look at their partnership with Milton Bradly during the early to mid-90s.

What I will say from my own experience and observations, game companies in general probably suffered over the last 10 years (pretty much every sector suffered 2008 til about a year and a half ago.)

2008 was the beginning of a gaming explosion. 2009 saw the release of Warmachine MK2 and the arrival of many companies that are still doing great today. It was also the beginning of Infinity breaking out in a big way. Historicals also started getting more and more traction in those years. I think many people theorize that in bad economic times hobbies tend to do better rather than worse. If you go look at old Hasbro investor relations documents you'll also find it was a great time for Magic: The Gathering as well.

I think this trend is reversing itself and tabletop gaming is seeing a resurgence.

I don't think it's a resurgence, I think it's going parabolic after already growing for the last five or so years.

I my view GW is now retooling their company to make it easier for them to sell direct to their customers (cutting some cost along the way).

I agree this is smart, but they simply can't cover the world with their GW stores. So much of it has to be direct only. And GW has shown themselves to be unable to embrace the internet except as far as they can control it.

They are also making the game be more approachable in general.

Rulebook/starter + codex + demo sized legal army = enormous cost. I think GW has realized that people don't stick around for more than a couple years so they try to front load the cost onto new customers to get them to pay as much as possible before they quit.

In many cases companies need to do this kind of thing. They are always looking for growth, ways to find NEW customers. Sometimes the things done to find new customers and sources of revenue come at the expense of some of the existing base of customers but it needs to happen to make the company grow. From my perspective the changes GW has made over the last year or so go towards this end.

The interesting part will be whether or not they can recruit new customers fast enough. The problem is that GW relies largely on word of mouth advertising and if they just shed old customers as part of some plan to get new ones then they've either just reduced their word of mouth advertising base, or worse than that, pissed people off enough that they're actively opposing GW's acquisition of new customers. If they meet a new person who's interested in miniature gaming, they'll be actively steered away from GW by the very people GW abandoned in favour of new customers. I know I've done it. Not out of some malice, but because it's a good thing to do to warn people away from a bad situation. I know locally, Flames of War, Infinity, Warmachine, Dystopian Wars and Bolt Action are all thriving because the word of mouth recruiting going on locally is no longer GW focused.

 frozenwastes wrote:
Rulebook/starter + codex + demo sized legal army = enormous cost. I think GW has realized that people don't stick around for more than a couple years so they try to front load the cost onto new customers to get them to pay as much as possible before they quit.

Didn't they actually state something to this effect somewhere? Something about people not staying for very long? It would explain the "churn and burn" type of strategy perfectly.

Also, Loborocket, keep in mind that tabletop gaming as a whole is GROWING. It's only GW that's declining.

I am wondering if LordBrooks has been invited for an interview or not?

 Aldonis wrote:
I am wondering if LordBrooks has been invited for an interview or not?

I think all of us doubt it, but what did he have to lose?

One thing I do want to say about GW's future is that it is certainly possible that they can engineer a controlled decline to some portion of their current revenue and then stabilize there.

They just paid another dividend and they do have the cash for it, but the ratio of their dividend to their earnings is a bit troubling. It's also money that isn't going into actually growing the business, product development, etc.,.

In the last annual report Kirby described GW as a cash machine. I think from here on out it'll be operated that way. Until it breaks. They'll keep protecting their margins with a combination of rising prices and cutting costs and pay out an overly high ratio of any earnings in dividends.

To those who say that there's no more room for cost cuts, I'd like to point out that there are still many, many more stores to shift into the single employee model. Since this shift is accompanied by a decrease in revenue due to the lower open hours (and sometimes a move to a lower traffic cheaper rent location) we'll see costs and revenue drop together, but margins will be okay.

I don't believe any CEO candidate that even talks about deviating from that plan will be demonstrating the "attitude" GW is looking for.

The problem with their current plan is that it is completely and totally vulnerable to a revenue shock. If GW turns out to be wrong about their customers and they turn out to not be chumps who will just buy whatever GW sells, then the social nature of the hobby will drastically harm GW's customer base.

If the network effect continues to play it's part and playing GW's games become less and less common as people leave, then GW could experience a rapid decline in their revenue at a rate even greater than the last year. GW seems to believe that the game play is totally unimportant and that their real customers are the ones who buy things with just the idea of playing games with it, even without actually playing. That the miniatures really are "small jewel like objects of magic and wonder" and the peasants will keep buying regardless of game play experience deterioration (either in quantity of opponents as other people leave or in terms of actual game play experience becoming worse).

The problem is that GW is taking a huge risk on a coin flip. Either they're right and the customers will be good little walking wallets and buy what they're told, or they're wrong and customers actually want good game play and good value and the network effect will cause a massive acceleration in their declining revenue.

The problem is that they likely won't accept any CEO candidate who wants to change course in any way. There's really no reason why you can't approach the situation as if either could be true and be insured against all negative eventualities by offering a product that has every part of it made to the highest quality as possible. I have a theory though that GW isn't interested in anyone who talks about actually playing the games or actually using social media. And certainly no one who points out that injection moulded plastic gives the greatest economic advantage when you increase the volume rather than the price. They have also moved away from leveraging their own customer base in terms of promotion teams and volunteers.

I think the OP did the best possible thing. He used the opportunity to get a letter read by the people looking for the new CEO.

---

What's slightly concerning, frozenwastes, is I believe I can reduce all of that well reasoned and thought through to, in essence, two words. Well one, really.

Kirby.

Anyone who actually wants to get this job should talk about how they looked into GW's history and Kirby's heroic management buyout and how Kirby has become the most successful individual in the industry and that the opportunity to learn from the chairman would be the most valuable part of becoming GW's new CEO.



An indirect comparison between Kirby and Steve Jobs wouldn't be amiss either. Perhaps say something like how Steve Jobs essentially created the personal audio device industry and lead the integration of media devices into phones, Kirby essentially created the industry of collecting Citadel Miniatures. It would be an honour to work with someone who did for fantasy collectibles what Jobs did for personal electronics

---

I hear a second hand rumour that it is a toss up between two internal candidates.

 Baragash wrote:
I hear a second hand rumour that it is a toss up between two internal candidates.

What?!!! You mean the eventual replacement was essentially already ear marked and that advertising the position was essentially just paying lip service to employment regs?

Colour me surprised.

 Azreal13 wrote:

 Baragash wrote:
I hear a second hand rumour that it is a toss up between two internal candidates.

What?!!! You mean the eventual replacement was essentially already ear marked and that advertising the position was essentially just paying lip service to employment regs?

Colour me surprised.

Shocker! Still we can hope they turn the ship around, it's just doubtful because of Imperial Indoctrination.

WayneTheGame wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

 Baragash wrote:
I hear a second hand rumour that it is a toss up between two internal candidates.

What?!!! You mean the eventual replacement was essentially already ear marked and that advertising the position was essentially just paying lip service to employment regs?

Colour me surprised.

Shocker! Still we can hope they turn the ship around, it's just doubtful because of Imperial Indoctrination.

I'll LOL my -ehem- butt off if it is Alan. Roy. Merrett.

M-E-double R-E-double T

This is great news!

Was that a Jeff Jarrett reference?

That's J-E-Double F J-A-Double R-E-Double T, it's Double J, Jeff Jarrett.

WayneTheGame wrote:
Was that a Jeff Jarrett reference?

That's J-E-Double F J-A-Double R-E-Double T, it's Double J, Jeff Jarrett.

It is a reference to the way Alan Merrett verbally spells his name. Maybe Merrett likes Jeff Jarrett.

 Azreal13 wrote:
advertising the position was essentially just paying lip service to employment regs?

You guys have regulations on how private companies are supposed to hire people?!

PhantomViper wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
advertising the position was essentially just paying lip service to employment regs?

You guys have regulations on how private companies are supposed to hire people?!

There is no legal requirement to advertise internally or externally but not advertising a role can leave a company open to a discrimination lawsuit. If a company interviews a broad range of candidates that includes those with protected status then it's much easier to say "here's the CVs, here's our set of standard questions all the candidates had to answer as a benchmark, the process was fair and transparent and we picked the best candidate".

The other problems you can avoid are internal ones. Like people feeling they were passed over for a promotion unfairly because they weren't even given the opportunity to apply for it.

It's also not just about avoid lawsuits. You can actually find the best candidate when you have a larger pool of candidates.

Yeah, it's one of those things like having the same person as CEO and Chairman, not illegal, but not really best practice and possibly detrimental to the company as a whole.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Emphasis on the mental.