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.

In my opinion, the biggest mistake GW did was moving away from the clamshells with 1-2 models to the 10 model boxes. I really enjoyed going to my FLGS once a week, picking up 2 figures for 10-12 bucks, painting them up and repeating the process every week. Buying 10 figs at a time just isn't fun. You build a few then shiny newness wears off. The new AOS models are like 55 bucks for 10 figures...too expensive...but one figure for 5-7 bucks? Perfect. Thoughts?

I would say, moving away from their customers.

For me it's easier to paint the minis up 5 at a time, so I don't mind getting the bigger boxes. Less need to travel to the store and all that.
I do see the appeal to your method, though. It gives you more time to think through your paint scheme with just a couple of minis painted and decide if you really like it by the time you're ready for more.

spud wrote:
In my opinion, the biggest mistake GW did was moving away from the clamshells with 1-2 models to the 10 model boxes. I really enjoyed going to my FLGS once a week, picking up 2 figures for 10-12 bucks, painting them up and repeating the process every week. Buying 10 figs at a time just isn't fun. You build a few then shiny newness wears off. The new AOS models are like 55 bucks for 10 figures...too expensive...but one figure for 5-7 bucks? Perfect. Thoughts?

That was like 15 years ago... and because those models were metal. I can't fault GW for producing plastics? In either case, it's no where near the largest mistake GW has ever done.. it's more about your painting preferences. Seriously, what is the difference between buying 10 models and painting 2 a week over buying 2 every week?

Biggest real mistake.. Letting Andy Chambers quit and making Jervis' voice the only one that mattered.

Allowing money to dictate everything they do..

Its only really the prices I have a problem with, never really did anything else that bothered me, apart from not keeping any stock in the pointless stores.

The blisters used to have 4 or 5 figures in them, depending on the figure size.

I liked those ones.

 Azazelx wrote:
The blisters used to have 4 or 5 figures in them, depending on the figure size.

I liked those ones.

The allegedly sky rocketing price of tin necessitated that those blister were dropped to 3 models and that the price was increased by 20%. Obviously.

-

As somebody not in the know regarding GW personnel, can somebody give me a rundown as to who Andy Chambers is and why he was a good thing for GW?

I think their biggest mistake is a tie between taking on LotR with its stringent secrecy clauses and dropping specialist games.

GW's biggest mistake?

Not finishing the job and leaving me alive.

 Davylove21 wrote:
As somebody not in the know regarding GW personnel, can somebody give me a rundown as to who Andy Chambers is and why he was a good thing for GW?

I think their biggest mistake is a tie between taking on LotR with its stringent secrecy clauses and dropping specialist games.

I always wonder what would have happened if the LOTR was out of the picture and GW instead concentrated on the specialist games section.

 Bottle wrote:
For me, dropping battle reports out of white dwarf.
They served so many functions. If they can't bring back battle reports to white dwarf they should start having video reports on their YouTube or a "battle of the month" hosted on their website.

Battle reports where my favourite part of the mag. Used to be really chuffed when I bought an issue that had 2 in it! Thankfully there's plenty of player made battle report videos on youtube.

I think letting the magazine go to ruin was a big mistake. It's their main form of advertising and a great magazine allows people to overlook a huge number of sins.

But GW know the cost of everything and the value of nothing. Everything seems to be looked at myopically in terms of what it costs and what it directly makes rather than any wider function. Magazine production expensive? Cut articles back to the bone and fill with white space and adverts. After all, it doesn't achieve anything beyond getting the cover price does it? Shops should only have one staff member, after all shops are solely there to sell models and one man with a till can do that just as well as a full store. All the specialist games were cut on the same thinking, product diversity into smaller investment games just means they distract from, not support, the main products. Gamesdays and tournaments don't get enough money at the door so cut them, again they serve no wider purpose. Social media costs money and makes nothing so serves no function.

They were booming in the 90s and expanded rapidly and were doing all the unnecessary things they no long see fit to, like supporting a wider games catalogue and solid magazine. Sonething happened since then and it wasn't the tin prices.

 Azazelx wrote:
The blisters used to have 4 or 5 figures in them, depending on the figure size.

I liked those ones.

How long ago was that? I started in the mid 90's and as far as I remember it was typically 3 to a blister, ranging from 2 to 4.

While I am disdainful of a lot of their customer-unfriendly decisions, particularly the price hikes, I think we have to be honest and admit that their current financial difficulties are largely (not mainly but largely) down to things that are beyond their control. Namely:
-A growing number of competitors, and GW no longer being unchallenged as the top dog for models.
-Shrinking popularity of wargaming and model making. I don't have any statistics to back that up, just my observation of kids and teens generally spending more time on computer / console games and less interest in time consuming hobbies.

I don't believe there is any reason to think the hobby is shrinking, the sheer volume of stuff being made these days indicates otherwise. GW's competitors didn't appear from nowhere, they've been helped along by the fact that GW has withdrawn from doing fantasy/futuristic skirmish games, naval and spaceship games. I'm glad for the diversity and think the hobby is much richer for it, but it does seem that GW have created many opportunities for competitors to do things they won't.

 thegreatchimp wrote:
-Shrinking popularity of wargaming and model making. I don't have any statistics to back that up, just my observation of kids and teens generally spending more time on computer / console games and less interest in time consuming hobbies.

People have been saying that since the 80's (if not earlier) and I don't really believe it is any more true now than it was back then. I'd say GW's strongest period of growth was through the 90's and video games were pretty mainstream back then as well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
I don't believe there is any reason to think the hobby is shrinking, the sheer volume of stuff being made these days indicates otherwise.

It's really hard to say. New stuff being made doesn't necessarily indicate an increase in overall popularity, it could simply be that it's easier to start your own game these days and that knowledge spreads faster across the internet.

While I don't necessarily think gaming is shrinking, I do think there's a large possibility GW's sales reduction/stagnation over the past few years comes from GW customers going on to other games, which with the way things are at the moment is something GW never really had any hope of preventing.

 Davylove21 wrote:
As somebody not in the know regarding GW personnel, can somebody give me a rundown as to who Andy Chambers is and why he was a good thing for GW?

I think their biggest mistake is a tie between taking on LotR with its stringent secrecy clauses and dropping specialist games.

Andy Chambers had ideas that were fun for everyone.. Jervis has ideas that are only fun for himself. That's the biggest reason Andy was great for GW.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
How long ago was that? I started in the mid 90's and as far as I remember it was typically 3 to a blister, ranging from 2 to 4.

The blisters were downsized in the late 90's.

Ah ok, I must have forgotten then because I started in the mid 90's, lol. Was that when they swapped to the lead free stuff?

 Azazelx wrote:
The blisters used to have 4 or 5 figures in them, depending on the figure size.

I liked those ones.

That is a bit of early days history, all right. I built up my Aspect squads out of those packs and have quite a few in my Eldar army from those days.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Was that when they swapped to the lead free stuff?

It was around that time, although I can't remeber if white metal was the official excuse for the massive price increase per model. Actually it must have been after as I have an unopened blister pack of 4 white metal Ungors.

 thegreatchimp wrote:
While I am disdainful of a lot of their customer-unfriendly decisions, particularly the price hikes, I think we have to be honest and admit that their current financial difficulties are largely (not mainly but largely) down to things that are beyond their control. Namely:
-A growing number of competitors, and GW no longer being unchallenged as the top dog for models.
-Shrinking popularity of wargaming and model making. I don't have any statistics to back that up, just my observation of kids and teens generally spending more time on computer / console games and less interest in time consuming hobbies.

Other wargames are growing in popularity. It's only GW games that are shrinking. PP, Wyrd and Corvus Belli are expanding.

Finecast along with the ditching of metal and the ending of creating and expanding specialist games.

 zedmeister wrote:
Finecast along with the ditching of metal and the ending of creating and expanding specialist games.

This! GW should have done a higher quality resin; and continued with their specialist games, many of which were excellent.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 thegreatchimp wrote:
While I am disdainful of a lot of their customer-unfriendly decisions, particularly the price hikes, I think we have to be honest and admit that their current financial difficulties are largely (not mainly but largely) down to things that are beyond their control. Namely:
-A growing number of competitors, and GW no longer being unchallenged as the top dog for models.
-Shrinking popularity of wargaming and model making. I don't have any statistics to back that up, just my observation of kids and teens generally spending more time on computer / console games and less interest in time consuming hobbies.

Other wargames are growing in popularity. It's only GW games that are shrinking. PP, Wyrd and Corvus Belli are expanding.

Yup. The ICv2 for 2015 shows that wargaming in North America is, at worst, remaining flat. And, it doesn't even take into account all the other myriad ways that companies in the industry bring in money. Of course, if your definition of wargaming is the HHHobby, then yes, it certainly is shrinking, precipitously even.

@Guildsman -- let's be factual, at least.

The latest ICv2 shows that the wargaming sales in through independent hobby stores in North America is actually flat.

The Games Workshop figures for 2014-2015 shows that Games Workshop products sold through trade distribution went from GBP 16.5m to GBP 17.7m, an increase of 7%. That means there were fewer competitors this year OR that some competitors underperformed the average.

So Games Workshop products overperformed the industry average in the stores that were measured. Also, Games Workshop products account for about 30% of the miniature wargaming segment's sales in those same stores.

It's also worth noting that these figures don't include the 9.8m GBP of GW store sales in North America, or the portion of the 25.6m GBP of internet sales attributable to North America (it isn't broken down).

I wouldn't put a lot of stock in what ICv2 say. Don't they just survey a bunch of stores and then extrapolate what they think overall sales are? Do they even account of all lines of sales?

I noticed in their 2014 sales report (the one that came out most recently) they had to revise one of their estimates from 2013 from $75M to $100M.... that's a 33% "correction" If they can't even get within $25M on one of their estimates I'm not sure I trust any of them.

Age of Sigmar.

Nuff' said.