24567
Post by: Kroothawk
Preliminary results 2012-2013:
http://investor.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Preliminary-announcement-2013.pdf
PRELIMINARY RESULTS 2013
Games Workshop Group PLC (“Games Workshop” or the “Group”) announces its preliminary results for the year ended 2 June 2013.
Highlights
Revenue
- Revenue at £ 134.6m (2012: £131.0m)
- Revenue at constant currency* at £135.6m (2012:£131.0m)
Profit
- Operating profit pre-royalties receivable at £ 20.2m (2012: £15.6m)
- Operating profit at £21.3m (2012: £19.1m)
- Profit before taxation at £21.4m (2012: £19.5m)
Earnings per share of 51.5p (2012:46.8p)
Cash generated from operations of £31.9m (2012: £28.0m)
Dividends per share declaredin the year of 58p (2012: 63p)
Tom Kirby, chairman and acting CEO of Games Workshop, said:
“Games Workshop has had a mixed year. Sales were stronger in the first half than the second, but cost control and cash management have strengthened throughout the period. We finish the year with the most profit this company has generated since flotation and have returned £18.4 million to our owners.
Annual report: 2012-2013:
http://investor.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Games-Workshop-Group-13-combined-FINAL-without-title-page.pdf
CHAIRMAN’S PREAMBLE
During the year Mark Wells left Games Workshop. After more than ten years, five as chief executive, he has gone to graze in pastures new. His tenure as CEO saw our return on capital increase from around 10% to over 50%. He is a man who truly understands about shareholder value and put that understanding into good practice. Thank you Mark, and good luck.
We have also had a shift in the balance of our owners. For three entirely different reasons each of our largest holders has done some selling. This has allowed those who have wanted to own us for a while the opportunity to buy. The fact that we have been paying a lot of surplus cash out as dividends hasn’t put them off! We’ll see what happens when we have a bad year and stop.
I have written a great deal over the years about the ‘greatest danger’ facing Games Workshop. It has usually been in response to the expression of some fear of imminent doom. When will the world tire of miniatures? (It won’t; these are not fashion items, they are hobby collectibles.) Won’t all your customers move on to computer games instead? (They didn’t; most of our current customers weren’t born when the Atari ST came out.) How about other games like Pokémon or role-playing games? (Who can remember them, now?). The evidence is there for all to see, but when it wasn’t I was seen as complacent in the face of these real dangers. I don’t think that was complacency, it’s just that we here all make a living from serving collectors and we understand them and their needs. These are paper tiger dangers. The real danger is us.
The world will not tire of miniatures, nor fantasy. The world can and does play computer games, online and on phones now, not old-style computers. Other people will produce great games and products.
The dangers lie not in these realities, but whether we keep making fantastic models and providing great services, in our management skills and just as night follows day, in our ability to find the right people to carry the business forward. This is why we put so much energy into our management training programmes and in particular how we recruit.
Put at its bluntest: we recruit for attitude, not for skills.
It makes for a lot of hard work. First every manager in the business has to take personal responsibility for the recruitment process. All of it, from start to finish. No handing it off to Human Resources, outside agencies, or anyone else. Then they have to prepare a job specification. What value does this job bring to the business? Not what is nice about it, but exactly how does it help us sell more or spend less? Then it describes what kind of person is likely to be successful at the job. That’s right. What kind of person. It is centred on their character, on their attitudes and on the behaviour we expect to see. Then it lists the top few things they have to a chieve in order to be successful at it. And that’s it. No qualifications, no degrees, no reference to experience.
This is hard to do, and impossible alone. We spend hours on it, in groups, working at getting to the heart of the issue.
Then we advertise using that job specification as a template. All jobs, always. No ‘appointments’, no patronage. And we ask the applicants to write us a letter saying why they want this job. CV optional (but we won’t look at it if the letter is pants).
The knee-jerk response from outsiders is nearly always either you are doing it wrong or you will fail. Neither is true. Companies who seek out skills at the expense of attitude are destroying culture, continuity and morale and thereby shareholder value. That is wrong. And our way works well.
The effort put in rewards us in knowing who we want and why, knowing how to ask for that person, how to recognise them when we see them, and how to check that they are being successful. Win, win, win, win. Sadly it takes effort, so don’t expect to see our ways being adopted universally any time soon.
Risks. Management succession. Effort. I’ve managed to get all the key words in. Maybe the last of these is the most important.
Hard work. Accept no substitutes
.
Tom Kirby
Chairman and Acting CEO
29 July 2013
That small increase in sales (3% or so) is a mix of strong performance in our more hobby oriented Forge World and Black Library businesses (our ‘Other businesses’) and the North American region and less good performances in Continental Europe and the UK.
(...)
Reported sales increased by 2.7% to £134.6 million for the year. On a constant currency basis, sales were up by 3.5% from £131.0 million to £135.6 million; progress was achieved in North America (+7.8%), Export (+2.3%), Asia (+10%) and in Other sales businesses (+27.2%) while sales in the UK (-1.4%), Continental Europe (-0.3%) and Australia (-4%) were in decline.
50832
Post by: Sigvatr
So despite all the internet hating, GW managed to do better this year than the year before. Well...
369
Post by: Koppo
Hang on..
Earnings per share of 51.5p (2012:46.8p)
Dividends per share declared in the year of 58p (2012: 63p)
Does that not mean that GW went in to debt and borrowed money (at interest) to pay dividends? Or did this come from some cash reserve?
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
We're all doomed! Games Workshop is going to lose all the money! GW is the antichrist!
Am I doing it right?
4875
Post by: His Master's Voice
Numbers. Yeah, those are defiantly numbers. I can recognize those...
Someone please call a numeromancer, we have a case of the numbers.
50832
Post by: Sigvatr
How about other gameslike Pokémon or role-playing games? (Who can remember them, now?)
I...I...I am out of words.
24567
Post by: Kroothawk
 Sigvatr wrote:How about other gameslike Pokémon or role-playing games? (Who can remember them, now?)
I...I...I am out of words.
Well, at least GW acknowledges that they existed once, even when they don't acknowledge their current existence 
BTW greetings to the folks at FFG who make the 40k RPGs 
Nearly all our royalty income (88% last year and 82% this) comes from licences sold to computer games companies.
(The balance is from Fantasy Flight Games which makes card games and board games - and very good they are too!)
Yeah, who remembers FFG making 40k RPGs 
4875
Post by: His Master's Voice
Sigvatr wrote:How about other gameslike Pokémon or role-playing games? (Who can remember them, now?)
I...I...I am out of words.
In his defence, TRPGs are far from their late 90's peak. No commenton the Pokemon remark, haven't seen those in a while outside of DS titles.
32159
Post by: jonolikespie
I love how they say that there is no competition from Video games or RPGs but completely ignore the fact that there are more *table top* games on the market directly competing against warhammer (and doing pretty dam well for themselves too) than there have ever been. Paper tiger dangers indeed.
50832
Post by: Sigvatr
http://vgsales.wikia.com/wiki/Pokemon
2009 DS Pokémon HeartGold and SoulSilver 11.90 mio sold
2010 DS Pokémon Black and White 11.51 mio sold
2012 DS Pokémon Black 2 and White 2 6.13 mio sold
Yeah, who even barely remembers those "Pokemon" games? 
30305
Post by: Laughing Man
 His Master's Voice wrote: Sigvatr wrote:How about other gameslike Pokémon or role-playing games? (Who can remember them, now?)
I...I...I am out of words.
In his defence, TRPGs are far from their late 90's peak. No commenton the Pokemon remark, haven't seen those in a while outside of DS titles.
The card game is actually doing better than it was under WotC, and Nintendo does a bang up job with their tournament scene (their top tournaments award rather hefty scholarships). As for RPGs, I'd argue that they're doing MUCH better than during the 90s, which mostly falls under the Bad Old Days of TSR.
34419
Post by: 4oursword
Sigvatr wrote:http://vgsales.wikia.com/wiki/Pokemon
2009 DS Pokémon HeartGold and SoulSilver 11.90 mio sold
2010 DS Pokémon Black and White 11.51 mio sold
2012 DS Pokémon Black 2 and White 2 6.13 mio sold
Yeah, who even barely remembers those "Pokemon" games?
At least they remembered the é.
70069
Post by: Rippy
I knew as soon as I read that line, that everyone would focus on Pokémon.
I am glad GW are doing well, as hopefully that means more releases.
Their hiring strategy very strange though...
32159
Post by: jonolikespie
So my first impressions going through this would be:
They are paying to be released from some contracts so they can close stores faster in some cases, do we know which stores these are?
If they are ones near FLGS that could paint a pretty picture but they might just be in the cultural wastlands where no one is interested in the Hobby.
Online sales up from 13 mill to 14, that's a whole.. 7.7%. How much did prices rise this year with codexes going to hardback and all the hughe (expensive) kits? Not to mention the rapid release secede. I'm not a CEO and it's a decent increase but that just seems like it should have been more.
GW wrote:"We look at many other things as well: how many staff per store we have (UK: 1.9, Continental Europe: 1.6, North America: 1.7, Australia: 1.5, Asia: 1.0), how many stores we have (UK: 137, Continental Europe: 135, North America: 99, Australia: 37, Asia: 4), how many we think we could open (close) next year (UK: 4 (1), Continental Europe: 10 (4), North America: 38 (28), Australia: 4 (4))."
Nothing too shocking there but interesting none the less.
GW wrote:"Our miniatures are of extraordinary detail and have very high costs associated with their production. We do the tooling and manufacturing here in Nottingham to ensure that quality. As it happens, even if we wanted to tool or manufacture elsewhere, we have never found anyone who can deliver the quality we need at the price we pay. In order to be able to duplicate that quality requires a level of capital investment that no one has, as yet, even tried to emulate."
Someone hasn't heard about kickstarters...
They touch on IP protection but mention nothing of Chapterhouse, just that "nearly all single individuals or small businesses ‘cease and desist’ as soon as they get the letter."
All in all it looks fine on paper but I don't think it in any way address any of the long term concerns many of us vats/'haters' have.
4875
Post by: His Master's Voice
 Laughing Man wrote:As for RPGs, I'd argue that they're doing MUCH better than during the 90s, which mostly falls under the Bad Old Days of TSR.
In terms of variety? Maybe. Popularity? I don't think so.
Edit: Welp, auto correct was having some fun...
68776
Post by: Left Hand of the Pheonix
Thank god I'm a trained accountant who can understand all those numbers. From my viewpoint GW is in an good place, but there are some areas to be adressed.
1. Large reduction in total cashflow: As any accountant will tell you, profit no matter, cashflow better. If a company has large profit, it can still have negative cashflow. GW has a good profit, but has made a reduction in cashflow. This means that they are spending more money on intangible assets like amoritisation, (depreciation on intangible assets), and they have purchased more intangibles, but this may only be a short-term measure.
2. Reduction in royalties: As can be noticed they have reduced income from royalties from their licensed properties, which might be because of the new software as Kirby mentions in the statement.
3. EPS vs Divs: EPS is how much the company earns per share bought by an investor. It shows a shareholder how well the company is using the money invested, which as it has increased and is continuing to increase shows that there is good management of investment. Also to be noticed is that the Diluted EPS or DEPS is very close to the normal EPS which shows not many preference shares have been released. The dividend issue is good as they still get a decent amount per share, and you only get dividends from a company who can afford to pay it.
4: Finance Cost: They have had a reduction in their financial income and in their finance costs, The reduction in income is because they have leased less of the licensed properties out and so are recieved less income from there. The reduced finance costs is GOOD! This means that they have less loans and leases to pay off which is a major reason for increased profit.
5: Operating Proft: Profit is good, as Mr Kirby says, but look deeper and it gets better. While there is a reduction in US profit, it is made up for from the increased profit from the other areas, while in the UK, even with all the slagging of GW here about some of the stuff, it is still bought in a HUGE amount by everybody. Also to be noticed is they have less expenses from Asia and Austrialia, which was probably due to first year extra expenses, (but i'm not sure, will need to see 2011/12 figures to be sure)
There are more points to be made but it is pretty complicated but I hope i've cut through some of the jargon and explained the more important areas, but i will add this with increased sales it may be probable that they may NOT increase prices, but they still could, but I don't give a crap I'll still buy their stuff after all who doesn't want a Carnasaur called Grymlock!
I'll post more if i discover more information that is pertinent.
24567
Post by: Kroothawk
BTW can someone explain, why £ 134.6m in constant currency at 2.7% inflation is £135.6m and not £130.9m?
Oh, and the increase of mail order sales is not surprising, with most finecast and more and more plastic kits and rulebooks going mail order only (even if sold by FLGS).
68776
Post by: Left Hand of the Pheonix
It's not inflation, it's their sales increase of 2.7% on the previous year. Constant currency would be done if all the sales were done in the same place as the same average foreign exchange rate, and if you look at those figures they have increased by 3.5% on the previous year which shows we are buying more and more minatures.
20880
Post by: loki old fart
For three entirely different reasons each of our largest holders has done some selling.
Interesting
Royalties are down.
Not surprising - Relic went into receivership.
we recruit for attitude, not for skills.
Is he talking about the legal team ?
24567
Post by: Kroothawk
No, UK inflation was 2.7% June 2012 to June 2013, even in Nottingham I presume. All prices are converted into GBP, so why does the report claim negative inflation since 2012? Because using correct inflation, the report would have to explain another revenue decrease?
Another thing: First half outsold second half of financial year. Seems the Hobbit bubble / Xmas sales / new a-Codex-a-month schedule didn't pay off?
we recruit for attitude, not for skills.
Not only legal team, but everyone from sales person to higher management: If you are a yes-man, your qualifications don't matter
27987
Post by: Surtur
 Kroothawk wrote:BTW can someone explain, why £ 134.6m in constant currency at 2.7% inflation is £135.6m and not £130.9m?
Because I think someone forgot which number to multiply. But yeah, my math of using 2.7% inflation (British inflation) makes the revenue to be flat. I think a keen investor should be scratching their head on that one because according to GW "Fine"ancial report, they experience .7% DEflation.
1941
Post by: Wolfstan
There appears to of been a major influx of Kickstarter projects this year, so I wonder if they will show an impact on the next set of figures?
1270
Post by: Osbad
On the basis of the fact that a picture is worth a 1000 words (and goodness only knows how many numbers) I submit a couple of charts that I have kept running for a few years now (yes I'm an Accountancy geek ... we do exist!)
Firstly looking at Global Turnover and Global Profit after Tax both discounted for UK RPI. From it we can see that profits are holding steady, and so Mark Wells has earned his keep as far as the shareholders are concerned, but Turnover is really not doing very well either, which for gamers is of much greater concern. Using discounted Turnover as a proxy for volume sales (and it's the closest we will get from published numbers) it looks like yet again, GW have failed to sell any more volume than they did in 2001. No growth now for the how many' th year in a row? Of course RPI is only a proxy - countries other than the UK have had different inflation rates, and even within the UK, GW's price rises on average over their entire range every year will never likely reflect RPI exactly, nor should they. But it's the best we can do with the information we have, and lets' say that what it seems to be saying is that their slice of the pie is probably not growing, although they are squeezing more gravy from it yet again. (Sorry!! Horrible metaphor!!)
Breaking down the Global Turnover into its constituent regions, we get a little more granularity and can see that US sales have overtaken the UK for the 2nd year running. UK and EU sales have flatlined in cash terms and ROW has increased. I don't have RPI figures to hand for outside of the UK, so I cant' make much comment on relevant discounting there, but discounting the UK figures alone, we can see that sales in real terms in the UK (which to be honest is all I am really interested in, being a UK resident, and interested on the impact in the UK scene as a gamer) are steadily declining.
If anyone has access to historic non- UK inflation figures, particularly the US (trying to get them for the EU and ROW is likely impossible, although Australia probably forms most of RoW world sales I guess) then the raw data is as follows:
11
Post by: ph34r
 Wolfstan wrote:There appears to of been a major influx of Kickstarter projects this year, so I wonder if they will show an impact on the next set of figures?
There was also a fairly large amount last year so I would not imagine that anything particularly drastic will change in that regard.
1941
Post by: Wolfstan
So in layman's terms (basically so us thickos can understand) are GW only making money due to price increases and cost cutting? If so what happens when they can't make any more cost cuts? will they just keep upping the price to make up for the shortfall in sales?
1270
Post by: Osbad
Yup, Kickstarter is only relevant in that it demonstrates the overall "pie" of wargaming sales is likely growing year on year, while GW's volume sales flatline - therefore they represent year on year a smaller proportion of the total wargaming market. Probably.
And yes, GW's profit improvement post-2008 are solely due to what they would term "increased efficiency". I.e. they retain a greater part of every £ they earn, while simultaneously collecting fewer £s to begin with.
GW noticeably shy away from any mention of "real" (i.e. inflation-adjusted) figures in their annual reports, precisely I suspect because it paints such a negative picture of their performance, which isn't what management will want to tell shareholders. Although of course I am sure most of them will have the sophistication to to the maths themselves. Or should do. Still as long as they manage to keep squeezing out a profit, I can't see the shareholders abandoning ship. The point at which GW cease to have a functional fan base to ream has been deferred for a further year it would seem.
44919
Post by: Fezman
Kroothawk wrote:
Not only legal team, but everyone from sales person to higher management: If you are a yes-man, your qualifications don't matter
Exactly what I was thinking!
Now maybe I'm just stuck in the past but surely attitude is only going to get you so far if you don't have the skills to do your actual job? I was of the opinion that fi you apply for a job and spend a chunk of your covering letter raving about how much you love the company and their products and culture it's unprofessional, it looks desperate and that's time that you're not spending describing your skills, experience and qualifications - all concrete things that Mr Kirby is outright throwing out the window here.
27987
Post by: Surtur
Osbad wrote: *snip*
If anyone has access to historic non- UK inflation figures, particularly the US (trying to get them for the EU and ROW is likely impossible, although Australia probably forms most of RoW world sales I guess) then the raw data is as follows:
Using that collection of numbers and http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/ we find out that GW post collapse at 2008 made $119.7 million by today's inflation. Meaning they're a whopping $14.8 mil better than they were 5 years ago. Consider that in '09 when they recovered with a boom they effectively made $136.9 mil adjusted for inflation. That means they're $2.4 mil in the hole from 4 years ago.
8617
Post by: Hulksmash
Oh good, it's that time of year again. I look forward to pages and pages of awesome.
On topic:
It's good to see they manage to mitigate the bomb that was the Hobbit. Hopefully knowing the next one is likely to bomb they keep up the release schedule like they have been.
50832
Post by: Sigvatr
Actually, I'm split. On the one hand, I highly appreciate Games Workshop for what they do: they are a successful company in a niche business.
On the other hand, this result means that everything they did in the past, which was mostly alienating vets and raising prices to obscene levels, was fully justified and will be kept up in the future.
67781
Post by: BryllCream
Q: when is growth not actually growth?
A: when it's on dakka of course!
The wargaming market as a whole is irrelevant, as gw is a mainstream company - probably 90% of their customers don't know or care about other miniature companies. You May as well say that a huge New call of duty game makes the Sims less popular because computer gaming as a whole has grown.
123
Post by: Alpharius
That's another box ticked...
22639
Post by: Baragash
Left Hand of the Pheonix wrote:Thank god I'm a trained accountant who can understand all those numbers. From my viewpoint GW is in an good place, but there are some areas to be adressed.
As an accountant who spent 9 years at UK retailers, I disagree, and your post is a good example of what I've been saying for years about GW's results (that their reporting strategy is to flatter their investor-centric metrics so that any quick glance paints a good picture).
As someone else pointed out, there's a disconnect/shift between adjectives used in reports, using "mixed year" really means they consider it "bad", because really it says "it was a mixed year even after we manipulated everything we possibly could to make the numbers as positive as possible".
I would speculate that if the revenue were stripped back to the core business (pre-royalties, no BL, no FW, separate Direct sales*), there would be an even more dramtically declining trend over time. And this is really the crux of why I disagree with your top line comment - GW is showing sustained decline in it's core business, even this year with it throwing "flag ship" products at us at an unheralded rate. I think there have to be exceptional circumstances for a company with a medium-term decline in it's core business to be branded as "good", especially when anecdotal evidence is that they are underperforming the market.
Where we do agree is that GW's financial position means that it's not a case of the ship being holed below the waterline and everyone get the hell out, it has a strong position from which to address the issues.
*Because whilst it's great that an area of the business is showing growth, if it's a result of channel canabalisation it's not really that good a thing, especially when it's moving out from your highest fixed cost base when it is your publically stated strategy to continue down that fixed cost base path.**
**I'll caveat this by saying that for the 4 years I was a red shirt, mail order sales placed in store went through the store till, and therefore appeared in the store sales. I haven't placed an in store mail order for years so I don't know if this is still the case, if it's not then there's probably a good case not to exclude Direct Sales because we can't really say what the effect of GW's in-store range rationalistion is.
5394
Post by: reds8n
 Baragash wrote:t, mail order sales placed in store went through the store till, and therefore appeared in the store sales. I haven't placed an in store mail order for years so I don't know if this is still the case,.
Is in the UK.
27051
Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That
The knee-jerk response from outsiders is nearly always either you are doing it wrong or you will fail. Neither is true.
If that's not a dig at Dakka, then I don't know what is!  Automatically Appended Next Post:  BryllCream wrote:Q: when is growth not actually growth?
A: when it's on dakka of course!
The wargaming market as a whole is irrelevant, as gw is a mainstream company - probably 90% of their customers don't know or care about other miniature companies. You May as well say that a huge New call of duty game makes the Sims less popular because computer gaming as a whole has grown.
Strangely, I find myself agreeing with you.
I remember people saying in the 1980s that GW was doomed.
I remember people saying in the 1990s that GW was doomed
I remember...you get the gist.
I'm always ready to criticise aspects of GW (whilst praising others) but they're still around, still selling, and still making people happy. A small minority gnashing their teeth on dakka won't change that.
37325
Post by: Adam LongWalker
Baragash wrote:Left Hand of the Pheonix wrote:Thank god I'm a trained accountant who can understand all those numbers. From my viewpoint GW is in an good place, but there are some areas to be adressed.
As an accountant who spent 9 years at UK retailers, I disagree, and your post is a good example of what I've been saying for years about GW's results (that their reporting strategy is to flatter their investor-centric metrics so that any quick glance paints a good picture).
As someone else pointed out, there's a disconnect/shift between adjectives used in reports, using "mixed year" really means they consider it "bad", because really it says "it was a mixed year even after we manipulated everything we possibly could to make the numbers as positive as possible".
I would speculate that if the revenue were stripped back to the core business (pre-royalties, no BL, no FW, separate Direct sales*), there would be an even more dramtically declining trend over time. And this is really the crux of why I disagree with your top line comment - GW is showing sustained decline in it's core business, even this year with it throwing "flag ship" products at us at an unheralded rate. I think there have to be exceptional circumstances for a company with a medium-term decline in it's core business to be branded as "good", especially when anecdotal evidence is that they are underperforming the market.
Where we do agree is that GW's financial position means that it's not a case of the ship being holed below the waterline and everyone get the hell out, it has a strong position from which to address the issues.
*Because whilst it's great that an area of the business is showing growth, if it's a result of channel canabalisation it's not really that good a thing, especially when it's moving out from your highest fixed cost base when it is your publically stated strategy to continue down that fixed cost base path.**
**I'll caveat this by saying that for the 4 years I was a red shirt, mail order sales placed in store went through the store till, and therefore appeared in the store sales. I haven't placed an in store mail order for years so I don't know if this is still the case, if it's not then there's probably a good case not to exclude Direct Sales because we can't really say what the effect of GW's in-store range rationalistion is.
QFT. For months I have said that GW is going to show a profit and they did. But at what cost to the company? From a business standpoint Your comments echos my own.
I'll perhaps post more on this later.
65463
Post by: Herzlos
BryllCream wrote:The wargaming market as a whole is irrelevant, as gw is a mainstream company - probably 90% of their customers don't know or care about other miniature companies. You May as well say that a huge New call of duty game makes the Sims less popular because computer gaming as a whole has grown.
I disagree, it shows there's a huge growth in tabletop gaming, but none of it is going to GW. That means there's a growing group of people that GW are failing to monetize. The fact this is happening whilst the majority (your 90%) of GW's customers don't even know about the rest of the market is even worse; it's indicating that those that do discover the competition (the other 10%) are spending like mad, but it's all going to GW's direct competition.
There's also the usual risk about losing market share, especially in a peer driven hobby, and that's in reduced exposure and recruitment. If all your friends play X-Wing, how are you going to get into 40K?
20880
Post by: loki old fart
Herzlos wrote:
There's also the usual risk about losing market share, especially in a peer driven hobby, and that's in reduced exposure and recruitment. If all your friends play X-Wing, how are you going to get into 40K?
Exactly, and that's where GW seems to have lost the plot.
36276
Post by: Zweischneid
I think people overestimate the slice of the pie in this market outside GW, especially the Kickstarter part.
Kickstarter was founded in 2009. In these four years since Kickstarter went life, a total of US$140.61 Million (GBP 92.49 Million) were pledged to successful projects in the "Games" category (which includes Computer Games (e.g. Star Citizen, etc..), Board Games, Miniatures Games, Card Games, everything...)
Games Workshop's Preliminary Revenue in the 2012-2013 financial year alone was GBP 134.6 Million.
They took in more money last year than ALL Kickstarter-projects related to gaming in the history of Kickstarter.com.
1
65463
Post by: Herzlos
Yup, they are definitely still by far the biggest player, but it's facing a growing number of competitors which are themselves growing in size. Whilst I'm sure GW probably employs more staff than all of it's competitors combined, they are all growing at a huge rate whilst GW is declining slowly. That trend can only carry on for so long before GW stops being the big fish.
They'll still be the dominant market force for at least another 5-10 years I reckon before someone else becomes the default gateway company.
1270
Post by: Osbad
Every year we have this come up and every year we get a few people who like to complain that anything that points out problems with GW's business plan is somehow "gnashing their teeth" and forecasting "doom".
News for you guys - No we aren't!
I'll let others speak for themselves. For myself it's just an attempt to get behind the corporate-speak, and understand how GW, the largest toy-soldier company in the world, is really doing, and how that may impact on my own hobby.
Personally I have very little interest in their games any more, and only retain an interest in their doings because they seem to have a very ...... unique ..... business model which I am interested in seeing pan out over time.
I did predict back in 2004 that they would crash and burn in 2008 or so. Fortunately they avoided that calamity due to favourable exchange rate gains which boosted their US-based profit, and also some exceptional licencing revenues.
Since then I have never predicted anything, as their strong cash positive position means they are pretty immune from any short term issues. So I am more interested in what the numbers are really saying about the number of people around the world buying their stuff and whether that implies the "GW Hobby" is growing or not.
On the one hand we see lots of (to us) strange decisions re pricing, relationships with various overseas markets, independent traders etc. which seem like they will affect things one way, and on the other we know that there are a lot of frothing fans out there who seem to be prepared to sell a kidney in order to buy the latest plastic crack.
The publication of the audited annual results is the best chance we have of analyzing the results for ourselves with any sense of objectivity. GW management of course will always try to put the most positive spin on things. Only the most naive of readers would not try to "de-spin" the report and so take everything as the Gospel of St Kirby as God's honest truth!
A lack of naivity does not necessarily make for a Cassandra-esque doom monger!
(Although thinking about it, Cassandra was in the end proved right....)
38067
Post by: spaceelf
"Finding new places at attractive rents for our stores is not plain sailing, but is not as hard as finding the
right people to run them in the right quantity. We have yet to get this as right as we would like and our
new store openings in the period (net 6, 46 openings and 40 closings) is a reflection of that difficulty.
In an ideal world we would be opening 40 or 50 net new stores every year.
If we are opening stores to pursue sales growth, then why close any? Over the past decade we had
accumulated several stores that didn’t work out, usually because the rent was too high. We are closing
these as fast as makes sense. Sometimes it is more cost effective to pay to be released from our
lease and sometimes it is better to wait for the end of the lease. This is a process that is mostly
restricted to North America (and the USA, not Canada) and should be largely complete by the end of
the year to May 2014. "
They claim that they are closing stores because of rent, not because of their employees. If it is so hard to find good people as they say, then why not take the employees from the stores that are closing and staff new stores with them? When a GW store closes in the US, the staff have to reapply for jobs. They are not transferred. Most of course are not rehired.
I attribute their store closings to faltering demand in a given geographical market. GW slashes and burns. They vacate and move on to new pastures.
What happens when GW move out is that FLGS open and other games are played. GW have terrible games for new hobbiests. Games like Malifaux and Warmahordes are much more accessible.
70225
Post by: Jack_Death
Koppo wrote:Hang on..
Earnings per share of 51.5p (2012:46.8p)
Dividends per share declared in the year of 58p (2012: 63p)
Does that not mean that GW went in to debt and borrowed money (at interest) to pay dividends? Or did this come from some cash reserve?
Short answer. No.
20774
Post by: pretre
Is it time to change the batteries in my smoke alarms already? We should just make a 'Annual Report thread template' and post it everytime one of these comes up.
24567
Post by: Kroothawk
 Surtur wrote: Kroothawk wrote:BTW can someone explain, why £ 134.6m in constant currency at 2.7% inflation is £135.6m and not £130.9m?
Because I think someone forgot which number to multiply. But yeah, my math of using 2.7% inflation (British inflation) makes the revenue to be flat. I think a keen investor should be scratching their head on that one because according to GW "Fine"ancial report, they experience .7% DEflation.
Guess the GW accountant had the right attitude then
But 2.7% more revenue at 2.7% inflation rate looks flat to me.
As I said some time ago: If GW needs to double its prices to keep revenue flat, they are indeed in dire straights.
369
Post by: Koppo
Jack_Death wrote:Koppo wrote:Hang on..
Earnings per share of 51.5p (2012:46.8p)
Dividends per share declared in the year of 58p (2012: 63p)
Does that not mean that GW went in to debt and borrowed money (at interest) to pay dividends? Or did this come from some cash reserve?
Short answer. No.
Are you sure, the preamble was appended after I posted (or after I started to post anyway) and includes this
The fact that we have been paying a lot of surplus cash out as dividends hasn’t put them off! We’ll see what happens when we have a bad year and stop.
Which would indicate that the answer is "No and yes". That surplus was not generated this year as earning per share was less than dividends, neither was it generated last year as again earning per share were less than the dividends. So this surplus must be somewhere and must have been generated at least 2 years ago.
If the company make £1 in earnings for every share in issue and gives £2 in dividends for each share in issue then money out is greater than money in, so it must either come from some pot or be loaned from somewhere.
Unless I am missing something here (corporate finance is not my strong suit).
722
Post by: Kanluwen
 spaceelf wrote:
They claim that they are closing stores because of rent, not because of their employees. If it is so hard to find good people as they say, then why not take the employees from the stores that are closing and staff new stores with them? When a GW store closes in the US, the staff have to reapply for jobs. They are not transferred. Most of course are not rehired.
Of course the staff are not transferred.
That costs money on both the employee and employer's end. How many people do you think are willing to move to work what amounts to a minimum wage job?
59092
Post by: BrotherVord
Kroothawk wrote: Surtur wrote: Kroothawk wrote:BTW can someone explain, why £ 134.6m in constant currency at 2.7% inflation is £135.6m and not £130.9m?
Because I think someone forgot which number to multiply. But yeah, my math of using 2.7% inflation (British inflation) makes the revenue to be flat. I think a keen investor should be scratching their head on that one because according to GW "Fine"ancial report, they experience .7% DEflation.
Guess the GW accountant had the right attitude then
But 2.7% more revenue at 2.7% inflation rate looks flat to me.
As I said some time ago: If GW needs to double its prices to keep revenue flat, they are indeed in dire straights.
This, anybody who tried to analyze this in any other way lacks some critical thinking skills. This is unsustainable, it's only a matter of time before it collapses like a neutron star. I, for one, can't wait! It'll be good for the hobby
24567
Post by: Kroothawk
To summarize:
This financial year had:
- a new 40k edition with rules and starter box
- a new Hobbit edition with rules and starter box (costing double the price than its predecessor at release, same with miniatures)
- 6 new Codices/Armybooks from January to May (each costing double the price than its predecessor at release)
- Miniature releases with big boxes at ever rising prices (Eldar Titan outside of this financial year though)
Still, the total revenue only managed to stay flat adjusted for inflation. What options have they left to keep revenue flat next year? Another 40k Edition? 2 Codices per month? Quadrupling prices?
Why does Tom Kirby have mixed feelings about this result? Because he still gets one million GBP out of this!
38067
Post by: spaceelf
 Kanluwen wrote: spaceelf wrote:
They claim that they are closing stores because of rent, not because of their employees. If it is so hard to find good people as they say, then why not take the employees from the stores that are closing and staff new stores with them? When a GW store closes in the US, the staff have to reapply for jobs. They are not transferred. Most of course are not rehired.
Of course the staff are not transferred.
That costs money on both the employee and employer's end. How many people do you think are willing to move to work what amounts to a minimum wage job?
A one man store operator earns more than minimum wage and gets health insurance. I am not saying that it is a good deal for the employee, or that it is a good job.
When I say transferred, I mean assigned to another local store, not necessarily relocated.
The reality is that it is not about finding cheap places to put stores, nor about fining good employees. They are pulling out of certain towns and opening up in others. I believe the reason for this is that the market in the old towns has dried up.
20774
Post by: pretre
Kroothawk wrote:- 6 new Codices/Armybooks from January to May (each costing double the price than its predecessor at release)
Old codexes were 30-33 weren't they? 30-33 * 2 =/ 50.
11134
Post by: troy_tempest
AlmightyWalrus said it right!
27051
Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That
Kroothawk wrote:To summarize:
This financial year had:
- a new 40k edition with rules and starter box
- a new Hobbit edition with rules and starter box (costing double the price than its predecessor at release, same with miniatures)
- 6 new Codices/Armybooks from January to May (each costing double the price than its predecessor at release)
- Miniature releases with big boxes at ever rising prices (Eldar Titan outside of this financial year though)
Still, the total revenue only managed to stay flat adjusted for inflation. What options have they left to keep revenue flat next year? Another 40k Edition? 2 Codices per month? Quadrupling prices?
Why does Tom Kirby have mixed feelings about this result? Because he still gets one million GBP out of this!
I know what will save GW next year - a Brettonian army book. It's been that long, that I would probably but every new Brettonian release three times! There are many like me
9594
Post by: RiTides
Interesting that he spent the vast bulk of the space talking about attitude for employees, how skill doesn't matter, and how doing it any other way would somehow be bad for morale. What a terrible company to work for 
But they're holding steady on making a profit each year, that can't be denied. Lost my business for the last 2 years now, but I'll still buy their rulebooks and use alternate models to play their games 
Particularly so now that they've made sure in law that it's acceptable for other companies to make compatible parts / models, via their Chapterhouse case.
24567
Post by: Kroothawk
 pretre wrote: Kroothawk wrote:- 6 new Codices/Armybooks from January to May (each costing double the price than its predecessor at release)
Old codexes were 30-33 weren't they? 30-33 * 2 =/ 50.
In Germany they were 18-20€ at release, now 39€.
20774
Post by: pretre
Kroothawk wrote: pretre wrote: Kroothawk wrote:- 6 new Codices/Armybooks from January to May (each costing double the price than its predecessor at release)
Old codexes were 30-33 weren't they? 30-33 * 2 =/ 50.
In Germany they were 18-20€ at release, now 39€.
That's what you get for having the Euro.
50832
Post by: Sigvatr
pretre wrote: Kroothawk wrote: pretre wrote: Kroothawk wrote:- 6 new Codices/Armybooks from January to May (each costing double the price than its predecessor at release)
Old codexes were 30-33 weren't they? 30-33 * 2 =/ 50.
In Germany they were 18-20€ at release, now 39€.
That's what you get for having the Euro.
More like the Germanyandtheresto
42144
Post by: cincydooley
 RiTides wrote:Interesting that he spent the vast bulk of the space talking about attitude for employees, how skill doesn't matter, and how doing it any other way would somehow be bad for morale.
It's a lot easier to teach someone a skill than to teach someone an attitude.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
Kroothawk wrote:
Another thing: First half outsold second half of financial year. Seems the Hobbit bubble / Xmas sales / new a-Codex-a-month schedule didn't pay off?
Was the 6th edition rulebook released this Fiscal Year or last?
Also, there's a lot of Chaos players who got a new Codex.
55015
Post by: The Shadow
Sigvatr wrote:How about other gameslike Pokémon or role-playing games? (Who can remember them, now?)
I...I...I am out of words.
Yeah, this is an odd jibe. I swear the Pokémon franchise alone will bring in more money than the entirety of GW.
23979
Post by: frozenwastes
Another year of flat revenue in real terms. They grew in today's dollars, but barely enough to keep up with inflation.
Kirby was able to pay himself a really huge dividend. The machine is working for his purposes.
I think GW can continue the process of moving everyone towards paying Forgeworld and Australian/Canadian prices. They haven't hit the point where their customers are buying less in any way that drops their revenues, so there's more room for more price increases.
And I think if this year is any indication, the price increases will no longer be an across the board adjustment, but based on new releases.
GW's revenue grows, but not by much in real terms, Kirby pays himself a big fat cheque, and the customer base shrinks ever so slightly as new prices x units sold = flat revenue.
Looks like another year of business as usual at GW.
20880
Post by: loki old fart
I think in about five years. They may hit the tipping point, where their market is severely impacted by the new games/figures manufacturers.
When its as easy to get a game of warmachine/fow etc, and 40k is not the obvious gateway into wargaming. The cracks are showing, the dam can burst.
44183
Post by: decker_cky
Wolfstan wrote:There appears to of been a major influx of Kickstarter projects this year, so I wonder if they will show an impact on the next set of figures?
Kickstarter projects don't directly hurt GW. In some ways, they probably even help GW (helping to provide for those in the community who won't pay as much, for example).
But what it does mean is that there's more competitors, and the existing competitors are growing at a much faster rate (along with traditional competitors growing, such as privateer press). As long as the pie grows, it's fine for GW, but at a certain point, some of those companies will start eating into GW's bottom line. So not a direct threat, but it's something GW would have to keep their eyes on for the future.
Kroothawk wrote:To summarize:
This financial year had:
- a new 40k edition with rules and starter box
- a new Hobbit edition with rules and starter box (costing double the price than its predecessor at release, same with miniatures)
- 6 new Codices/Armybooks from January to May (each costing double the price than its predecessor at release)
- Miniature releases with big boxes at ever rising prices (Eldar Titan outside of this financial year though)
Still, the total revenue only managed to stay flat adjusted for inflation. What options have they left to keep revenue flat next year? Another 40k Edition? 2 Codices per month? Quadrupling prices?
Why does Tom Kirby have mixed feelings about this result? Because he still gets one million GBP out of this!
Profit was also (essentially) flat this year and over the past few years, when GW has obviously been pumping out a lot more plastic than in the past. Finecast is something a lot of people see as an issue, but it's a smaller and smaller proportion of the overall range. GW obviously isn't going to disappear in a year or two, and if they keep this up, the range will be almost entirely plastic within a couple of years. Prices will still be expensive, but the all plastic range is a big advantage.
23979
Post by: frozenwastes
The hobbit thing actually bears commenting on. If it did bring in all sorts of money, then 40k sales shrank. If it didn't, then what a waste of resources that could have gone into their best selling products.
44183
Post by: decker_cky
 frozenwastes wrote:The hobbit thing actually bears commenting on. If it did bring in all sorts of money, then 40k sales shrank. If it didn't, then what a waste of resources that could have gone into their best selling products.
I'm sure GW is happy to dump money into the hobbit to stop other companies from getting the license.
67781
Post by: BryllCream
decker_cky wrote: frozenwastes wrote:The hobbit thing actually bears commenting on. If it did bring in all sorts of money, then 40k sales shrank. If it didn't, then what a waste of resources that could have gone into their best selling products.
I'm sure GW is happy to dump money into the hobbit to stop other companies from getting the license.
On the contrary it would seem that they're tied in to a deal. There's no way gw made money from the hobbit, I doubt they will from the second and third releases.
44272
Post by: Azreal13
BryllCream wrote:decker_cky wrote: frozenwastes wrote:The hobbit thing actually bears commenting on. If it did bring in all sorts of money, then 40k sales shrank. If it didn't, then what a waste of resources that could have gone into their best selling products.
I'm sure GW is happy to dump money into the hobbit to stop other companies from getting the license.
On the contrary it would seem that they're tied in to a deal. There's no way gw made money from the hobbit, I doubt they will from the second and third releases.
I'd qualify that with "if they continue to take the same approach"
There is money to be made from the Hobbit licence, but not if they continue to sit on their corpulent backsides and expect all the people they haven't advertised their product to to come flocking into their stores (assuming its not on a Monday or Tuesday, as the 'manager' will be on his days off and the store will be shut) waving money to buy vast quantities of high priced miniatures that are merely variations on models they have already released from the first film or the LOTR trilogy. If they actually put some effort in, and try to offer a product of reasonable value to a market that is slightly broader than "people who would have come into the shop and bought it already" then they, and we, may be pleasantly surprised.
7463
Post by: Crablezworth
I love how Tom Kirby can't shut up about hiring for "attitude" rather than skills. He's basically saying he doesn't want skilled intelligent frogs (employees) who may actually notice and take issue with the water temperature slowly rising so to speak. Locally our store is shutting down and moving, becoming a "one man" store with no gaming area, this is regardless of the fact that it’s one of the best performing stores in canada. It's going from like 4 employees to just the manager. All of the employees I'm sure were told about a "career" at games workshop, all of them put in an honest effort and did what they were told, they all drank the koolaid and fit into the gw mindset (attitude) as best they could. They're all losing their jobs, it's pretty sad.
We all joke about the cliche of "that's it, I'm not bying anymore gw stuff", the reactionary people who say that kinda stuff everytime some crappy pr comes out way. Well I've never said that myself, however I've noticed that I haven't purchased a gw kit in almost 10 months. I've ordered the occasional bits, can't lie about it, but when it comes to straight up boxed purchase it's been a while. I don't know if that's just subconcious block on purchasing due to extreme hate for the corporate side of the company or that they really haven't released too much that I want or can afford.
The report seems to make sense, they're not really making more money, they're spending less to make it. All I know is the store here where I live supports a decent 40k community and when it closes, that community will probably change, those that can game at home will likely continue to do so but if others can't find a game, there's warmachine, flames of war, malifaux, infinity and mercs all waitin to scoop them up and a few of those don't involve that much money to get into. I don't think 40k will die locally, but it will certainly shrink.
4001
Post by: Compel
It certainly *feels* like I've not bought any GW products in ages.
But, truth be told.....
July: Apocalypse Rulebook, Apocalypse Templates, Vortex Template
June: Eldar codex. 3 versions of Bugman, Bugmans Boardgame, Abaddon+Loken, Rhino Doors, Bugmans Pitcher. Belial.
May: 2 Vengeance Cruisers, 9 escorts. Planet Killer. Orbital BatteriesGaunts Ghosts, Last Chancers. Assorted Mordians.
April: Tau Codex
March:
February: Chaos Demons Codex
January: Dark Angels codex, Nephilim Fighter
December: The Hobbit game. Crusade of Fire
November: Helltalon fighter. Eavy Metal paint set
October: Chaos Space Marine codex.
September: Dark Vengeance
August:
July: 40k 6th Edition Collectors book.
Admittedly, it's mostly books (but doesn't include my black library purchases including the darned limited editions). Yet, that's genuinely a stupid amount of purchases for buying from a company I don't like anymore.
I'm completely a grade A sucker. Hook line and sinker.
12260
Post by: Davylove21
Surely making more money, however you go about it, is good?
Well done GW. I can't remember them not posting profits. I don't like all the releases but with Space Marines getting a new book between now and the next report, I guarantee they post profits next time too.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
 loki old fart wrote:When its as easy to get a game of warmachine/ fow etc, and 40k is not the obvious gateway into wargaming. The cracks are showing, the dam can burst.
I think this is a huge key, but is it really even close to being the case yet?
As to the attitude over skill thing: this really isn't that uncommon for large companies. Again, it's much easier to hone the skills of someone with a great attitude than it is to readjust the attitude of someone with great skills.
27987
Post by: Surtur
I thought that too until my baby seal beating business was burned down.
20774
Post by: pretre
In business, it is much easier to fix a skill issue than a will issue.
24567
Post by: Kroothawk
frozenwastes wrote:They haven't hit the point where their customers are buying less in any way that drops their revenues, so there's more room for more price increases.
And I think if this year is any indication, the price increases will no longer be an across the board adjustment, but based on new releases.
Actually I think, we ARE now in the escalation phase:
- Total revenue is flat, but declining in its core market UK, rest of Europe and Australia. Only in North America (and Asia but this market is neglegible) was an increase, that is a fraction of the total market.
- Biggest increase was with BL and FW, the latter maybe because GW prices are now close to FW prices. Another segment reducing revenue from the core products. So core products also generate less revenue globally.
- Price increases went up to flat out doubling. Most prominent with everything from the Hobbit (killing the game from the start among other things), 2 sprue kit variants for over 50$ (e.g. DA Landspeeder and Dark Talon) and Codex kits for over 110$. This is a desperate and unsustainable strategy, that can only be followed one or two years before crippling the market.
- Sales of Products are mostly done in the 1-2 months after release, that's why price increases are now concentrated on those without any consequences. That's why all Finecast is mail order only after a few weeks.
Future trend: Half the Codices (called supplements!) plus half the rulebooks (e.g. Death from the Sky) are mail order only to maximize profit and minimize effort and risk (English only). Supplements again cost about double previous supplement price in addition to reduced margins for FLGS, while its content is blown up to Codex page size with big sometimes recycled pics.
4566
Post by: catharsix
Kroothawk wrote: frozenwastes wrote:They haven't hit the point where their customers are buying less in any way that drops their revenues, so there's more room for more price increases.
And I think if this year is any indication, the price increases will no longer be an across the board adjustment, but based on new releases.
Actually I think, we ARE now in the escalation phase:
- Total revenue is flat, but declining in its core market UK, rest of Europe and Australia. Only in North America (and Asia but this market is neglegible) was an increase, that is a fraction of the total market.
- Biggest increase was with BL and FW, the latter maybe because GW prices are now close to FW prices. Another segment reducing revenue from the core products. So core products also generate less revenue globally.
- Price increases went up to flat out doubling. Most prominent with everything from the Hobbit (killing the game from the start among other things), 2 sprue kit variants for over 50$ (e.g. DA Landspeeder and Dark Talon) and Codex kits for over 110$. This is a desperate and unsustainable strategy, that can only be followed one or two years before crippling the market.
- Sales of Products are mostly done in the 1-2 months after release, that's why price increases are now concentrated on those without any consequences. That's why all Finecast is mail order only after a few weeks.
Future trend: Half the Codices (called supplements!) plus half the rulebooks (e.g. Death from the Sky) are mail order only to maximize profit and minimize effort and risk (English only). Supplements again cost about double previous supplement price in addition to reduced margins for FLGS, while its content is blown up to Codex page size with big sometimes recycled pics.
Certainly the relentless move (first in dribs and drabs, but more recently in huge leaps) of GW kits toward FW prices has something to do with FW's good performance, but I would say that another reason that FW is doing better than GW as a whole is that FW is putting out consistently high-quality product (in terms of design). When was the last time FW put out a new kit that people (at least some) were like "ZOMG that looks awful!" ? I can't remember when. The HH stuff has been solid overall, with some pieces being truly impressive. 40K and Fantasy have had some real fugly releases though - as well as some good ones, of course. On the whole however, FW is putting out very consistently well-designed models, while Citadel is putting out a very mixed bag of good stuff with some really awful, burns-the-eye-to-look-at models.
I also agree that the "leaps" in price increases aren't sustainable, and that it smacks of desperation. It's as if they're trying to squeeze maximum cash from existing fans because they know that they've priced the game ( 40k and Fantasy) out of almost all new potential players ability or willingness to pay.
If this is a lot of tap-dancing to make mediocre or bad numbers seem good to investors (and I'm no accountant, but do know human nature, so I suspect it IS true) then we'll see things getting worse and Kirby having to tap-dance harder next year. He'll be happy to do so, and continue tap-dancing this company into the ground (however long that takes) since he can continue to enrich himself, and even if he totally destroys the entire company, he will land on a pile of money so huge with his golden parachute that it won't matter.
-C6
7463
Post by: Crablezworth
It's also never been easier to play certain 40k armies either partially or entirely count as using other manufacturers miniatures. And with GW pulling out from tournaments, there's no one there to tell you that your wargames factory shock trooper can't be used as an imperial guardsmen because it's not "official". The third party market also seems to have a good ear for what people want too, look no further than all the different aegis lines out there that fit the aesthetic of armies better.
4001
Post by: Compel
That's true, any Undead armies I see at my gaming club include at least some Mantic models. I think newer ones are mostly mantic.
There's people on the 40k side of things considering collecting Guard, who have started with sets of Corporation Troopers.
20880
Post by: loki old fart
Like I said the cracks are showing.
50832
Post by: Sigvatr
What cracks? I mean, people complain about prices all the time but seemingly, most people still are totally ok with these prices, else GW would be at a loss, not where they stand right now.
Sure, if you have to rise prices to keep a profit, that ain't a good sign, but if you still maintain such a positive balance...that's a minor flesh wound.
Furthermore, as others already pointed out: GW's "competitors" are a joke right now if you compare their sales numbers to GW's. Sure, that might change in the future, but that's all guessing into the blue. What we have right now, right here, is a paper showing us that GW makes a profit. That's good for independents too and that also benefits GW's marketing model: lure people into the hobby. Make them buy a few boxes at high prices, then let them wander away to other miniature games.
7183
Post by: Danny Internets
The fact that they released a new edition of their flagship product and re-released a huge number of 40k armies in the past year and have nothing to show for it (revenue barely kept pace with inflation) should be more than a little disconcerting for investors. But I guess that's why they're so focused on making those dividend payments--gotta do something to keep people from dumping shares.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
 Danny Internets wrote:The fact that they released a new edition of their flagship product and re-released a huge number of 40k armies in the past year and have nothing to show for it (revenue barely kept pace with inflation) should be more than a little disconcerting for investors. But I guess that's why they're so focused on making those dividend payments--gotta do something to keep people from dumping shares.
Don't they have like, 140 million things to show for it?
I think we're underestimating the loss that The Hobbit products could potentially be running at. If, in fact, The Hobbit is running at a loss (like many people have speculated) then it speaks pretty well to their agility as a business that they can cover those losses with 40k and Fantasy.
20880
Post by: loki old fart
Sigvatr wrote:What cracks? I mean, people complain about prices all the time but seemingly, most people still are totally ok with these prices, else GW would be at a loss, not where they stand right now.
Sure, if you have to rise prices to keep a profit, that ain't a good sign, but if you still maintain such a positive balance...that's a minor flesh wound.
Furthermore, as others already pointed out: GW's "competitors" are a joke right now if you compare their sales numbers to GW's. Sure, that might change in the future, but that's all guessing into the blue. What we have right now, right here, is a paper showing us that GW makes a profit. That's good for independents too and that also benefits GW's marketing model: lure people into the hobby. Make them buy a few boxes at high prices, then let them wander away to other miniature games.
Stopping tournment support, thus enabling people to use competitors products as stand ins.
Stopping gaming in store. Forcing customers to play at independent stores where they will become more aware of competitors games and figures.
On there own each competitor is no problem, combined they're a large slice of GW's market.
Most people post about how much they would have spent.
This year GW sold me 2 pots of paint and 1 dark vengeance, for the rule book
50832
Post by: Sigvatr
Personally, I am all in your boat. I still play 40k and WHFB, but the only thing I bought in 2 years from GW directly is the army book...and even that was from Wayland Games. A few paints, but also bought at the FLGS. Everything else was bought via second hand at a killer price.
I wish GW would have severe problems right now. Forcing them to react, forcing them to fire the idiot Kirby is (and he recently proved that he is one again in his "shareholder speech"). But right now, that's not happening. GW is operating well and the ship might have scratched a few rocks, but it's far from sinking...yet.
WotC buying GW's IP would be the best thing that could happen. But alas, that's wishful thinking again...
26430
Post by: McNs
I think "mixed year" is a fair assessment of the year. They increased profit, albeit via cost cutting (reducing average # of employees in store, more SKU's in Finecast, etc etc). I don't think there's a case to be made that GW is in any real danger of collapse in the immediate future.
I do think they're going to take steps to get more sales volume or generate revenue in other ways in the future, as there's a point where you can't get any "leaner and meaner".
Those new sources of revenue* may be a boon to the consumer. The recent pace of releases has been great; we're getting more armies out in faster times than I've ever seen. Supplements are a great idea; while I don't love the prices I do like having the option. Lots of products have gone digital (albeit at comically high prices), which is something I quite like. Despite the bad (i.e.- continued price creep), GW has done some decent things this year.
2014 and 2015 will be interesting years for GW. On the one hand, its hard for me not to see $100+ Land Raiders and increasing large and complex (and pricey) plastic kits becoming the norm. On the other hand, GW has an opportunity to do some interesting things with some of its IP. I'm hoping the rumors about the changes to 9th edition WFB are true (going to "Armies of Good"/"Armies of Bad" style supplements with an Allies Matrix). With the Hobbit in decline, it'll be interesting to see if they branch into a new game (maybe bring bad Bloodbowl?).
Here's hoping for a forecast that includes something beyond "DOOOMMM!!!"
* - Here's hoping this isn't just price hikes.
5810
Post by: MIKEtheMERCILESS
To be fair to Kirby - I remember when everyone was claiming Pokemon was going to kill of GW by stripping away all the younger player base. A bit gun-ho with "where are they now?", but a fair shout to call the people who were hailing it as the last horseman of the apocolypse for the hobby...
20887
Post by: xxvaderxx
Revenue
- Revenue at £ 134.6m (2012: £131.0m)
- Revenue at constant currency* at £135.6m (2012:£131.0m)
So, with under a 3% increase, now approaching a flat line, in a growing market, how much loger a are we supposed to eat the BS sandwich that GW is not shrinking?.
4001
Post by: Compel
That just seems weird. Isn't pokemon more for pre-teens, whereas GW's market is for early-teens.
Plus, I think (anecdotally) a lot of indy stores end up having Magic The Gathering pay the bills more that GW.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Weirdly this has been the least painful year for us folks in Oz, as the prices haven't been rising for us. The prices for the rest of you have just be rising to match our own.
The exception are the Codices of course. They're so damned expensive now that they're just not worth it. I'll take a beautifully produced FFG hardback with twice the content for half the price thanks.
24567
Post by: Kroothawk
@H.B.M.C.: Make sure that your colleagues at FFG get to read all the belittlement and insults, Tom Kirby is throwing at the folks working on the 40k RPGs:
How about other games like Pokémon or role-playing games? (Who can remember them, now?)
(...)
Nearly all our royalty income (88% last year and 82% this) comes from licences sold to computer games companies.
(The balance is from Fantasy Flight Games which makes card games and board games - and very good they are too!)
17923
Post by: Asherian Command
Kroothawk wrote:@H.B.M.C.: Make sure that your colleagues at FFG get to read all the belittlement and insults, Tom Kirby is throwing at the folks working on the 40k RPGs:
How about other games like Pokémon or role-playing games? (Who can remember them, now?)
(...)
Nearly all our royalty income (88% last year and 82% this) comes from licences sold to computer games companies.
(The balance is from Fantasy Flight Games which makes card games and board games - and very good they are too!)
Youch.......
67781
Post by: BryllCream
A sentence about a tiny part of games workshop's income, and within that a single aspect (rpgs) is omitted and you decide that means he's giving it the finger? Even when he, in the very next words, praises what ffg do?
Oh dakka I salute thee.
24567
Post by: Kroothawk
BryllCream wrote:A sentence about a tiny part of games workshop's income, and within that a single aspect ( rpgs) is omitted and you decide that means he's giving it the finger? Even when he, in the very next words, praises what ffg do?
He says that noone remembers RPGs. And that FFG is good at card games and board games. That is a clear message to me.
3933
Post by: Kingsley
Which is more likely:
-GW is intentionally insulting FFGs RPG division
-GW doesn't know/care about RPGs
My money is on the latter.
2711
Post by: boyd
 cincydooley wrote: RiTides wrote:Interesting that he spent the vast bulk of the space talking about attitude for employees, how skill doesn't matter, and how doing it any other way would somehow be bad for morale.
It's a lot easier to teach someone a skill than to teach someone an attitude.
QFT.
61374
Post by: Madcat87
Sigvatr wrote:How about other gameslike Pokémon or role-playing games? (Who can remember them, now?)
I...I...I am out of words.
I'm going to echo others and say this gave me a good chuckle. It honestly sounds exactly like a typical old man going " I remember them pokemons in the 90's aint seen them in a while"
Meanwhile they're releasing a new game every year or two with their latest one selling something like 15 million copies. Hell the brand recognition alone trumps anything GW could ever achieve.
20880
Post by: loki old fart
boyd wrote: cincydooley wrote: RiTides wrote:Interesting that he spent the vast bulk of the space talking about attitude for employees, how skill doesn't matter, and how doing it any other way would somehow be bad for morale.
It's a lot easier to teach someone a skill than to teach someone an attitude.
QFT.
There's always natural ability, some people could sell you your own teeth.
Why not employ them, because if you don't. Your competitors will.
42988
Post by: -iPaint-
 Kingsley wrote:Which is more likely:
- GW is intentionally insulting FFGs RPG division
- GW doesn't know/care about RPGs
My money is on the latter.
Yep, in which case either you don't mention specifics, or you make sure to mention everyone. In fact, all the comments within his parentheses are could be completely omitted from this letter, and it'd come off as more professional.
I haven't bought anything from GW in over 18 months, and am not planning to buy anything in the future as long as the prices are high and the models are mediocre. Never mind the fact that I'd actually like to play 40k or Fantasy games with others, but I find the rules too gamey and dependent on the list, and not the player, to merit my time and attention.
There are other, arguably better, rules systems out there that aren't dependent on an IP (a stale one at that, how much longer 'til the 42nd Millenium?) to sell copies or drive miniatures sales.
~iPaint
15717
Post by: Backfire
Koppo wrote: If the company make £1 in earnings for every share in issue and gives £2 in dividends for each share in issue then money out is greater than money in, so it must either come from some pot or be loaned from somewhere.
Yes, they do have a 'pot' somewhere, it's their cash reserve. Despite popular and persisent mythology, GW does not indebt itself to pay to the investors: indeed, the company is nearly debtless. Automatically Appended Next Post: Kroothawk wrote:To summarize: This financial year had: - a new 40k edition with rules and starter box - a new Hobbit edition with rules and starter box (costing double the price than its predecessor at release, same with miniatures) - 6 new Codices/Armybooks from January to May (each costing double the price than its predecessor at release) - Miniature releases with big boxes at ever rising prices (Eldar Titan outside of this financial year though) Still, the total revenue only managed to stay flat adjusted for inflation. What options have they left to keep revenue flat next year? Another 40k Edition? 2 Codices per month? Quadrupling prices?
Exact same thing was said last year: back then it was GW getting artificial bump from paints range release and 53 week financial year (which strangely nobody mentions now). Year before that it was 8th Edition Fantasy starter box, year before that it was something else, can't remember. Man, GW must be luckiest company on Earth. Their sales numbers would expose terrible state of their business if it wasn't always some extraordinary event which artificially increases their revenue to hide the decline. This happens every year. It's almost as if it was planned.
8742
Post by: MeanGreenStompa
Flagship game is relaunched in this financial year (if I recall, 40k makes up around 70% of the total sales), prices go up, several armies are redone to successful review, there is a 'great demand' for certain ranges, so much so that they sell out, several items go direct sales only so pure profit, they close down failing stores, continue to remove experienced retail staff and replace them with new (which removes holiday pay, higher wages etc).
There should be a marked profit.
There is not.
There is no growth, no profit.
This is not a healthy report. The company is in a holding pattern.
9230
Post by: Trasvi
For reference, I compiled this list a few days ago with the releases of the last 12 months.
Significant Releases of 2012-2013:
2012:
June: Ork, Space Marine, Necron flyers
July: WH40k 6th Edition
August: New Chaos Daemons models
September: Dark Vengeance
October: New format white dwarf. Codex: Chaos Space Marines
November: New Warriors of Chaos models
December: The Hobbit Released; Crusade of Fire 40k Campaign book and terrain
2013:
January: Codex: Dark Angels
February: Army Book: Warriors of Chaos
March: Codex: Chaos Daemons, Army Book: Daemons of Chaos
April: Codex: Tau Empire
May: Army Book: High Elves
June: Codex: Eldar
GW obviously attempts to have a number of major releases every year, and tries to spread these out so that no single year sees massive spikes due to supremely popular releases all at once. That said, this last 12 months did include the re-release of GW's most popular game 40k, and a new licensed IP in "The Hobbit".
I'm wary about saying that this should have been a bumper year for GW because of these new releases, because GW does new releases every year. This year it was 40k and The Hobbit; last year it was Paints, next year it will be the Inquisitor (? or Blood Bowl) boxed game and another 10 codices. GW is rightfully cautious about having spike year due to big releases and plans these carefully to smooth out their financials.
HOWEVER, one thing we can see is that GW had a different proportion of 1st half vs 2nd half than in previous years. 40k 6th edition was released in the first half of the year. So, there is some analysis to be done there if you wish, but again be cautious about blaming/attributing any successes to any particular release, because GW releases all the time to smooth out year-on-year results.
73289
Post by: PrehistoricUFO
Don't bash my Pokemon! Can't wait for X/Y in October, it's gonna be an epic release being a worldwide simultaneous launch with a completely re-imagined game. My friends and I are frothing at the mouth practically, and we are all 24!! I also like GW's paragraph in this report that definitely was NOT about Chapterhouse.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
loki old fart wrote:boyd wrote: cincydooley wrote: RiTides wrote:Interesting that he spent the vast bulk of the space talking about attitude for employees, how skill doesn't matter, and how doing it any other way would somehow be bad for morale.
It's a lot easier to teach someone a skill than to teach someone an attitude.
QFT.
There's always natural ability, some people could sell you your own teeth.
Why not employ them, because if you don't. Your competitors will.
And there are plenty of people with natural ability that are horrible employees
44272
Post by: Azreal13
Speaking as someone who used to have responsibility for training new staff, I'll take a cynical genius over an enthusiastic idiot every time.
7463
Post by: Crablezworth
 azreal13 wrote:Speaking as someone who used to have responsibility for training new staff, I'll take a cynical genius over an enthusiastic idiot every time.
I couldn't agree more with that statement. I will fully admit a lot of that depends on the context of the job but in my context hell ya.
24567
Post by: Kroothawk
I just checked:
In June 2009, UK prices for Codices and army books were RAISED to £ 15 (exception SM Codex £ 18), so every Codex older than 3-4 years will indeed at least double in price relative to its release price, which is the price most players have paid. Haven't found US prices yet.
http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?199947-New-Price-list
Oh, and I think this quote will become a classic, showing the CEO's respect for his employees:
Tom Kirby wrote:we recruit for attitude, not for skills.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
azreal13 wrote:Speaking as someone who used to have responsibility for training new staff, I'll take a cynical genius over an enthusiastic idiot every time.
Speaking as someone that presently has the responsibility of training new staff, I couldn't disagree more.
Maybe it's cultural.
7361
Post by: Howard A Treesong
How about other games like Pokémon or role-playing games? (Who can remember them, now?)
Just who is he trying to kid?
23979
Post by: frozenwastes
cincydooley wrote: loki old fart wrote:When its as easy to get a game of warmachine/ fow etc, and 40k is not the obvious gateway into wargaming. The cracks are showing, the dam can burst.
I think this is a huge key, but is it really even close to being the case yet?
No. Certainly not universally. Sales fell in the UK and EU, but overall revenue is holding. I think at this point where can say there won't be a new " LOTR bubble" with the Hobbit. As to the attitude over skill thing: this really isn't that uncommon for large companies. Again, it's much easier to hone the skills of someone with a great attitude than it is to readjust the attitude of someone with great skills.
And we should probably also be honest about just how little skill the typical office worker actually needs to do their job. Only in very specific departments like IT, legal or accounting do you actually need any sort of specialized education. And when it comes to sales, sales techniques that are time tested can be taught to anyone.  Davylove21 wrote:Well done GW. I can't remember them not posting profits. I don't like all the releases but with Space Marines getting a new book between now and the next report, I guarantee they post profits next time too.
I'll say "well done" when they show real growth. It's just been year-in-year-out flat revenue with price raises meaning declining unit sales, which means that there's some combination of less people buying and those people buying less. So less available opponents for their games. They need to turn this around before I'll say "well done" to them as a hobby company. Now as Kirby's personal cash machine, GW is working great! They decided to pay out this year's earnings in dividends as well as some cash reserves from previous years. I'd like to think at least some of that money could have been reinvested in the business but apparently GW sees nothing they can do with it to make more money. Kroothawk wrote:
- Biggest increase was with BL and FW, the latter maybe because GW prices are now close to FW prices. Another segment reducing revenue from the core products. So core products also generate less revenue globally.
This is an interesting idea. That as their regular prices reach Forge World prices, more people will move from buying normal Citadel Miniatures and go for Forgeworld instead. While it normally would not be a good thing to have one department capitalize on the sales of another, Forgeworld doesn't have to give away a piece of the pie to distributors or independent retailers, nor offer free shipping. They get to have better margins on their FW products and the customer gets to pay for the distribution of the product directly. - Sales of Products are mostly done in the 1-2 months after release, that's why price increases are now concentrated on those without any consequences.
The spreadsheet from the CHS lawsuit showed that this was happening for quite a few years. New releases would sell well and then space marines would sell well consistently. So it sort of makes sense that they raise prices on what there is demand for. I think they can go further. UK and EU prices can go higher and if it pushes more sales to FW, that's good for GW as well. I also think targeting new releases for price increases is far, far more easy to swallow for the typical gamer. Those yearly June/July "price adjustments" where the price of everything goes up at once served as a broad source of loss of good will. Future trend: Half the Codices (called supplements!) plus half the rulebooks (e.g. Death from the Sky) are mail order only to maximize profit and minimize effort and risk (English only). Supplements again cost about double previous supplement price in addition to reduced margins for FLGS, while its content is blown up to Codex page size with big sometimes recycled pics.
Supplements sold in ebook format for lots of $$$ is certainly a good way to go for GW. They can sell the product to people without the need to print it, ship it or have it take up space in a retail store. They can also do small print runs for direct sales only. It also means that independent retailers won't be able to offer the whole product line, so if a given customer gets a codex and wants, say an eldar transport, they'll have to deal with GW directly. GW gets to steal the customers away from the independent retailers.
49823
Post by: silent25
 MeanGreenStompa wrote:Flagship game is relaunched in this financial year (if I recall, 40k makes up around 70% of the total sales), prices go up, several armies are redone to successful review, there is a 'great demand' for certain ranges, so much so that they sell out, several items go direct sales only so pure profit, they close down failing stores, continue to remove experienced retail staff and replace them with new (which removes holiday pay, higher wages etc).
There should be a marked profit.
There is not.
There is no growth, no profit.
This is not a healthy report. The company is in a holding pattern.
I thought 40k was 50% from the CHS paperwork. I think the big question is how much of a loss did the Hobbit cause? If they were anticipating numbers similar to LotR, they likely produced a lot of material that is now gathering dust. I saw zero sales of this product in my area and from around the net, it seemed the same. The 40k launch and the sped up army releases might be a success, but it might have all been canceled out by the lost costs and royalties of the Hobbit. Also from what I saw, the Dark Angeles release was a bomb as well. Though the other releases appeared to do well. But without any breakdown of numbers from GW, we're doing a lot of guess work. Hopefully there will be another screw-up by the courts with the CHS lawsuit and release some more of GW's internal numbers.
But still I agree, this was not a healthy report and the markets reflected it. GW stock normally saw a spike after each dividend announcement. It went down today. Not much, but still, investors are obviously weary of GW now. And given GW's past performance, disappointing reports result in a plunge in share price. Happened in the 90's with their first peak. Results were good, but not great and the stock was punished. History may repeat itself and we may see Hasbro grab them from the bargin bin.
2764
Post by: AgeOfEgos
Do I understand the chart correctly on page 6?
It shows 1st half/2nd half sales/operating profit over 5 years---it appears they had a larger increase in year to year operating profit during the first half (40k release I assume)--then a decrease from the previous year (First time since the LOTR bubble) in the 2nd half? It doesn't appear that's happened before this year (or since the LOTR bubble).
And is it accurate to say their revenue increase basically matched inflation--or like all accounting, is that too simplified to have significance?
21462
Post by: Ehsteve
 AgeOfEgos wrote:Do I understand the chart correctly on page 6? It shows 1st half/2nd half sales/operating profit over 5 years---it appears they had a larger increase in year to year operating profit during the first half ( 40k release I assume)--then a decrease from the previous year (First time since the LOTR bubble) in the 2nd half? It doesn't appear that's happened before this year (or since the LOTR bubble). And is it accurate to say their revenue increase basically matched inflation--or like all accounting, is that too simplified to have significance?
The statement is broad but in purely gross terms, yes, their total revenue has only matching (if slightly over) inflation. EDITTED: don't work and post.
54233
Post by: AduroT
Just had a Pokemon card tournament at the FLGS this past weekend for the new set coming out. Had more than double the turn out than what I've seen of the 40k tournaments.
14765
Post by: paulson games
When I read the "attitude is everything" style remark I mentally pictured him doing a Scarface size line of coke off the table, flexing and then yelling YEAH!! LET'S DO THIS!! in a Joe Swanson voice before leaping out the 6th floor window to show that attitude can even replace the ability to fly.
7222
Post by: timd
Osbad wrote: But it's the best we can do with the information we have, and lets' say that what it seems to be saying is that their slice of the pie is probably not growing, although they are squeezing more gravy from it yet again. (Sorry!! Horrible metaphor!!)
Horrible metaphor in the US, but a good metaphor in the UK where meat pies abound...
T
70225
Post by: Jack_Death
Koppo wrote:Jack_Death wrote:Koppo wrote:Hang on..
Earnings per share of 51.5p (2012:46.8p)
Dividends per share declared in the year of 58p (2012: 63p)
Does that not mean that GW went in to debt and borrowed money (at interest) to pay dividends? Or did this come from some cash reserve?
Short answer. No.
Are you sure, the preamble was appended after I posted (or after I started to post anyway) and includes this
The fact that we have been paying a lot of surplus cash out as dividends hasn’t put them off! We’ll see what happens when we have a bad year and stop.
Which would indicate that the answer is "No and yes". That surplus was not generated this year as earning per share was less than dividends, neither was it generated last year as again earning per share were less than the dividends. So this surplus must be somewhere and must have been generated at least 2 years ago.
If the company make £1 in earnings for every share in issue and gives £2 in dividends for each share in issue then money out is greater than money in, so it must either come from some pot or be loaned from somewhere.
Unless I am missing something here (corporate finance is not my strong suit).
Longer answer - no, they did not borrow money (at interest) to pay dividends. Dividends reduce the cash (asset) and retained earnings (equity) accounts. Look at the statement of equity and the statement of cash flows, that is where you will find the dividend accounting. The takeaway is that they burned about 3MM in cash from reserves. GW doesn't borrow money and has zero debt.
37755
Post by: Harriticus
I've never wanted a company to fail so hard. I hate everything about them. Shame the consumers keep doing this to themselves.
23979
Post by: frozenwastes
It's funny seeing that you have 11,000 points of 40k armies in your signature after you talk about hating everything about them.
I guess they already got more money from you than they could have ever hoped. Though perhaps they could still be getting more and more money from you if they didn't piss you off so much.
115
Post by: Azazelx
Osbad wrote:
Breaking down the Global Turnover into its constituent regions, we get a little more granularity and can see that US sales have overtaken the UK for the 2nd year running. UK and EU sales have flatlined in cash terms and ROW has increased. I don't have RPI figures to hand for outside of the UK, so I cant' make much comment on relevant discounting there, but discounting the UK figures alone, we can see that sales in real terms in the UK (which to be honest is all I am really interested in, being a UK resident, and interested on the impact in the UK scene as a gamer) are steadily declining.
Bear in mind the relationship between UK and ROW sales over the past two years - the embargo that happened there that stopped places like Wayland and Maelstrom et al from selling to RoW are all lost UK sales that have now been funnelled to RoW and US sales. With the recent US embargo, that will be changing again, with a degree of US sales now going direct to RoW
34906
Post by: Pacific
 Howard A Treesong wrote:How about other games like Pokémon or role-playing games? (Who can remember them, now?)
Just who is he trying to kid?
When will he retire.... ??? 
I have to say, regardless of anything else, the guy comes across as an absolute prat.
369
Post by: Koppo
From the telegraph
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandconsumer/10211193/Games-Workshop-Tom-Kirby.html
By Harriet Dennys1:10PM BST 30 Jul 2013CommentsComment
Posting preliminary figures today, chairman and acting chief executive Tom Kirby uses his introduction to inform the market of his aim to “continue to make the best fantasy miniatures in the world and sell them at a profit”.
And how does he plan to do this? “We run a tight ship, and do our damnedest to get more sales,” he says. “Everything else is just whistling Dixie.”
Games Workshop, which makes and sells fantasy games such as Warhammer and Lord of the Rings and model figures with which to play them, posted pre-tax profits of £19.5m for the 53 weeks to June 3 2012. But royalty income from licences sold to computer games companies fell £2.5m to £1.0m.
“We expected a significant decline,” says Mr Kirby, who says the traditional computer games industry has been “changed utterly and permanently” by the arrival of smartphones and iPads.
“We switched as fast as we could,” he confesses. “But [we] were limited by the constraints of the deals we already had in place.”
Games Workshop may have adapted but Mr Kirby hasn't quite kept up referring to a one new product as "Warhammer Quest for iOS (Apple stuff). Buy it now! Good fun."
He also goes back to basics as runs through the company's performance. "Sales," Mr Kirby explains, "is all the money we take in and we quantify by counting it."
Such ideas are not "mysterious" he admits.
On the subject overheads he is equally pithy: "With overheads we try to have them not grow at all. Easy to say. Hard to do."
Mr Kirby also tells investors in the London-listed business to take next year’s capital investment numbers “with a pinch of salt”.
“We think it many be £9.3m,” he says, before referencing the 19th century German military strategist Helmuth von Moltke. “But remember that, as von Moltke said, ‘No plan survives contact with the enemy’.”
However, he says the biggest threat to the company is internal – its own staff. This is why Mr Kirby will only hire employees who understand that Games Workshop’s business ethic is modelled on inventor Thomas Edison’s methodology.
Mr Kirby explains the modus operandi: “After 10,000 attempts to make an incandescent lightbulb, [Edison] was asked about the 9,999 failures. ‘They weren’t failures, he said. I now know 9,999 ways it won’t work’.”
But if Games Workshop’s factory burns down, the company is “well insured”. In fact, says Mr Kirby, it could be back into full-scale production “within 12 months”.
Mr Kirby has a policy of never giving interviews or speaking to the press, leaving his “CEO’s Commentary” to do the talking for him.
He is part of a tradition of plain-speaking business leaders that includes Andrew Perloff, the outspoken chairman of Panther Securities, whose bi-annual “ramblings” have become more of a media event than the financial performance of his property investment company.
Although, of course, that may be the intention.
65463
Post by: Herzlos
Short term, yes.
Long term, it depends on how you go about it.
Milking a shrinking consumer base will always be bad; as you'll need to squeeze harder to remain profitable, and the more you squeeze the faster it'll shrink.
Making profits by cost cutting isn't as bad, but there's only so many costs you can reduce before you're stuck.
369
Post by: Koppo
Jack_Death wrote:Koppo wrote:Jack_Death wrote:Koppo wrote:Hang on..
Earnings per share of 51.5p (2012:46.8p)
Dividends per share declared in the year of 58p (2012: 63p)
Does that not mean that GW went in to debt and borrowed money (at interest) to pay dividends? Or did this come from some cash reserve?
Short answer. No.
Are you sure, the preamble was appended after I posted (or after I started to post anyway) and includes this
The fact that we have been paying a lot of surplus cash out as dividends hasn’t put them off! We’ll see what happens when we have a bad year and stop.
Which would indicate that the answer is "No and yes". That surplus was not generated this year as earning per share was less than dividends, neither was it generated last year as again earning per share were less than the dividends. So this surplus must be somewhere and must have been generated at least 2 years ago.
If the company make £1 in earnings for every share in issue and gives £2 in dividends for each share in issue then money out is greater than money in, so it must either come from some pot or be loaned from somewhere.
Unless I am missing something here (corporate finance is not my strong suit).
Longer answer - no, they did not borrow money (at interest) to pay dividends. Dividends reduce the cash (asset) and retained earnings (equity) accounts. Look at the statement of equity and the statement of cash flows, that is where you will find the dividend accounting. The takeaway is that they burned about 3MM in cash from reserves. GW doesn't borrow money and has zero debt.
Right so, No to the first option, yes to the second then.
70406
Post by: Alabaster.clown
Prices went up, number of releases increased, overheads were removed, but sales were down so the dividend was paid from cash reserves and overall profit margin was virtually flat.
Is that a fairly accurate summary?
16689
Post by: notprop
Koppo wrote:From the telegraph
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandconsumer/10211193/Games-Workshop-Tom-Kirby.html
By Harriet Dennys1:10PM BST 30 Jul 2013CommentsComment
Posting preliminary figures today, chairman and acting chief executive Tom Kirby uses his introduction to inform the market of his aim to “continue to make the best fantasy miniatures in the world and sell them at a profit”.
And how does he plan to do this? “We run a tight ship, and do our damnedest to get more sales,” he says. “Everything else is just whistling Dixie.”
Games Workshop, which makes and sells fantasy games such as Warhammer and Lord of the Rings and model figures with which to play them, posted pre-tax profits of £19.5m for the 53 weeks to June 3 2012. But royalty income from licences sold to computer games companies fell £2.5m to £1.0m.
“We expected a significant decline,” says Mr Kirby, who says the traditional computer games industry has been “changed utterly and permanently” by the arrival of smartphones and iPads.
“We switched as fast as we could,” he confesses. “But [we] were limited by the constraints of the deals we already had in place.”
Games Workshop may have adapted but Mr Kirby hasn't quite kept up referring to a one new product as "Warhammer Quest for iOS (Apple stuff). Buy it now! Good fun."
He also goes back to basics as runs through the company's performance. "Sales," Mr Kirby explains, "is all the money we take in and we quantify by counting it."
Such ideas are not "mysterious" he admits.
On the subject overheads he is equally pithy: "With overheads we try to have them not grow at all. Easy to say. Hard to do."
Mr Kirby also tells investors in the London-listed business to take next year’s capital investment numbers “with a pinch of salt”.
“We think it many be £9.3m,” he says, before referencing the 19th century German military strategist Helmuth von Moltke. “But remember that, as von Moltke said, ‘No plan survives contact with the enemy’.”
However, he says the biggest threat to the company is internal – its own staff. This is why Mr Kirby will only hire employees who understand that Games Workshop’s business ethic is modelled on inventor Thomas Edison’s methodology.
Mr Kirby explains the modus operandi: “After 10,000 attempts to make an incandescent lightbulb, [Edison] was asked about the 9,999 failures. ‘They weren’t failures, he said. I now know 9,999 ways it won’t work’.”
But if Games Workshop’s factory burns down, the company is “well insured”. In fact, says Mr Kirby, it could be back into full-scale production “within 12 months”.
Mr Kirby has a policy of never giving interviews or speaking to the press, leaving his “CEO’s Commentary” to do the talking for him.
He is part of a tradition of plain-speaking business leaders that includes Andrew Perloff, the outspoken chairman of Panther Securities, whose bi-annual “ramblings” have become more of a media event than the financial performance of his property investment company.
Although, of course, that may be the intention.
Yep, there's the reason why GW don't do media.
1. Only Kirb's is allowed to do it.
2. He comes across as a complete fist - ergo the media have twisted his words again.
Still the business seems to be healthy enough. I'm interested to see what (I assume) the retooling enables model-wise from that hefty reinvestment.- an end to Finecast with more plastic machinery?
7463
Post by: Crablezworth
"However, he says the biggest threat to the company is internal – its own staff. This is why Mr Kirby will only hire employees who understand that Games Workshop’s business ethic is modelled on inventor Thomas Edison’s methodology.
Mr Kirby explains the modus operandi: “After 10,000 attempts to make an incandescent lightbulb, [Edison] was asked about the 9,999 failures. ‘They weren’t failures, he said. I now know 9,999 ways it won’t work’.”
Wow, just wow.
7361
Post by: Howard A Treesong
 Pacific wrote: Howard A Treesong wrote:How about other games like Pokémon or role-playing games? (Who can remember them, now?)
Just who is he trying to kid?
When will he retire.... ???
I have to say, regardless of anything else, the guy comes across as an absolute prat.
Is it an accurate reflection of his beliefs? He appears to dismiss his competition as not even existing or being significant. Well I don't know about D&D and other RPGs, but they seem to be on a constant churn of releases, and Pokémon and other card games are fething huge. Do GW really believe they exist in a vacuum?
7463
Post by: Crablezworth
The guy sounds like a used car salesman.
36276
Post by: Zweischneid
Alabaster.clown wrote:Prices went up, number of releases increased, overheads were removed, but sales were down so the dividend was paid from cash reserves and overall profit margin was virtually flat.
Is that a fairly accurate summary?
Number of releases did not increase all that much. They just released em differently, with more Codex books in the mix than the previous release format. That, perhaps, may not be working
7361
Post by: Howard A Treesong
Kirby wrote:"Sales, is all the money we take in and we quantify by counting it."
Listen in awe to the insight of this shrewd man.
58411
Post by: RogueRegault
So my takeaway from their "attitude" hiring strategy is "We make sure they don't just drink the kool-aid, but quaff it."
1941
Post by: Wolfstan
Dear Mr. Kirby, ref the "nothing to worry about from competitors" part of your statement.
Games Workshop
10 man Tactical Space Marine boxset: 23.00 (plastic)
10 man Imperial Guard boxset: £18.00 (plastic)
Warlordgames
25 man infantry unit boxset: 22.50 (plastic)
Games Workshop:
1 Rhino: £23.00 (plastic)
1 Chimira £22.50 (plastic)
Warlordgames
1 Hanomag: £15.00 (plastic)
1 King Tiger: £26.00 (resin & metal)
1 panther: £25.00 (resin & metal)
Interesting that another company can produce cheaper plastic kits as well as resin kits, at the same scale.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
The biggest threat to GW are its own staff? I guess it's true then. Societal collapse at the hight of a civilisation's power comes from within.
12313
Post by: Ouze
Kroothawk wrote:Oh, and I think this quote will become a classic, showing the CEO's respect for his employees:
Tom Kirby wrote:we recruit for attitude, not for skills.
I have to again reiterate I'm not sure why this statement is either controversial or untrue. In fact, I strongly agree with what he posted.
The vast majority of people who work for Games Workshop in customer-facing positions, such as their customer service team, the employees at the retails stores, etc, are simply not positions that require a unique skillset to walk into the door. You don't need to know how to stock a shelf or talk to customers about how to paint their Space Marines or manage inventory. All of that can be taught. You can become skilled at something, and in fact for many positions it's required you learn these things effectively after being hired, but it's not a prerequisite to being hired.
What you cannot train people to do is be upbeat, enthusiastic, or have a good work ethic. Once you find someone who wants to do a good job, you can teach them how, but you can't teach someone enthusiasm or why you should show up on time or that you shouldn't be rude.
Anyway, I think there are plenty of things it's fair to give Games Workshop crap about, but am mystified as to why people keep picking this one particular thing as being shocking. I guess it's because I work in IT and for many years did so on an employee-facing helpdesk, and came to realize how true what he said is - we can teach people how to fix computers, but we can't teach them how not to be donkey-caves.
44919
Post by: Fezman
 Crablezworth wrote:"However, he says the biggest threat to the company is internal – its own staff. This is why Mr Kirby will only hire employees who understand that Games Workshop’s business ethic is modelled on inventor Thomas Edison’s methodology.
Mr Kirby explains the modus operandi: “After 10,000 attempts to make an incandescent lightbulb, [Edison] was asked about the 9,999 failures. ‘They weren’t failures, he said. I now know 9,999 ways it won’t work’.”
Wow, just wow.
So staff are the biggest threat to the company? Um...
I assume (from the reference to Edison) that this is another reference to attitude vs skill. A person with the "right" attitude might be willing to tactfully call a failure a "way it won't work." OK, when a business tries something new there will probably be an element of risk, but when it flops is it really so important to make sure you have the loyal yes-men ready to sugar-coat it? BTW I'm talking about head office positions here, not retail staff.
20880
Post by: loki old fart
 H.B.M.C. wrote:The biggest threat to GW are its own staff?
I guess it's true then. Societal collapse at the hight of a civilisation's power comes from within.
Always has
27987
Post by: Surtur
Koppo wrote:From the telegraph
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandconsumer/10211193/Games-Workshop-Tom-Kirby.html
By Harriet Dennys1:10PM BST 30 Jul 2013CommentsComment
Posting preliminary figures today, chairman and acting chief executive Tom Kirby uses his introduction to inform the market of his aim to “continue to make the best fantasy miniatures in the world and sell them at a profit”.
And how does he plan to do this? “We run a tight ship, and do our damnedest to get more sales,” he says. “Everything else is just whistling Dixie.”
Games Workshop, which makes and sells fantasy games such as Warhammer and Lord of the Rings and model figures with which to play them, posted pre-tax profits of £19.5m for the 53 weeks to June 3 2012. But royalty income from licences sold to computer games companies fell £2.5m to £1.0m.
“We expected a significant decline,” says Mr Kirby, who says the traditional computer games industry has been “changed utterly and permanently” by the arrival of smartphones and iPads.
“We switched as fast as we could,” he confesses. “But [we] were limited by the constraints of the deals we already had in place.”
Games Workshop may have adapted but Mr Kirby hasn't quite kept up referring to a one new product as "Warhammer Quest for iOS (Apple stuff). Buy it now! Good fun."
He also goes back to basics as runs through the company's performance. "Sales," Mr Kirby explains, "is all the money we take in and we quantify by counting it."
Such ideas are not "mysterious" he admits.
On the subject overheads he is equally pithy: "With overheads we try to have them not grow at all. Easy to say. Hard to do."
Mr Kirby also tells investors in the London-listed business to take next year’s capital investment numbers “with a pinch of salt”.
“We think it many be £9.3m,” he says, before referencing the 19th century German military strategist Helmuth von Moltke. “But remember that, as von Moltke said, ‘No plan survives contact with the enemy’.”
However, he says the biggest threat to the company is internal – its own staff. This is why Mr Kirby will only hire employees who understand that Games Workshop’s business ethic is modelled on inventor Thomas Edison’s methodology.
Mr Kirby explains the modus operandi: “After 10,000 attempts to make an incandescent lightbulb, [Edison] was asked about the 9,999 failures. ‘They weren’t failures, he said. I now know 9,999 ways it won’t work’.”
But if Games Workshop’s factory burns down, the company is “well insured”. In fact, says Mr Kirby, it could be back into full-scale production “within 12 months”.
Mr Kirby has a policy of never giving interviews or speaking to the press, leaving his “CEO’s Commentary” to do the talking for him.
He is part of a tradition of plain-speaking business leaders that includes Andrew Perloff, the outspoken chairman of Panther Securities, whose bi-annual “ramblings” have become more of a media event than the financial performance of his property investment company.
Although, of course, that may be the intention.
Makes sense to take business direction from Edison. He was a thief who abused the hell out of the copyright system and made gobs of money by selling the ideas of other people. Just like GW! *ba dun tish!* Automatically Appended Next Post: H.B.M.C. wrote:The biggest threat to GW are its own staff?
I guess it's true then. Societal collapse at the hight of a civilisation's power comes from within.
Kirby fears a communist uprising from his workers. The will scream "plastics for the proletariat!"
2711
Post by: boyd
Alabaster.clown wrote:Prices went up, number of releases increased, overheads were removed, but sales were down so the dividend was paid from cash reserves and overall profit margin was virtually flat.
Is that a fairly accurate summary?
Profit margin should be flat. Your margin is Revenue less COGS divided by your revenue (it's expressed as a %). If gross profit fluctuated a lot, it would be a sign that they are using volatile materials. If prices go up and the profit margin is flat, they passed an expense on to you the consumer.
12313
Post by: Ouze
Surtur wrote:Makes sense to take business direction from Edison. He was a thief who abused the hell out of the copyright system and made gobs of money by selling the ideas of other people. Just like GW! *ba dun tish!*
Yeah, that's a great post. As I read that quote I was thinking uh... maybe not the best example.
2711
Post by: boyd
 Zweischneid wrote:Alabaster.clown wrote:Prices went up, number of releases increased, overheads were removed, but sales were down so the dividend was paid from cash reserves and overall profit margin was virtually flat.
Is that a fairly accurate summary?
Number of releases did not increase all that much. They just released em differently, with more Codex books in the mix than the previous release format. That, perhaps, may not be working
Isn't that Q3 and Q4? GW has a 52/53 week year from June to May. Q3 would be Dec to Feb and Q4 would be Mar to May. The June releases are Q1 for next year.
36276
Post by: Zweischneid
boyd wrote:
Isn't that Q3 and Q4? GW has a 52/53 week year from June to May. Q3 would be Dec to Feb and Q4 would be Mar to May. The June releases are Q1 for next year.
For GW's financial year, yes.
I didn't make that table for the current financial year. I made it a few weeks ago - and 40K specific at that - as already back than people where claiming that GW was churning out significantly more product in 6th Edition than they had ever before.
They simply don't. They just added a few more books to a fairly steady miniature-release schedule.
2711
Post by: boyd
Most CEOs do. They tend to look for new ways to grow the company. They also are the ones in charge of employee morale and directing the company. The COO is the one responsible for the majority related to the core business and improving it. The CEO and COO usually work tandem with each other with the CEO providing overall vision and the COO working towards the vision.
7431
Post by: Megalomaniac
What does this mean?
2711
Post by: boyd
Crablezworth wrote: azreal13 wrote:Speaking as someone who used to have responsibility for training new staff, I'll take a cynical genius over an enthusiastic idiot every time.
I couldn't agree more with that statement. I will fully admit a lot of that depends on the context of the job but in my context hell ya.
Put a cynical donkey-cave in a customer service job and see how we'll the people on Dakka react. GW is falling apart, I got poor customer service. It's the end of days.
There are few jobs where you can be a cynical donkey-cave and keep it. Yes, you want someone who has the basic skill set (ie for technical positions you want someone who has a degree or certification) but if they have a poor work ethic and are not efficient workers, then you don't want them working for you. You're acting like skill and enthusiasm are mutually exclusive when in fact they are two different axis. Most high performers are both enthusiastic and good at what they do. One trait is learned whereas the other is usually not.
16689
Post by: notprop
Sabotage! 
Kenneth "Kirby" Williams wrote:Infamy! Infamy! they've all got in in for me!
67781
Post by: BryllCream
It means that having shops staffed by anti social bullying blackshirts makes for poor sales. Hence a drive towards recruiting people based on their customer service skills rather than how many armies you have painted.
34416
Post by: B0B MaRlEy
If G.W.'s biggest threat lies in their staff, they're doing a fairly good work working on that in my area it seems.
I've heard of a GW shop where 3 staff members left in a row,
some of which had more than 10 years of working with GW...
The winds of change?
24567
Post by: Kroothawk
 Ouze wrote: Kroothawk wrote:Oh, and I think this quote will become a classic, showing the CEO's respect for his employees:
Tom Kirby wrote:we recruit for attitude, not for skills.
I have to again reiterate I'm not sure why this statement is either controversial or untrue. In fact, I strongly agree with what he posted.
Problem is that not only sales staff is populated with skill-less minions, but also higher ups:
1.) Boss of GW USA is a woman without any skills and authority, just chosen for her attitude as a yes-woman, blindly following orders from Kirby.
2.) Boss of UK legal team didn't show any competence, just an attitude that GW invented the world and everyone should bow to them.
3.) The accountant getting the numbers for the annual report claims that Nottingham has a negative inflation, while the rest of UK had a 2.7% inflation (exactly the amount the total revenue grew in that year), so he obviously wasn't hired for skills either.
One major problem with GW is that only strict yes-men are hired and any independent thinker is fired (Rick Priestley, Alessio Calvatore, Gav Thorpe). Like Saddam Hussein, Tom Kirby fears his own staff the most and takes measures that any potential thread is removed from staff. That's why you find so many characterless minions as staff in GW stores, who burn out fast trying desperately to achieve the impossible goals set by GW management and are fired soon to be replaced by another characterless minion. So attitude is just another word of yes-man.
6274
Post by: porkuslime
Is the Telegraph a humor paper like the Onion? Or is it serious journalism.. or something in between?
I have a difficult time understanding if those quotes from Kirby are direct from the man himself, or journalistic paraphasing for effect..
36276
Post by: Zweischneid
 porkuslime wrote:Is the Telegraph a humor paper like the Onion? Or is it serious journalism.. or something in between?
I have a difficult time understanding if those quotes from Kirby are direct from the man himself, or journalistic paraphasing for effect..
The Kirby quotes in the telegraph article are from the GW reports themselves, the "CEO's Commentary"
The last few lines give it context
Mr Kirby has a policy of never giving interviews or speaking to the press, leaving his “CEO’s Commentary” to do the talking for him.
He is part of a tradition of plain-speaking business leaders that includes Andrew Perloff, the outspoken chairman of Panther Securities, whose bi-annual “ramblings” have become more of a media event than the financial performance of his property investment company.
Although, of course, that may be the intention.
35671
Post by: weeble1000
Exactly. By attitude, Kirby means yes man. This is why vacuous, unskilled yes men populate upper management. This is why Alan Merrett is Director of Intellectual Property, Andrew Jones is Head of Legal and Licensing, and Ronnie Renton is the CEO of Mantic Games.
23704
Post by: ceorron
And that, probably above anything, is why GW is failing. We need Kirby out but that is what we are getting so with some luck we can get someone else in that isn't afraid of his staff and that might with some luck not hire characterless minions but competent capable people.
Great post Kroothawk
1270
Post by: Osbad
Kroothawk wrote:
3.) The accountant getting the numbers for the annual report claims that Nottingham has a negative inflation, while the rest of UK had a 2.7% inflation (exactly the amount the total revenue grew in that year), so he obviously wasn't hired for skills either.
Just to correct one misunderstanding. "Constant currency" does not refer to inflation. It refers to exchange rate fluctuations. The accounts are numerated in UK£, but a lot of actual business is transacted in foreign currencies - e.g. US$, AU$, Euros, etc. During the year the exchange rate of the UK£ versus these other currencies moves and so a $1 of sales at 1st June 2012 would realise a different amount of UK£ than it did at 30th May 2013. The "constant currency" calculation ignores those fluctuations and revalues all foreign currency transactions, assets and liabilities at a single average value.
This of course is very different from the effect of discounting for inflation, which is what I understand you to believe it meant. The impact of discounting for inflation over the longer term can be found in my first post in this thread where broadly speaking they are only selling stuff at volumes last seen in 2001, and generally there has been a decline in real terms sales over the last 8 years or so. removing the " LotR bubble" effect, there hasn't been any real growth in sales this century! Coincidentally, GW suffered a market capitalisation in 1999 .... hmmmmm ,,,,
I have a theory that the short termism inherent in managing a company with a stock market listing is bad for all but the largest companies. GW is a case in point, despite Kirby's regular rhetoric to the contrary.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
 ceorron wrote:And that, probably above anything, is why GW is failing. We need Kirby out but that is what we are getting so with some luck we can get someone else in that isn't afraid of his staff and that might with some luck not hire characterless minions but competent capable people.
Great post Kroothawk
Whoa, this is news. You may want to give all of GWs investors a heads up that GW is failing!
15818
Post by: PhantomViper
cincydooley wrote: ceorron wrote:And that, probably above anything, is why GW is failing. We need Kirby out but that is what we are getting so with some luck we can get someone else in that isn't afraid of his staff and that might with some luck not hire characterless minions but competent capable people.
Great post Kroothawk
Whoa, this is news. You may want to give all of GWs investors a heads up that GW is failing!
Don't worry, at the rate that they are selling the stock, they probably already know...
1270
Post by: Osbad
cincydooley wrote: ceorron wrote:And that, probably above anything, is why GW is failing. We need Kirby out but that is what we are getting so with some luck we can get someone else in that isn't afraid of his staff and that might with some luck not hire characterless minions but competent capable people.
Great post Kroothawk
Whoa, this is news. You may want to give all of GWs investors a heads up that GW is failing!
See my post above. GW investors couldn't likely give much of a stuff that it could (potentially... no guarantees!) see a downturn in its business prospects some years hence. For us as gamers it matters. For them as investors as long as they see a good dividend payout, and that the accounts and business plan show a profit for last year and the next, they really couldn't give a stuff about anything else. At some point, if they do reach a critical point and turnover heads south, their stock price will crash. Up to and until the night before that point that that news is announced, the share price will continue to rise. It's called "risk management". To be honest, most businesses *could* fail given the wrong set of circumstances, so it isn't such irrational a point of view to hold as I make it sound. But still.
If I were considering buying GW shares (which I am not) I would be looking at their performance continuing for a few years (which would still net me a decent profit on share price growth) but not for the longer term. But then which company anywhere can give you any comfort over the "Long term". One time of day blue chip banks were a good long term investment, but not nowadays. Apple? Google? IBM? Facebook? All of them are looking at long term uncertainty, yet it doesn't affect their share price now as everyone expects the inevitable downturn in business to be some ways off still. The stock market isn't about "long term" anything. It's all about the next quarter and squeezing out as much blood as possible before the carcass dies, then dumping the stock so the next guy takes the hit. It's not about investing for long term growth - that's what family businesses (like BMW) do, not ones listed publically on a stock exchange.
23704
Post by: ceorron
cincydooley wrote: ceorron wrote:And that, probably above anything, is why GW is failing. We need Kirby out but that is what we are getting so with some luck we can get someone else in that isn't afraid of his staff and that might with some luck not hire characterless minions but competent capable people. Great post Kroothawk
Whoa, this is news. You may want to give all of GWs investors a heads up that GW is failing!
Well if Kirby is putting out ramblings like this I can't imagine the investors thinking anything else but. I don't mean from a financial perspective but from a process and procedures perspective. Failing in the sense that the director seems to be falling apart. Unless he is the exception but i'm going to guess this is just an indication of the health of the company. This says nothing for the health of the company financially, I believe that is a OK and that is probably OK with the investors seen as all they seem to care about is the financials not whether the company is actually in good health.
2711
Post by: boyd
Osbad wrote: Kroothawk wrote:
3.) The accountant getting the numbers for the annual report claims that Nottingham has a negative inflation, while the rest of UK had a 2.7% inflation (exactly the amount the total revenue grew in that year), so he obviously wasn't hired for skills either.
Just to correct one misunderstanding. "Constant currency" does not refer to inflation. It refers to exchange rate fluctuations. The accounts are numerated in UK£, but a lot of actual business is transacted in foreign currencies - e.g. US$, AU$, Euros, etc. During the year the exchange rate of the UK£ versus these other currencies moves and so a $1 of sales at 1st June 2012 would realise a different amount of UK£ than it did at 30th May 2013. The "constant currency" calculation ignores those fluctuations and revalues all foreign currency transactions, assets and liabilities at a single average value.
This of course is very different from the effect of discounting for inflation, which is what I understand you to believe it meant. The impact of discounting for inflation over the longer term can be found in my first post in this thread where broadly speaking they are only selling stuff at volumes last seen in 2001, and generally there has been a decline in real terms sales over the last 8 years or so. removing the " LotR bubble" effect, there hasn't been any real growth in sales this century! Coincidentally, GW suffered a market capitalisation in 1999 .... hmmmmm ,,,,
I have a theory that the short termism inherent in managing a company with a stock market listing is bad for all but the largest companies. GW is a case in point, despite Kirby's regular rhetoric to the contrary.
Constant currency is used because they have to express these values at a single point in time. Since currency rates change daily, the Balance Sheet should reflect the assets and liabilities at a specific point in time. Since the income statement (P&L) reflects a time period, you'll typically use an average of the exchange rates for the year. Any gains or losses related to currency translation will flow through Other Comprehensive Income and will be reflected on the equity statement which ties into the balance sheet.
Speaking of inflation, you shouldn't see anything adjusted for inflation on actual numbers. Inflation would be taken into account when they are showing unaudited forecasts as a supplement to the financial statements. On top of that there should be a requirement stating they are unaudited numbers and management's estimate or forward looking statements. Unless this is a statutory requirement for the UK that I am not aware of. On top of that, if it is a mistake of that magnitude, that would be a material misstatement and under the SEC rules would warrant the Company to restate. Since the audit firm is PWC, I am more apt to believe it was done properly. If it was the accounting firm "Dowey, Cheetum, and Howe LLP" I would be more suspect.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
ceorron wrote:
Well if Kirby is putting out ramblings like this I can't imagine the investors thinking anything else but.
The "ramblings" are directed at GW shareholdes and people with a vested interest in the success of the company.
Of course it's going to push the party line.
A great number of the zingers he includes in the preamble are in direct response to previous comments made 'attacking' GW. I mean, it's really in line with Twain's famous, "The reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated" quote.
15717
Post by: Backfire
boyd wrote:
There are few jobs where you can be a cynical donkey-cave and keep it. Yes, you want someone who has the basic skill set (ie for technical positions you want someone who has a degree or certification) but if they have a poor work ethic and are not efficient workers, then you don't want them working for you. You're acting like skill and enthusiasm are mutually exclusive when in fact they are two different axis. Most high performers are both enthusiastic and good at what they do. One trait is learned whereas the other is usually not.
Exactly. Personally I could never be good in customer service (and yes, I've worked there). Whilst a corporate drone full of forced enthusiasm can be turn-off for customers, a real-life equivalent of Comic Book Guy from The Simpsons would be even worse.
As for Kirby's comment about Pokemon, you have to remember the context. Kirby was not addressing gaming community. He - and nearly everyone who has worked in wargaming industry - has probably heard quite a many comments like this:
"What, miniatures wargaming? Wow, I didn't even know such thing still existed. You do realize that your business is going to get killed by computer games/Tamagochi/Pokemon within couple of years, do you? Listen, pal - if I were you, I'd get away from such a sunset industry ASAP. Sell your stock if they have any value, and invest on dotcom startups - that's where the money is, baby!"
34906
Post by: Pacific
BryllCream wrote:
It means that having shops staffed by anti social bullying blackshirts makes for poor sales. Hence a drive towards recruiting people based on their customer service skills rather than how many armies you have painted.
To be fair, this hasn't been the case for at least a decade.. It wasn't the case when I worked there many years ago, the last of the 'old guard', of long haired guys sat in the shadows at the back of the shop while thrash metal played at obscene volumes and a kids mum would tip-toe into the store (wondering what her son had got into), had gone even back then.
Kroothawk - the 'yes men' issue unfortunately is endemic in so many businesses industries these days, and seems to have happened to GW as it grew larger. It's something I experienced first hand (and again this is going back many years, but I can't imagine it has changed since then). Mix in with a nice bit of social maladjustment (the hobby attracts them) and you've got a working environment that generally shop staff survive in for 6-18 months (depending on the thickness of their skin) before they have enough of it and move on.
44183
Post by: decker_cky
Zweischneid wrote:Alabaster.clown wrote:Prices went up, number of releases increased, overheads were removed, but sales were down so the dividend was paid from cash reserves and overall profit margin was virtually flat.
Is that a fairly accurate summary?
Number of releases did not increase all that much. They just released em differently, with more Codex books in the mix than the previous release format. That, perhaps, may not be working
Zweischneid wrote:boyd wrote:
Isn't that Q3 and Q4? GW has a 52/53 week year from June to May. Q3 would be Dec to Feb and Q4 would be Mar to May. The June releases are Q1 for next year.
For GW's financial year, yes.
I didn't make that table for the current financial year. I made it a few weeks ago - and 40K specific at that - as already back than people where claiming that GW was churning out significantly more product in 6th Edition than they had ever before.
They simply don't. They just added a few more books to a fairly steady miniature-release schedule.
Personally, I think looking at plastic production gives a better impression. I only looked at Fantasy and 40k, and I ignored the single non-monster characters that have been released recently in coming up with these numbers. If they were included, it would be a bump over the past two years. I also only counted the starter sets as a single release, but if they count for more it has a boost in 2008, 2010 and 2012 by whatever you want to count the sets as.
2008: 20
2009: 27
2010: 33
2011: 29
2012: 30
2013 (through August): 26
Didn't go to 2007 since that's when the old multipart characters were released, and wasn't sure how I'd compare them with the other sets (if I include them, I think I'd have to include the recent plastic characters). Seems roughly level if the end of this year doesn't have many releases.
Not that it means much, but comparing January through August over the past 6 years comes out with these numbers:
2008: 13
2009: 17
2010: 23
2011: 21
2012: 23
2013: 26
So last year (which these financials covered roughly) seems to be about on par with releases since 2010. 2013 is potentially a bigger year in terms of plastic releases (particularly when you add the characters back in).
44272
Post by: Azreal13
boyd wrote: Crablezworth wrote: azreal13 wrote:Speaking as someone who used to have responsibility for training new staff, I'll take a cynical genius over an enthusiastic idiot every time.
I couldn't agree more with that statement. I will fully admit a lot of that depends on the context of the job but in my context hell ya.
Put a cynical donkey-cave in a customer service job and see how we'll the people on Dakka react. GW is falling apart, I got poor customer service. It's the end of days.
There are few jobs where you can be a cynical donkey-cave and keep it. Yes, you want someone who has the basic skill set (ie for technical positions you want someone who has a degree or certification) but if they have a poor work ethic and are not efficient workers, then you don't want them working for you. You're acting like skill and enthusiasm are mutually exclusive when in fact they are two different axis. Most high performers are both enthusiastic and good at what they do. One trait is learned whereas the other is usually not.
Except I didn't write cynical donkey cave did I? That might be what you read, but I used the word genius. I have a fairly extensive background in retail sales management, much like GW staff, and a cynical genius knows how to give good CS he just doesn't necessarily believe the tripe he's peddling like an enthusiastic idiot would have to. I've worked with cynical guys whose CS was second to nothing except their sales ability, not one customer would have anything bad to say about them, I've also worked with guys who were enthusiastic, but just didn't have the ability, and they were way more problematic.
7463
Post by: Crablezworth
Just because you're cynical doesn't mean you will treat customers badly. It means you react like a logical person to being told you have to somehow make every sale 50$ rather than a weekly or monthly target, the very dangerous reality based thought of "how is that even possible" might pop into your head. It's understandable that any business wants to make as much money as possible, there are realistic goals and then there are pie in the sky goals. These guys are under the gun to move product but aren't on commission and can't even discount on large purchases, they have none of the tools normal salesman are allotted and they're expected to make miracles happen in a pretty thankless environment. I've been in jobs where middle management actually listened and would often go to bat for line workers who they felt were giving an honest effort, the entire workplace was better for it. I've also been in jobs where the entire company is run like a blind dictatorship with no concept of basic arithmetic and they're not great places to work, they're also out of touch with reality and sales represent that every time.
I was once asked why I didn’t sell a warranty to a customer by a sales manager, I explained that the customer spoke no english and the entire interaction involved pointing at a product and holding up money(I wasn't selling the individuak on anythingm just processing a transaction). I was told quite sternly I should have sold them a warranty. When I kindly asked how the manager told me to “draw it out” when I asked what a warranty looked like and how to draw it I was reprimanded. I wasn’t being a smartass, I genuinely wanted to know, it meant more money in both our pockets.
I get it, I’m under the gun for numbers, they’re under the gun for numbers but sometimes it’s so obviously a blood from a stone situation and you juts see people under pressure lashing out at those under them and it makes for a toxic environment. Kirby’s little fiefdom sounds very familiar.
If I were to ask a manager at GW “what do I do when a customer discovers the internet to incentivize them to still purchase from our store” I’m sure the answer would be equal parts hilarious and sad, very very sad. The one big difference is at least most retailers have weekly flyers and SALES, you know, basic freakin incentives to get butts in the door. GW seems like the place where the frontline worker would be blamed for it being slow. It wouldn't surprise me seeing as the CEO thinks the biggest liability to the company is its own employees. Sounds like a real morale booster..
21499
Post by: Mr. Burning
Kirby seems to be either delusional or is just dialling his performances in. As long as investors get that sweet dividend there is no need to look further or for Kirby et al to change their practices. He could survive a few relatively bad years (against GW standards).
GW have no need to change unless a business offering similar product and services lists itself on the stock market and can offer investors something for their outlay. this doesn't seem to be forthcoming so I would guess that Gw will continue on its course for the foreseeable future.
This, of course, is great news.
70225
Post by: Jack_Death
1. I guess.
2. Seems so.
3. I would say "marginal improvement" in overhead
4. Sales are not down, they are up a bit
5. ... not exactly. They declare a cash dividend, they pay it in cash. They run a business, and it (hopefully) generates excess cash i.e. cash that the board does not think needs to be retained. If they decide to pay out more than they net from operations in a given period, reserves go down. Sales could be way way way up and it could still work out that way. Your question implies causality and my answer is "well, not exactly".
6. Profit margins were improved, definitely not flat. Profit margins improved more than overhead was reduced.
IMHO, of course.
Alabaster.clown wrote:1. Prices went up, 2. number of releases increased, 3. overheads were removed, 4. but sales were down 5. so the dividend was paid from cash reserves and 6. overall profit margin was virtually flat.
Is that a fairly accurate summary?
36276
Post by: Zweischneid
decker_cky wrote:
Personally, I think looking at plastic production gives a better impression. I only looked at Fantasy and 40k, and I ignored the single non-monster characters that have been released recently in coming up with these numbers. If they were included, it would be a bump over the past two years. I also only counted the starter sets as a single release, but if they count for more it has a boost in 2008, 2010 and 2012 by whatever you want to count the sets as.
2008: 20
2009: 27
2010: 33
2011: 29
2012: 30
2013 (through August): 26
<snip>
So last year (which these financials covered roughly) seems to be about on par with releases since 2010. 2013 is potentially a bigger year in terms of plastic releases (particularly when you add the characters back in).
Which is fine either way. I'm not gonna release semantics about what releases to count or not to count.
Point is, claims that GW suddenly doubled (or tripled, or quadrupled) their production output are clearly unfounded. They haven't. They're plotting along like they always have been.
Dakkadakka has always committed the fallacy of looking at Codex books, rather than miniatures, in all things GW. Whether its their business success, their "bias" towards Space Marines over Xenos, whatever. But Codexes are easy and cheap to make.
In terms of miniatures, GW has NOT suddenly started working longer hours or something. They are in business-as-usual-mode. thats it.
23979
Post by: frozenwastes
They only have some many tooling hours to go around. They can't suddenly double their plastic kit production without buying way more machinery and hiring more people (and training them). It goes against GW's dedication to keeping their overhead down to suddenly sink a bunch of money into more tooling. They'd much rather give a dividend than reinvest in more production.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
azreal13 wrote:
Except I didn't write cynical donkey cave did I? That might be what you read, but I used the word genius. I have a fairly extensive background in retail sales management, much like GW staff, and a cynical genius knows how to give good CS he just doesn't necessarily believe the tripe he's peddling like an enthusiastic idiot would have to. I've worked with cynical guys whose CS was second to nothing except their sales ability, not one customer would have anything bad to say about them, I've also worked with guys who were enthusiastic, but just didn't have the ability, and they were way more problematic.
And that's great if your area is littered with geniuses. But I think we've all seen enough cynical, antisocial "sterotypes" in this hobby to know that it just isn't true. In fact, I'd argue that it would behoove GW to hire the antithesis of "gamer" for their retail locations as often as possible.
44183
Post by: decker_cky
Zweischneid wrote:Dakkadakka has always committed the fallacy of looking at Codex books, rather than miniatures, in all things GW. Whether its their business success, their "bias" towards Space Marines over Xenos, whatever. But Codexes are easy and cheap to make.
In terms of miniatures, GW has NOT suddenly started working longer hours or something. They are in business-as-usual-mode. thats it.
If they were cheap and easy to make, GW would make them more quickly. GW is first and foremost a miniatures company, but that doesn't imply anything about the difficulty of producing and releasing armybooks.
Also, I'm not going to look too closely into it, but I imagine that the number of sprues GW is making hasn't increased all that much since 2008 and 2009 either. That's roughly when they started doing the single sprue with everything on it approach to army boxes rather than having the main sprue, and the command sprue, etc..
But no, there's not a huge difference in what GW is releasing.
75585
Post by: Strayan
Wolfstan wrote:So in layman's terms (basically so us thickos can understand) are GW only making money due to price increases and cost cutting? If so what happens when they can't make any more cost cuts? will they just keep upping the price to make up for the shortfall in sales?
Price increase in Australia went up by 7-15% over two years.. "Growth" in the last year went up by 7.7%.. This includes some of the biggest releases we've seen to three-four years... So they're basically barely breaking even.. I suspect pirating and ebay since the hobby here in Australia is growing.. But they claim it went down here by 4%... All I know is consumer trust is way down, for many different reasons, as a whole... This is going to be their greatest challenge since as someone said they made no mention of direct competitors making substantially more growth..
44272
Post by: Azreal13
cincydooley wrote: azreal13 wrote:
Except I didn't write cynical donkey cave did I? That might be what you read, but I used the word genius. I have a fairly extensive background in retail sales management, much like GW staff, and a cynical genius knows how to give good CS he just doesn't necessarily believe the tripe he's peddling like an enthusiastic idiot would have to. I've worked with cynical guys whose CS was second to nothing except their sales ability, not one customer would have anything bad to say about them, I've also worked with guys who were enthusiastic, but just didn't have the ability, and they were way more problematic.
And that's great if your area is littered with geniuses. But I think we've all seen enough cynical, antisocial "sterotypes" in this hobby to know that it just isn't true. In fact, I'd argue that it would behoove GW to hire the antithesis of "gamer" for their retail locations as often as possible.
See, what you've gone and done there is make an error on two points. Firstly, you've taken my exaggeration for effect (cynical genius) and taken it at face value, whereas a more accurate (but less catchy) term would be "individual who isn't invested, but has the intellect and ability to make it appear that way to those who matter."
Secondly, you've slightly straw manned. I didn't advocate employing "gamers" or, again, for the sake of clarity "awkward, antisocial, slightly malodorous" but I disagreed with Kirby's assertion of attitude over skills/experience.
Again, give me talented individuals who don't give a gak over the equivalent of dogs with their heads out of the collective car window all day, every day.
Of course, an enthusiastic genius would be best, but they tend to be rare in minimum wage, thankless, high pressure retail sales jobs, and transient when they do pop up.
24567
Post by: Kroothawk
Some more tidbits from the report:
Tom Kirby owns 2,106,009 shares, he granted himself a dividend of £ 1,221,485 (in addition to his salary of £ 352,000 totalling £ 1,573485). He is not included in the official list of the top 7 shareholders, although he would have been fourth. But:"None of the directors had a material interest in any contract of significance to which the Company, or any of its subsidiaries, was a party during the year."
The annual report acknowledges (because it has to) that GW is breaking the UK Corporate Governance Code 2010 in several ways.
- Chairman and CEO are the same person.
- The so called independent directors both serve for more than 9 years, which conflicts with the guidelines for independence.
But the board decided, that this is okay. And that they will tell, when they become not independent anymore
49823
Post by: silent25
azreal13 wrote:
Again, give me talented individuals who don't give a gak over the equivalent of dogs with their heads out of the collective car window all day, every day.
Of course, an enthusiastic genius would be best, but they tend to be rare in minimum wage, thankless, high pressure retail sales jobs, and transient when they do pop up.
Having had to supervise and direct both in a non-sales environment, I'll take unskilled enthusiasm over or talented cynic. The enthusiastic one might forget procedures and safety. The cynic ignores procedures and safety. The extra time spent training the unskilled one outweighed the time dealing with the complaints and incident reports generated by the cynic.
The cynic did great work, but within a year he was causing a toxic work environment where a number of people hated to work with him because of his attitude.
The in the same time, the unskilled one had managers writing letters of recommendation to help him get into college.
2764
Post by: AgeOfEgos
I think it depends on the education and skill level of the job. Employees need to feel stimulated at work--else they will be dissatisfied. So, if you have a biology major working retail---yeah probably better to have a motivated high school educated employee in that case--as the biology major will likely feel unfulfilled and naturally grow a bit cynical. "Overqualified" is the common term tossed around---but essentially it just means "You will not be happy or driven to exceed at this job".
Of course, there are always exceptions--and a great deal of other characteristics that weigh in on if an employee will be a good fit.
2711
Post by: boyd
azreal13 wrote: cincydooley wrote: azreal13 wrote:
Except I didn't write cynical donkey cave did I? That might be what you read, but I used the word genius. I have a fairly extensive background in retail sales management, much like GW staff, and a cynical genius knows how to give good CS he just doesn't necessarily believe the tripe he's peddling like an enthusiastic idiot would have to. I've worked with cynical guys whose CS was second to nothing except their sales ability, not one customer would have anything bad to say about them, I've also worked with guys who were enthusiastic, but just didn't have the ability, and they were way more problematic.
And that's great if your area is littered with geniuses. But I think we've all seen enough cynical, antisocial "sterotypes" in this hobby to know that it just isn't true. In fact, I'd argue that it would behoove GW to hire the antithesis of "gamer" for their retail locations as often as possible.
See, what you've gone and done there is make an error on two points. Firstly, you've taken my exaggeration for effect (cynical genius) and taken it at face value, whereas a more accurate (but less catchy) term would be "individual who isn't invested, but has the intellect and ability to make it appear that way to those who matter."
Secondly, you've slightly straw manned. I didn't advocate employing "gamers" or, again, for the sake of clarity "awkward, antisocial, slightly malodorous" but I disagreed with Kirby's assertion of attitude over skills/experience.
Again, give me talented individuals who don't give a gak over the equivalent of dogs with their heads out of the collective car window all day, every day.
Of course, an enthusiastic genius would be best, but they tend to be rare in minimum wage, thankless, high pressure retail sales jobs, and transient when they do pop up.
My bad any time I hear the word cynical I think it means bitterly sneering, distrustful, sarcastic, mocking, contemptuous, or pessimistic. Sorry but if I received customer service from someone who is a genius at it I would be irritated.
As almost everyone will tell you when you find a job you like it doesn't become just work. I have worked some crappy jobs in my life, having the right attitude will take you farther than raw talent. Some raw talent is necessary but after a certain point, you will find that your career progression is determined based on how much people like to work with you rather than the sheer amount of knowledge you possess. Not everyone likes working with the SNL Company Computer guy who would be an extreme version of a cynical genius.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
 azreal13 wrote:
See, what you've gone and done there is make an error on two points. Firstly, you've taken my exaggeration for effect (cynical genius) and taken it at face value, whereas a more accurate (but less catchy) term would be "individual who isn't invested, but has the intellect and ability to make it appear that way to those who matter."
Secondly, you've slightly straw manned. I didn't advocate employing "gamers" or, again, for the sake of clarity "awkward, antisocial, slightly malodorous" but I disagreed with Kirby's assertion of attitude over skills/experience.
Again, give me talented individuals who don't give a gak over the equivalent of dogs with their heads out of the collective car window all day, every day.
Of course, an enthusiastic genius would be best, but they tend to be rare in minimum wage, thankless, high pressure retail sales jobs, and transient when they do pop up.
My bad there then. Misunderstanding. I think we actually agree on who GW should employ in the stores. I think I just associated cynical with gamer. Whoops. 
We do still disagree on the attitude portion, but that's okay. Silent25 said it pretty well just above me; that's pretty much my perspective.
@Kroot and anyone else concerned about how many shares Kirby has:
He SHOULD be one of the largest shareholders as CEO. The CEO of any successful public company should be one of the largest shareholders.
28238
Post by: Warboss Gubbinz
@Cincy, You are correct. I think the point he's trying to make is: GW always likes to show they push for dividends and in the past they've shown a willingness to take on debt to push that dividend.
To me, it shows a slight conflict of interest, lining ones pockets at the expense of the company. In that top ten are Kirby and Jervis etc.. right?
edit for grammar
2711
Post by: boyd
Kroothawk wrote:Some more tidbits from the report:
Tom Kirby owns 2,106,009 shares, he granted himself a dividend of £ 1,221,485 (in addition to his salary of £ 352,000 totalling £ 1,573485). He is not included in the official list of the top 7 shareholders, although he would have been fourth. But:"None of the directors had a material interest in any contract of significance to which the Company, or any of its subsidiaries, was a party during the year."
The annual report acknowledges (because it has to) that GW is breaking the UK Corporate Governance Code 2010 in several ways.
- Chairman and CEO are the same person.
- The so called independent directors both serve for more than 9 years, which conflicts with the guidelines for independence.
But the board decided, that this is okay. And that they will tell, when they become not independent anymore
I am not an expert when it comes to UK statutory requirements but looking at the September 2012 Code ( http://www.frc.org.uk/Our-Work/Publications/Corporate-Governance/UK-Corporate-Governance-Code-September-2012.aspx), it says the Company must comply or explain. The fact they explain means they are not breaking anything. Also, these don't appear to be statutory because they are more or less principles or the best practice and why. I know the US has the SEC and SOX that dictates who can serve as a board member, defines independence, and notes the penalty of noncompliance. Before you can publish anything to EDGARS you have to make sure you've filled out the 200+ page disclosure checklist of which most are statutory requirements (US GAAP) telling you how data should be presented so someone who doesn't have a financial background understands the report.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
 Warboss Gubbinz wrote:@Cincy, You are correct. I think the point he's trying to make is: GW always likes to show they push for dividends and in the past they've shown a willingness to take on debt to push that dividend.
To me, it shows a slight conflict of interest, lining ones pockets at the expense of the company. In that top ten are Kirby and Jervis etc.. right?
edit for grammar
Looks like Kirby is the largest individual shareholder at 6.7%. The rest of the interests that hold more than 3% are investment firms and funds. Jervis must own less than 3%
7463
Post by: Crablezworth
cyn·ic
/ˈsinik/
Noun
1.A person who believes that people are motivated purely by self-interest rather than acting for honorable or unselfish reasons.
2.A person who questions whether something will happen or is worthwhile.
A cynic is often seen as pessimistic, when generally it's more about being realistic in my experience. You can be cynical and a hell of a nice person, it just means you tend to be fairly logical and know that although optimism may help it doesn't re-grow limbs or make sales quotas out of thin air. For example, asking one's self how they're going to make a goal is more productive than just simply "believing" in themselves ect. A cynic is also really quick to understand that when it comes to sales honor is in the dollar and all the PR bullgak and mission statements are simply there to indoctrinate the well meaning yes men types.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
It's that whole "wondering if something is worthwhile" that would be a primary issue for me.
And if you believe that people are inherently selfish, I'd wager your demeanor towards them wouldn't always be the friendliest.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Like me.
44272
Post by: Azreal13
Cynical is also the opposite of naive, which is the context I used it in.
With hindsight I wish I'd chosen something different, as I've had to use about three posts explaining my meaning!
49823
Post by: silent25
Crablezworth wrote:cyn· ic
/ˈsinik/
Noun
1.A person who believes that people are motivated purely by self-interest rather than acting for honorable or unselfish reasons.
2.A person who questions whether something will happen or is worthwhile.
Yea, that defined the guy I'm talking about. "Why are we doing this BS" came out of his mouth a lot. Paperwork and forms only got in his way of getting stuff done in his view. Nearly shut down the project when the safety office discovered him working on a fuel system without locking and tagging out the electrical first. Said it was late and no one was around so why bother.
I spent a couple hours in meeting with management over the crapstorm that it caused. I wanted him off the project, they felt his skill set was too valuable at the current time to lose (aka no one could replace him at the current time).
2711
Post by: boyd
cincydooley wrote:It's that whole "wondering if something is worthwhile" that would be a primary issue for me.
And if you believe that people are inherently selfish, I'd wager your demeanor towards them wouldn't always be the friendliest.
I think it's that and definition 3 that was omitted.
Cynical
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cynical
1. distrusting or disparaging the motives of others; like or characteristic of a cynic.
2. showing contempt for accepted standards of honesty or morality by one's actions, especially by actions that exploit the scruples of others.
3. bitterly or sneeringly distrustful, contemptuous, or pessimistic.
Synonyms for cynical imply holding a low opinion of humanity. Cynical suggests a disbelief in the sincerity of human motives ie - cynical about honesty. Pessimistic implies a more or less habitual disposition to look on the dark side of things, and to believe that the worst will happen. Sarcastic refers to sneering or making cutting jibes. Satirical suggests expressing scorn or ridicule by saying the opposite of what one means.
I think cynical may not have been the best term to use. Automatically Appended Next Post: azreal13 wrote:Cynical is also the opposite of naive, which is the context I used it in.
With hindsight I wish I'd chosen something different, as I've had to use about three posts explaining my meaning!
I think we're on the same page now.
23979
Post by: frozenwastes
cincydooley wrote:Jervis must own less than 3%
Even at 1% the dividend payment would be a thing of beauty. If I was Kirby I would stay the course. I'd keep raising prices on new releases, keep moving more and more things direct and keep putting pressure on the low level employees to perform better than they did the year before. And I'd do my best to target more stores for replacement with single staff locations. I'd keep the innovation going in the Black Library and Forge World departments and keep the normal stuff as safe and time tested as possible. I'd let the price increases make up for anyone who quits over price and then issue as much cash to myself as dividends as possible. I'd retire the instant the machine ever faltered. And what an awesome retirement it would be with that much cash in my pocket. If there are long term problems, they can be someone else's long term problems. For all the bad things people have to say about GW, it's accomplishing Kirby's goals perfectly. Leading the management buyout and turning the company from a by-gamers-for-gamers operation into a corporate cash machine was such a smart move. It made him a multimillionaire and put him in the ranks of gaming business giants like Peter Adkison (founder of WotC who arranged the sale to Hasbro) and Lisa Stevens (ex-Wotc VP and founder of Paizo).
43791
Post by: Achaylus72
If reading the report correctly Australia had a net sales loss of 385,000 British Pounds.
2012 was 11,328 x 000 British Pounds
2013 was 10,944 x 000 British Pounds
But a before tax profit of 756,000 British Pounds, so just figuring this out, GW Australia slashed 1,141,000 British Pounds from their operational expenditure, this is shown as for operational expenses for Australia from.
2012 of 6,664,000 British Pounds
2013 of 5,449,000 British Pounds
This is consistant considering that many of GW Australian stores are reducing opening hours and reduction of staff, and converting some stores into one man operations. There is about 77,000 British Pounds that after reading the report that i can't locate, lost in translation.
I must add that this is the fifth straight year that sales per units has retracted in Australia.
6454
Post by: Cryonicleech
Doom! Gloom! Repent, sinners, for I hath seen the tidings and the end is nigh!
...
In all seriousness, glad to see they're doing pretty well.
37325
Post by: Adam LongWalker
 Cryonicleech wrote:Doom! Gloom! Repent, sinners, for I hath seen the tidings and the end is nigh!
...
In all seriousness, glad to see they're doing pretty well.
Really now. Looks like you have not read the 50+ pages of the report carefully.
74682
Post by: MWHistorian
Maybe they'll get so desperate they'll hold their disdain long enough to put out a Sisters of Battle codex.
Right?
Anyone?
Maybe?
3933
Post by: Kingsley
Can this topic just be banned already or moved to Dakka Discussions or something?
All the people who hate GW always say these reports are just spin to hide GW's upcoming demise, all the people who love GW always say these reports are proof that GW is doing fine. It's grown to the point where the thread is entirely predictable just by looking at the avatars, and that's never a good sign.
34242
Post by: -Loki-
The thread has dissolved into dictionary quotes. Might be time to nuke it and salt the earth?
27987
Post by: Surtur
Cryonicleech wrote:Doom! Gloom! Repent, sinners, for I hath seen the tidings and the end is nigh!
...
In all seriousness, glad to see they're doing pretty well.
I just have to ask, did you bother reading anything Kroot said? Or what anyone has said?
23979
Post by: frozenwastes
Kingsley wrote:Can this topic just be banned already or moved to Dakka Discussions or something?
Or you could just not click the thread title if the news of how GW is doing financially and the resultant discussion doesn't interest you. All the people who hate GW always say these reports are just spin to hide GW's upcoming demise,
Where did someone say that? I only see people making fun of the idea of gloom and doom and no real prediction of demise. all the people who love GW always say these reports are proof that GW is doing fine. It's grown to the point where the thread is entirely predictable just by looking at the avatars, and that's never a good sign.
Some people are interested in this as an ongoing discussion. I've actually found it quite remarkable watching people's opinions subtley shift. I know I've become far more respectful of the robustness of GW's approach over the years. I used to wrongly think they were circling the drain, now I think they can sustain their current approach for quite a few years. So no, I don't think you should get to decide what is valid for discussion and what is not.
36276
Post by: Zweischneid
I am just wondering why people always subtract inflation from their growth as if growth to the extend of inflation was automatic.
It isn't. Quite the opposite.
You have inflation... food is more expensive, gas is more expensive, electricity is more expensive, living space is more expensive, everything is more expensive.
People's income, on the other hand, usually lags in adjusting.
In an environment like this, growing an non-necessity company like Games Workshop to stay ahead of inflation is no small task. They increased their sale during a time when, by all logic, people should be cutting back on plastic toys because of inflation.
That, to me, looks like a good sign of a healthy business (from a shareholder perspective) and not at all like doom and gloom.
If they can manage that in times of (relatively) high inflation, imagine how they'd soar if inflation was actually brought down and the price-creep of necessities wouldn't eat into peoples' disposable income.
11
Post by: ph34r
Kingsley wrote:Can this topic just be banned already or moved to Dakka Discussions or something?
All the people who hate GW always say these reports are just spin to hide GW's upcoming demise, all the people who love GW always say these reports are proof that GW is doing fine. It's grown to the point where the thread is entirely predictable just by looking at the avatars, and that's never a good sign.
The same could be said of countless other discussions, a situation and discussion being similar once a year due to similar information is hardly ban worthy.
23979
Post by: frozenwastes
The simple reason that inflation is considered is that the value of today's GBP is lower than that of a year ago. It's nice to say they grew their revenue 2.7% but their new total revenue is worth the same as last years.
I don't think there's anything wrong with holding revenue steady. But we shouldn't pretend it's real growth when it's not.
And who said doom and gloom? Next to no one. Only those accusing others of saying it.
And since when is 2.7% inflation a period of high inflation?
99
Post by: insaniak
 Achaylus72 wrote:
I must add that this is the fifth straight year that sales per units has retracted in Australia.
It's particularly interesting that Oz sales are down even with the regional restrictions making it harder to buy from overseas.
Next year's figures will be more interesting, now that US sales are also included in the regional limitations, and with the new Ebay rules also largely closing off that door.
36276
Post by: Zweischneid
frozenwastes wrote:The simple reason that inflation is considered is that the value of today's GBP is lower than that of a year ago. It's nice to say they grew their revenue 2.7% but their new total revenue is worth the same as last years.
I don't think there's anything wrong with holding revenue steady. But we shouldn't pretend it's real growth when it's not.
And who said doom and gloom? Next to no one. Only those accusing others of saying it.
And since when is 2.7% inflation a period of high inflation?
It's not. But growing your company by 3% isn't nothing either, especially as they did not release a greater number of products as many people keep claiming.
Is it a pity that the growth they managed to achieve is eaten by inflation? Sure.
But that doesn't mean they didn't have to put in the work to shift that many more plastic miniatures over the counter just to keep ahead of inflation.
15818
Post by: PhantomViper
Zweischneid wrote:
It's not. But growing your company by 3% isn't nothing either, especially as they did not release a greater number of products as many people keep claiming.
Is it a pity that the growth they managed to achieve is eaten by inflation? Sure.
But that doesn't mean they didn't have to put in the work to shift that many more plastic miniatures over the counter just to keep ahead of inflation.
It is a bad performance when the rest of the industry is growing 15+% in the same period.
23979
Post by: frozenwastes
Zweischneid wrote: Is it a pity that the growth they managed to achieve is eaten by inflation? Sure. But that doesn't mean they didn't have to put in the work to shift that many more plastic miniatures over the counter just to keep ahead of inflation.
In last year's report Kirby was very clear that protecting margins is a priority. So they actually don't need to shift that many more plastic figures to keep the same amount of revenue. If they raise prices slightly ahead of inflation and manage to make up the difference through aggressive sales goals for the retail staff, they can actually sell less plastic miniatures and still keep revenue up. This has the added advantage of lowering production and distribution costs. Less plastic to inject, less person-hours spent, less boxes to print. Same amount of revenue and costs get cut making them even more profitable. However, what it doesn't do is capture market share. And if the rest of the industry is growing, then the idea of it being tough times might not be that accurate.
36276
Post by: Zweischneid
PhantomViper wrote:
It is a bad performance when the rest of the industry is growing 15+% in the same period.
The industry isn't growing by 15%. Not even close.
A few individual start-ups are growing by 15%, mainly because they are start-ups and thus start from an incredibly small base (when calculating %)
In the US (where GW grew by > 7%, the Toy Sector has been in decline, shrinking by about 2% annually (not the most up-to-date numbers, admittedly).
In the EU (where GW lost ground), the Toy Sector grew by about 3% - 6% last year.
frozenwastes wrote:
However, what it doesn't do is capture market share. And if the rest of the industry is growing, then the idea of it being tough times might not be that accurate.
Except that the rest of the industry isn't growing.
15818
Post by: PhantomViper
Zweischneid wrote:PhantomViper wrote:
It is a bad performance when the rest of the industry is growing 15+% in the same period.
The industry isn't growing by 15%. Not even close.
A few individual start-ups are growing by 15%, mainly because they are start-ups and thus start from an incredibly small base (when calculating %)
In the US (where GW grew by > 7%, the Toy Sector has been in decline, shrinking by about 2% annually (not the most up-to-date numbers, admittedly).
In the EU (where GW lost ground), the Toy Sector grew by about 3% - 6% last year.
Who is talking about the "toy sector" here? How about if we talk about the "hobby games" market that miniature companies are actually included in?
http://www.icv2.com/articles/news/26211.html
http://www.icv2.com/articles/news/23496.html
http://www.icv2.com/articles/news/22208.html
36276
Post by: Zweischneid
There is no "hobby games" sector in any regular financial reporting I ever found.
ICV2 is an ad- and consulting outfit for a few retail chains. Of course they'll report growth among the retail chains that pay them (otherwise, what point would there be for paying ICV2)?
Seriously, you take their spin over the financial reports of a publicly traded company audited by PWC? Good luck with that.
15818
Post by: PhantomViper
Also, and this is not a dig at you, but on page 32, the report states that Core Business profit in NA has gone from 4,211m GBP to 3,336m GBP. Either I'm badly misunderstanding these numbers (probably this since my single corporate management university discipline is WAY behind me ), or that doesn't seem like growth to me.  Automatically Appended Next Post: Zweischneid wrote:
There is no "hobby games" sector in any regular financial reporting I ever found.
ICV2 is an ad- and consulting outfit for a few retail chains. Of course they'll report growth among the retail chains that pay them (otherwise, what point would there be for paying ICV2)?
Seriously, you take their spin over the financial reports of a publicly traded company audited by PWC? Good luck with that.
Cool, so you are now doing your usual song and dance "I refuse to acknowledge any data that doesn't support my view" routine, good to know!
Seems like we are done here.
36276
Post by: Zweischneid
PhantomViper wrote:
Cool, so you are now doing your usual song and dance "I refuse to acknowledge any data that doesn't support my view" routine, good to know!
Seems like we are done here.
I am not refusing the data. I cannot even see the data cause you need to pay for it (and nothing in the links mentions 15%, nor any absolute numbers for that matter).
That said, it's data reported from a selective range of stores. It doesn't report "an industry" or a "market sector". It's more akin to the reporting by a competitor to GW, albeit a loose alliance of different independents and chains, rather than one unified company. It is not, however, the reporting of an industry/market sector trend.
Finally, I said it is not any standardized market (or even company) data, because ICV2 (and their network) aren't a publicly traded company like GW. This "growth" is a claim they make in their in-house pamphlet that they distribute to their clients? Could the data be good? Sure. But I can't really tell until I see both numbers and methods. It may as well just be marketing spin? No?
How am I refusing the data by pointing that out?
And why are you (!) refusing the data from the US Chamber of Commerce that says the toy sector (which includes both GW and ICV2) is in decline of 2% annually?
PhantomViper wrote:
Also, and this is not a dig at you, but on page 32, the report states that Core Business profit in NA has gone from 4,211m GBP to 3,336m GBP. Either I'm badly misunderstanding these numbers (probably this since my single corporate management university discipline is WAY behind me ), or that doesn't seem like growth to me.
Profit is not growth. I never said all is well with GW. Just that they grew more than the average market in the US (and thus gained market share). They may or may not have achieved that at the expense of profit.
32159
Post by: jonolikespie
Zweischneid wrote:PhantomViper wrote:
Cool, so you are now doing your usual song and dance "I refuse to acknowledge any data that doesn't support my view" routine, good to know!
Seems like we are done here.
I am not refusing the data. I cannot even see the data cause you need to pay for it (and nothing in the links mentions 15%).
The first line of this one http://www.icv2.com/articles/news/22208.html
"The hobby game market grew by 20 to 25% in 2011."
There is also the other link floating around that outright states 15% last year along with listing the top 5 selling games of the year.
36276
Post by: Zweischneid
So how is their "hobby game market" defined? What is in it and what isn't in it compared to the "toy sector" used by everybody else (government, banks, etc..)
And more importantly, where are the absolute numbers?
32159
Post by: jonolikespie
For the lists of the bestselling Collectible Games in the hobby channel, in the mass channel, and over-all, click here.
For the bestselling board games in the hobby channel, click here.
For the bestselling card/building games in the hobby channel, click here.
For the bestselling RPGs, click here.
For the bestselling non-collectible miniature games, click here.
I think it's a safe bet collectible/non-collectible miniature games, RPGs, board games and card games make up the 'hobby game market' and that isn't compared to the toy sector because toys are marketed almost exclusively to children while the above are not. As for hard numbers and all that, do you actually think the spin on that icv2 stuff is any worse than on the GW investors report? The same investors report that went on about how no one can afford the start up costs needed to challenge GW (people already are thank's to Kickstarter) and how GW's lawyers are good at defending their IP (no mention of the Chapterhouse case)?
15717
Post by: Backfire
silent25 wrote:
Yea, that defined the guy I'm talking about. "Why are we doing this BS" came out of his mouth a lot. Paperwork and forms only got in his way of getting stuff done in his view.
Why were you doing "that bs"? Maybe he was right? Big problem in todays work and leadership culture is that everything gets buried under the process which has become more important than the result. This is not a problem of a single company, or difference between private and public sector, it's everywhere. Nobody dares to make any decisions anymore, everything is done by huge committees which arrange sub-committees, projects, meetings and studies. Huge amount of people involved ensures that only lowest common denominator can be the result. If anyone proposes something radical, it gets stomped upon for being too risky or being against regulations. This is the reason we have stupid bs happening like a guy drowning in three-feet pool since the rules prevented anyone going in to save him, or why all the cars look the same nowadays.
It all can be summed by example. Observe how business decisions have been explained in different eras:
*In the long past, someone said: "I have decided this".
*In the past, some people said: "We have decided this".
*Nowadays, someone says: "This has been decided".
Note the passive. Decisionmaking and responsibility is hidden within the process, it has become faceless and inhuman. What if the decision was wrong? Well, in the long past, the guy who made the decision would have been fired. In the past, people who made the decision would have been fired. Nowadays: "Decision was made under the circumstances. Our executives have been issued $100 million bonus from their exemplary performance."
Ok, rant officially over. I mean, "It has been decided to suspend the rant".
36276
Post by: Zweischneid
 jonolikespie wrote:
As for hard numbers and all that, do you actually think the spin on that icv2 stuff is any worse than on the GW investors report? The same investors report that went on about how no one can afford the start up costs needed to challenge GW (people already are thank's to Kickstarter) and how GW's lawyers are good at defending their IP (no mention of the Chapterhouse case)?
Perhaps, perhaps not.
Either way.
GW's investors report, at least, has the advantage of (needing to) report hard numbers, not just %, since it is a publicly traded company (and ICV2's network of associate retailers are not).
GW's investors report is not being cited as allegedly a better benchmark to an entire market sector that is supposedly superior than the numbers reported by Banks and the US Chamber of Commerce.
ICV2's stuff might be utterly brilliant, and contain nuggets of truth that all those investment analysts out there who rely on stock markets, auditing firms and other market analysts are missing. It is certainly a possibility. Just a possibility I cannot verify without ever seeing anything more substantive than a random (and very vague 20% to 25%.. what is it?) percentage quoted without context.
Seriously, if ICV2's stuff is genuine, I'd love to throw a few thousand quid at an index-fund that is tracking a "hobby game sector" that is growing at 25% a year. I am sure a bunch of funds out there would love the same. If ICV2 is spot on with that "hobby game sector" they've identified, it's a frikking gold mine.
15717
Post by: Backfire
jonolikespie wrote:
As for hard numbers and all that, do you actually think the spin on that icv2 stuff is any worse than on the GW investors report? The same investors report that went on about how no one can afford the start up costs needed to challenge GW (people already are thank's to Kickstarter) and how GW's lawyers are good at defending their IP (no mention of the Chapterhouse case)?
Yes, absolutely. There are very strong legal limits what publicly traded company can say in their annual reports. They can of course attempt to explain why they didn't do so great, or why their performance is actually even better than the numbers say or something similar (and they usually do), but outright misleading would bring severe repercussions. ICv2 isn't bound by similar rules or guidelines.
Also, regarding ICv2's growth numbers:
-even if entire "hobby market" grew by 25% (or whatever), it tells us nothing about miniatures wargaming which forms only tiny part of it. Given very apparent decline in related scale model kit hobby during same timeframe, such an enormous growth would be surprising.
-I flat out don't believe such growth numbers are true, in an estabilished industry with estabilished titles, especially year after year. It might be true in a period when something ground-breaking is published (like MtG was), but highly dubious otherwise.
20880
Post by: loki old fart
Top 5 Non-Collectible Miniature Lines – Q4 2011
Title Publisher
1 Warhammer 40k Games Workshop
2 Warmachine Privateer Press
3 Warhammer Fantasy Games Workshop
4 Hordes Privateer Press
5 Malifaux Wyrd Miniatures
Now we know WHFB has declined since 8th ed.
what is the status quo now?
67799
Post by: Scrub
loki old fart wrote:Top 5 Non-Collectible Miniature Lines – Q4 2011
Title Publisher
1 Warhammer 40k Games Workshop
2 Warmachine Privateer Press
3 Warhammer Fantasy Games Workshop
4 Hordes Privateer Press
5 Malifaux Wyrd Miniatures
Now we know WHFB has declined since 8th ed.
what is the status quo now?
Interesting list (I didn't realize Malifaux was that popular!) but, out of curiosity, what is the source?
edit: Hah, nevermind
65463
Post by: Herzlos
And according to them, Warhammer Fantasy has dropped to number 4 with X-Wing taking number 3 - http://www.icv2.com/articles/news/26216.html
1 | Warhammer 40k |Games Workshop
2 | Warmachine | Privateer Press
3 | Star Wars X-Wing Miniatures | Fantasy Flight Games
4 | Warhammer Fantasy | Games Workshop
5 | Hordes | Privateer Press
Now that either means (a) X-Wing has shown huge growth recently (and FFG isn't a startup with a tiny start to grow from), to jump a few places in the table above a stalwart of the genre (Warhammer Fantasy), that (b) Warhammer Fantasy has completely bombed and is being out-sold by a small fry, or (c) Warhammer Fantasy sales are going through a different (direct) channel.
And from the explosion I've seen of X-Wing mentioned at clubs and being demo'd and sold at conventions, I'm assuming that a is the most likely - huge growth for X-Wing. And so it should, it's a great game for less than the cost of a 40K tank.
4001
Post by: Compel
X-wing has managed to appeal to the wargaming and board gaming fans.
EG there will be an episode if Wil Wheaton's Tabletop featuring the game on.... Tonight?
36276
Post by: Zweischneid
 Scrub wrote:
Interesting list (I didn't realize Malifaux was that popular!) but, out of curiosity, what is the source?
Says so in the article.
The charts are based on interviews with retailers, distributors, and manufacturers.
In short, not actually any numbers (from what I can see)
4001
Post by: Compel
Presumably the ' retailers, distributors, and manufacturers ' have their own numbers that they'd refer to to give them the rankings. Sure it won't be any final 100% end all be all numbers but it's probably going to ever get.
36276
Post by: Zweischneid
 Compel wrote:Presumably the ' retailers, distributors, and manufacturers ' have their own numbers that they'd refer to to give them the rankings. Sure it won't be any final 100% end all be all numbers but it's probably going to ever get.
Perhaps. But it doesn't give you scope of things either.
- How much of a difference is there between place 3 and 4, say?
- How do you control for Games Workshop (who have their own stores) vs. , say, Malifaux, who don't?
- Did they interview GW-stores / GW as a manufacturer? If so, GW US only or also Nottingham?
- Is X-Wing beating Warhammer Fantasy only in WFB sales made by independent stores (surveyed by ICV2) or also if you take GW's direct sales/ GW stores into account?
- How have the stores they did interview controlled their numbers for the fact that they cannot sell GW across border, but can sell other companies stuff across borders?
- Have all the stores, retailers and non- GW manufacturers controlled for these factors in the same way?
- Have they "interviewed" Amazon.com (Amazon.ca, etc..) and other large online retailers, or only the smaller chains associated with ICV2?
- How many interviews did they do in total?
- What did they do if an interviewee refused to disclose numbers?
- What methods did they use to fact-check the responses they got (especially from privately held manufacturers who won't disclose numbers, such as PP)?
- Finally, what exactly are the 2011, 2012 and 2013 numbers that are the basis of their 15% (20% to 25%) growth verdict?
Etc...
5394
Post by: reds8n
The icv figures do not include GW's own sales data, it deals with indys only.
65463
Post by: Herzlos
Zweischneid wrote:
- How do you control for Games Workshop (who have their own stores) vs. , say, Malifaux, who don't?
GW has stated before about 50% of it's sales are through distributors, so as an estimate it's safe enough to assume total GW sales are distributor sales x 2.
- Did they interview GW-stores / GW as a manufacturer? If so, GW US only or also Nottingham?
No. It's an American consortium and GW would never disclose that information. The numbers are purely from their own network.
- Is X-Wing beating Warhammer Fantasy only in WFB sales made by independent stores (surveyed by ICV2) or also if you take GW's direct sales/GW stores into account?
Independents only.
It's not an exact figure and it doesn't cover the whole industry, but it shows significant growth in those interviewed. The ratios aren't based on complete numbers either buy show a trend. In independents; Warhammer Fantasy is the 4th best selling line, down from 2nd a few years ago.
As GW's growth is tracking inflation, and sales appear to be down, and anecdotal evidence indicates that WHF is barely shifting from GW retail, then we can assume that the drop in sales (proportionally) for WHF from independents isn't being countered by an increase in sales from GW.
But we can also safely conclude than in the US (where the specified retailers are), that there's been significant growth in the card/tabletop gaming industry, as indicated by the retailers, and that Warmachine and X-Wing now sell more than WHF does.
What we can't say is by how much these have grown, or what the sales volumes for anything is.
36276
Post by: Zweischneid
 reds8n wrote:The icv figures do not include GW's own sales data, it deals with indys only.
So, why can't we than agree that ICV2 figures are a representation of ICV2 (and their network) doing a good job, possibly better than GW, but are not a representation of "the industry as a whole" in which gaming companies, including both GW and ICV2, operate?
Herzlos wrote:
GW has stated before about 50% of it's sales are through distributors, so as an estimate it's safe enough to assume total GW sales are distributor sales x 2.
Cool.
But is ICV2 doing that x2 estimate you suggest. Or do they stick with the interview rankings they get without changing them?
Herzlos wrote:
It's not an exact figure and it doesn't cover the whole industry,
Great. Glad we cleared that up.
Herzlos wrote:
But we can also safely conclude than in the US (where the specified retailers are), that there's been significant growth in the card/tabletop gaming industry, as indicated by the retailers, and that Warmachine and X-Wing now sell more than WHF does.
Which is great.
By GW's (preliminary) annual results, we know that GW also grew sales in NA by > 7%. Like ICV2's network, they seem to be doing all right, no? Especially if you consider that the entire market sector they are in (by the definition of the US Chamber of Commerce) shrunk by 2%.
Congrats to both GW and ICV2 for bucking the trend.
65463
Post by: Herzlos
Zweischneid wrote:
So, why can't we than agree that ICV2 figures are a representation of ICV2 (and their network) doing a good job, possibly better than GW, but are not a representation of "the industry as a whole" in which gaming companies, including both GW and ICV2, operate?
We can. But I think we're using different terms. Table top gaming appears to be growing pretty well (apart from GW, relatively), we don't know about the whole industry, but from what we can tell many other companies are outperforming GW.
But is ICV2 doing that x2 estimate you suggest. Or do they stick with the interview rankings they get without changing them?
No. The information is basely purely on their stores, in their stores, WHF has dropped to 4th place.
By GW's (preliminary) annual results, we know that GW also grew sales by > 7%. Like ICV2's network, they seem to be doing all right, no? Especially if you consider that the entire market sector they are in (by the definition of the US Chamber of Commerce) shrunk by 2%.
Congrats to both GW and ICV2 for bucking the trend.
Indeed in NA neither are doing badly, though I wonder if the growth in NA is to do with the serious cost cutting, and the EU export ban moving Aus orders from the UK to the US, rather than local US sales.
In any case, if the median growth for that niche industry appears to be about 20-25% (based on what we know), why is the dominant company in that industry experiencing growth of 1/3rd of that? Shouldn't they be best placed to take advantage of the renaissance in gaming?
I think GW are currently looking good on paper, but I also think that many of their direct competition are doing a lot better, which leads me to have long-term concerns about GW, especially since a lot of GW's actions seem to be focussed on the short term. I don't think they are going to be going anywhere for a while though.
36276
Post by: Zweischneid
Herzlos wrote:
Indeed in NA neither are doing badly, though I wonder if the growth in NA is to do with the serious cost cutting, and the EU export ban moving Aus orders from the UK to the US, rather than local US sales.
Quite the opposite. GW clamped down on US/NA sales to Aus (hence Miniwargaming.com closing, etc..). And growth in sales is independent from cost cutting (indeed, profits are down). Growth in sales are just that. Growth in sales.
Herzlos wrote:
In any case, if the median growth for that niche industry appears to be about 20-25% (based on what we know), why is the dominant company in that industry experiencing growth of 1/3rd of that? Shouldn't they be best placed to take advantage of the renaissance in gaming?
Why do you think the median growth in the industry is equal to the growth reported for ICV2 network stores? (and not, for example, equal to the growth reported by GW, or equal to the (lack of) growth reported by the US Chamber of Commerce)?
From the available options, ICV2 seems the least well suited to be used as a benchmark, especially since they only report %, not numbers, and even those in vague 20% to 25% margins.
Herzlos wrote:
I think GW are currently looking good on paper, but I also think that many of their direct competition are doing a lot better, which leads me to have long-term concerns about GW, especially since a lot of GW's actions seem to be focussed on the short term. I don't think they are going to be going anywhere for a while though.
How do you know ICV2 isn't perhaps facing similar long-term issues? Perhaps even worse things, hidden behind their veil of secrecy and refusal to publish hard numbers?
65463
Post by: Herzlos
Zweischneid wrote:Herzlos wrote:
Indeed in NA neither are doing badly, though I wonder if the growth in NA is to do with the serious cost cutting, and the EU export ban moving Aus orders from the UK to the US, rather than local US sales.
Quite the opposite. GW clamped down on US/NA sales to Aus (hence Miniwargaming.com closing, etc..). And growth in sales is independent from cost cutting (indeed, profits are down). Growth in sales are just that. Growth in sales.
Hasn't that only just taken effect in May this year, so the very end of the financial year reported? The EU Ban was the previous year, so there's still been 11-financial months of Aussies getting better deals from the US.
Herzlos wrote:
In any case, if the median growth for that niche industry appears to be about 20-25% (based on what we know), why is the dominant company in that industry experiencing growth of 1/3rd of that? Shouldn't they be best placed to take advantage of the renaissance in gaming?
Why do you think the median growth in the industry is equal to the growth reported for ICV2 network stores? (and not, for example, equal to the growth reported by GW, or equal to the (lack of) growth reported by the US Chamber of Commerce)?
Because I'm assuming the US Chamer of Commerce doesn't have a category that matches ICV2, and you're saying that "toys" have declined by 2%, all of which could have been down to power rangers dolls for all we know.
From the available options, ICV2 seems the least well suited to be used as a benchmark, especially since they only report %, not numbers, and even those in vague 20% to 25% margins.
Indeed it's not the most useful benchmark, but it gives a pretty decent reflection of the industry as seen by independents, and is the closest thing we have to numbers for the world outside GW. It is limited though.
Herzlos wrote:
I think GW are currently looking good on paper, but I also think that many of their direct competition are doing a lot better, which leads me to have long-term concerns about GW, especially since a lot of GW's actions seem to be focussed on the short term. I don't think they are going to be going anywhere for a while though.
How do you know ICV2 isn't perhaps facing similar long-term issues? Perhaps even worse things, hidden behind their veil of secrecy and refusal to publish hard numbers?
Because ICV2 companies appear to be growing without resorting to any short term cost-saving measure, and certainly nothing on the scale of GW, and aren't reliant on a single IP or company for sustainability. Maybe they GW restrictions (no shopping carts, or bits sales) will hurt them, but if GW's market share is shrinking as it appears, that impact will reduce in time.
Maybe the other gaming companies are shrinking and ICV2 is a cover up, but the anecdotal evidence agrees with what they are saying (Warmachine and X-Wing are more popular than WHF in some places).
36276
Post by: Zweischneid
Herzlos wrote:
Because I'm assuming the US Chamer of Commerce doesn't have a category that matches ICV2, and you're saying that "toys" have declined by 2%, all of which could have been down to power rangers dolls for all we know.
Well, that is the heart of the problem. We don't know anything about this mysterious category ICV2 uses. Hence we don't know how indicative their numbers are for anything.
- What's the annual revenue in ICV2's category?
- What are the parameters they use?
Infact, how can there be an "industry category" that includes parts of the products of a company (e.g. 40K stuff sold through independents) but doesn't include the exact same product sold through other channels ( GW direct, GW stores, Amazon.com)? How can anyone use this "category" as a benchmark for anything?
Maybe the other gaming companies are shrinking and ICV2 is a cover up, but the anecdotal evidence agrees with what they are saying (Warmachine and X-Wing are more popular than WHF in some places).
Well, the anecdotal evidence seems to suggest that a market niche growing by 20%+ each year for the past few years wouldn't have escaped investors and financial analysts for so long if there was any substance to it.
Someone should've told Berny Madoff. He could've turned his ship around and paid off his investors fair and square by setting up a fund invested in ICV2's secret "category".
12313
Post by: Ouze
Kingsley wrote: It's grown to the point where the thread is entirely predictable just by looking at the avatars, and that's never a good sign.
This is the most unintentionally ironic thing I think anyone's ever said on this website.
60791
Post by: Sean_OBrien
ICV2 doesnt have long term issues...they are a news source. They dont have a dog in the fight to cause them to flog their numbers, they report things...good or bad.
On the claim that you keep making that growth is down in the sector...read it again. The title of the article is quite telling...Licensed toy sales down. Those are toys based on movies and what not. Sales of things like building sets are up 23%. To my eye, if you were to compare GW to something it would be closer to Legos than to Thomas the Tank. Industries like model railroading have seen nearly a 20% increase in sales by US manufacturers in recent years.
http://www.pmsa.us.com/HMA/Size_Of_Industry_Press_Release_2013.pdf
Also, probably a better analog than broad toy market information. Since 2009, hobby games have been doing great in the US market, so much so that they have been highlighted by Forbes, CNN Money and others several times in the last 4 years.I am not too sure why you are suspicious of the ICV2 source and support that suspicion with an article that doesnt apply to them or their figures.
65463
Post by: Herzlos
Zweischneid wrote:Herzlos wrote:
Because I'm assuming the US Chamer of Commerce doesn't have a category that matches ICV2, and you're saying that "toys" have declined by 2%, all of which could have been down to power rangers dolls for all we know.
Well, that is the heart of the problem. We don't know anything about this mysterious category ICV2 uses. Hence we don't know how indicative their numbers are for anything.
- What's the annual revenue in ICV2's category?
- What are the parameters they use?
Infact, how can there be an "industry category" that includes parts of the products of a company (e.g. 40K stuff sold through independents) but doesn't include the exact same product sold through other channels ( GW direct, GW stores, Amazon.com)? How can anyone use this "category" as a benchmark for anything?
I assume we're talking about different things by "industry category". I'm saying that ICV2 is a good indication that those things they claim are showing growth are showing growth in independent retailers, based on what the independent retailers say, and extrapolating out that the story will be similar for other independent retailers, therefore the companies involved in wargaming appear to be growing, and that they also appear to be taking market share away from GW. I'm not tying it to any industry segment or official growth factors.
Well, the anecdotal evidence seems to suggest that a market niche growing by 20%+ each year for the past few years wouldn't have escaped investors and financial analysts for so long if there was any substance to it.
Someone should've told Berny Madoff. He could've turned his ship around and paid off his investors fair and square by setting up a fund invested in ICV2's secret "category".
Except for the fact that all of the companies showing growth are still private, and therefore not subject to investment funds?
As far as I'm aware, GW is the only publicly funded wargames company at the moment. That's why there's so much speculation.
36276
Post by: Zweischneid
 Sean_OBrien wrote:ICV2 doesnt have long term issues...they are a news source. They dont have a dog in the fight to cause them to flog their numbers, they report things...good or bad.
Also, probably a better analog than broad toy market information. Since 2009, hobby games have been doing great in the US market, so much so that they have been highlighted by Forbes, CNN Money and others several times in the last 4 years.I am not too sure why you are suspicious of the ICV2 source and support that suspicion with an article that doesnt apply to them or their figures.
I am "suspicious" of ICV2 because they don't give any numbers. They just say 25%? Of what? Why aren't they giving numbers?
Frankly, I don't mind ICV2. Nevertheless, their numbers contradict the numbers of the US Chamber of Commerce and the numbers of GW. The latter, however, give you actually solid numbers and are bound by certain legal constraints to provide accurate numbers. ICV2 has neither numbers, nor any obligation to publish numbers, nor any transparency for anyone to check their numbers.
Yet everyone here sides with ICV2 nonetheless? Why? What do you guys know that I don't?
I'd be more than happy to side with ICV2, if someone could point me to some of their numbers they used to make their estimate. But just pulling a very vague 20% to 25% out of their ass isn't very convincing to me. Perhaps I am just odd that way.
If there is a Forbes, CNN Money, etc.. article with some solid figures, especially figures that back ICV2's side of the story, I'd love a link.
Also, ICV2 certainly has a dog in this. They are an advertising and consulting network, and they publish reports that the stores that use ICV2's consulting and advertising services report 25% growth. No dog at all!
65463
Post by: Herzlos
Zweischneid wrote:
Frankly, I don't mind ICV2. Nevertheless, their numbers contradict the numbers of the US Chamber of Commerce and the numbers of GW. The latter, however, give you actually solid numbers and are bound by certain legal constraints to provide accurate numbers. ICV2 has neither numbers, nor any obligation to publish numbers, nor any transparency for anyone to check their numbers.
Where's the contradiction?
36276
Post by: Zweischneid
Herzlos wrote: Zweischneid wrote:
Frankly, I don't mind ICV2. Nevertheless, their numbers contradict the numbers of the US Chamber of Commerce and the numbers of GW. The latter, however, give you actually solid numbers and are bound by certain legal constraints to provide accurate numbers. ICV2 has neither numbers, nor any obligation to publish numbers, nor any transparency for anyone to check their numbers.
Where's the contradiction?
First contradiction: 20% or 25%. What is it?
Second contradiction: How can a "sub-sector" grow 25% when the largest company by far in said sub-sector only grows 7%
Third contradiction: How can a "sub-sector" grow 25% when the larger sector they belong to shrinks by 2%
Forth contradiction: How can they report percentages at all, if their rankings are based on interviews with companies that don't disclose numbers to them? If PP tells them "we grew by 10% and "Jim's Garage-Miniatures" tells them "we grew by 60%". How do they aggregate it? And how do they weight GW into the equation for the final percentage?
Fifth contradiction: How do they weigh retailers vs. manufacturers? For example, how do they account for a manufacturer going out of business (and thus no longer being stocked by a retailer, who may be booming nicely. Is there "sector" more retail or more manufacturing? Both? In what percentages?
1270
Post by: Osbad
Zweischneid wrote:
Profit is not growth. I never said all is well with GW. Just that they grew more than the average market in the US (and thus gained market share). They may or may not have achieved that at the expense of profit.
The term "growth" may mean different things to different people. Perhaps we should define what we each mean by "growth".
What I mean is an increase in volume of product going out the door. I would see selling a smaller volume of product at a higher price as negative growth, whether or not the total revenue generated was bigger or smaller than in the previous year.
"Revenue growth" (i.e. an increase in the amount of £'s coming into the business) is very important to a business of course, but what I am personally interested in as a gamer is whether or not GW are increasing the pool of gamers year on year. And the indications are that after taking account of price rises year on year, then they are not actually selling more product out there, just the same amount (or less in some cases) at a higher price.
We can discuss whether or not that is a good thing or a bad thing, and those looking at the question from an investors point of view may differ from those looking at it from a customer's. Similarly those thinking shorter term will have a different point of view from those thinking longer term. But that is beside the point.
Discounting the published numbers by inflation, is the closest we will get using publically availalble information, to an answer about whether more people or less people are buying their stuff year on year. And that is why it is relevant and how an increase in turnover (or even profit) doesn't necessarily indicate "growth" to me.
In my own business we saw 7% increase in turnover last financial year. The 2.9% of that that was due to an inflationary price rise at the start of the year across the range is one source, and a matter for discussion on its own. The 4.1% volume growth we saw is due to entirely different factors and worth a second discussion. The 29% increase in PAT we saw is a result of these factors and also a whole different set of issues around costs. None of the questions are irrelevant, but we need to be careful not to confuse the answers to one question with the answers to another.
65463
Post by: Herzlos
They say 20 to 25%, so I'd imagine it varies depending on sub-sub-sectors. ( CCGs, Board games, Non card collectibles, non-collectibles).
Second contradiction: How can a "sub-sector" grow 25% when the largest company by far in said sub-sector only grows 7%
Because the sub-sector outperformed the largest company 3-fold.
Third contradiction: How can a "sub-sector" grow 25% when the larger sector they belong to shrinks by 2%
Because that sub-sector outperformed the rest of the larger sector.
Forth contradiction: How can they report percentages at all, if their rankings are based on interviews with companies that don't disclose numbers to them? If PP tells them "we grew by 10% and "Jim's Garage-Miniatures" tells them "we grew by 60%". How do they aggregate it? And how do they weight GW into the equation for the final percentage?
We don't know what information they get from the sales or how the weight the numbers. They may give approximate dollar figures for each line in the interviews and it's aggregated that way, or they may just give percentages and it's weighted by company turnover, or they may just use the percentages (because it doesn't matter that much if you're only looking at ratios).
Without knowing how they come to the numbers, we can't assume any contradiction in their ability to publish a percentage.
36276
Post by: Zweischneid
Herzlos wrote:
They say 20 to 25%, so I'd imagine it varies depending on sub-sub-sectors. ( CCGs, Board games, Non card collectibles, non-collectibles).
You imagine? I'd love to have a definite answer from ICV2.
Assuming you're "imagination" is spot on, how do you know it wasn't < GW's growth for the sub-sub-sector relevant to GW?
Herzlos wrote:
Because the sub-sector outperformed the largest company 3-fold.
A bold claim. I would like to see the absolute number of turn over in this sub-sector, including GW, for the years 2011, 2012, 2013 to confirm. We already do have GW's numbers to compare them against. Only ICV2's numbers are missing.
Herzlos wrote:
Because that sub-sector outperformed the rest of the larger sector.
A bold claim. I would like to see the absolute number of turn over in this sub-sector, including GW, for the years 2011, 2012, 2013 to confirm. We already do have the Chamber of Commerce's numbers to compare them against. Only ICV2's numbers are missing.
Herzlos wrote:
Without knowing how they come to the numbers, we can't assume any contradiction in their ability to publish a percentage.
Perhaps. But without any transparency to ICV2's method, it seems ill advised to rely on their numbers, especially if they so blatantly contradict both the larger market-sector their "sub-sector" is in and the largest single company that is part of this sub-sector.
1. Toys/Games-sector (decline by 2% in NA, numbers confirmed by Chamber of Commerce)
2. Sub-sector "hobby games", part of 1) (grew by 20%-25% in NA, numbers unconfirmed by ICV2)
3. GW, largest company in "hobby games" sub-sector (grew by 7% in NA, numbers confirmed by GW)
There is a hefty "anomaly" in the middle there if you take ICV2's numbers at face value, and without at least some sort of grounding or confirmation from a secondary source, that doesn't seem like a prudent thing to do, given the lack of transparency and insight we have into ICV2's numbers and methods..
37325
Post by: Adam LongWalker
We can discuss whether or not that is a good thing or a bad thing, and those looking at the question from an investors point of view may differ from those looking at it from a customer's. Similarly those thinking shorter term will have a different point of view from those thinking longer term. But that is beside the point.
This is a good comment overall on how investors do think and to add how old those investors are. Generally speaking these view points are different from people who are 20's and who are in their 70's. Different mindsets from different generations.
15818
Post by: PhantomViper
Zweischneid wrote:
1. Toys/Games-sector (decline by 2% in NA, numbers confirmed by Chamber of Commerce)
This is false. Please read what you post...
The article that you posted is for licensed toys only. With the probable exception of X-Wing none of the other games even enters this category...
36276
Post by: Zweischneid
PhantomViper wrote: Zweischneid wrote:
1. Toys/Games-sector (decline by 2% in NA, numbers confirmed by Chamber of Commerce)
This is false. Please read what you post...
The article that you posted is for licensed toys only. With the probable exception of X-Wing none of the other games even enters this category...
Good spot.
I wish we had similarly detailed information on what ICV2 includes (or excludes) in the "sector" they report on.
65463
Post by: Herzlos
Zweischneid wrote:Herzlos wrote:
They say 20 to 25%, so I'd imagine it varies depending on sub-sub-sectors. ( CCGs, Board games, Non card collectibles, non-collectibles).
You imagine? I'd love to have a definite answer from ICV2.
Me too.
Assuming you're "imagination" is spot on, how do you know it wasn't < GW's growth for the sub-sub-sector relevant to GW?
Because if the growth was purely down to GW's sales via independents GW's figures would show growth closer to ICV2's numbers.
Herzlos wrote:
Because the sub-sector outperformed the largest company 3-fold.
A bold claim. I would like to see the absolute number of turn over in this sub-sector, including GW, for the years 2011, 2012, 2013 to confirm. We already do have GW's numbers to compare them against. Only ICV2's numbers are missing.
I'm not talking absolute numbers, I'm talking percentages. GW's revenue is easily more than the entire competition, so in absolute numbers I have no doubt that GW claims the most growth.
Herzlos wrote:
Because that sub-sector outperformed the rest of the larger sector.
A bold claim. I would like to see the absolute number of turn over in this sub-sector, including GW, for the years 2011, 2012, 2013 to confirm. We already do have the Chamber of Commerce's numbers to compare them against. Only ICV2's numbers are missing.
Again, I'm talking percentages. It's certainly for a company in a market to grow by a huge percentage whilst the market shrinks. You also appear to be comparing with the wrong USCoC category (Licensed toys, i.e. power rangers) and not whatever board/table top gaming comes under.
Herzlos wrote:
Without knowing how they come to the numbers, we can't assume any contradiction in their ability to publish a percentage.
Perhaps. But without any transparency to ICV2's method, it seems ill advised to rely on their numbers, especially if they so blatantly contradict both the larger market-sector their "sub-sector" is in and the largest single company that is part of this sub-sector.
1. Toys/Games-sector (decline by 2% in NA, numbers confirmed by Chamber of Commerce)
2. Sub-sector "hobby games", part of 1) (grew by 20%-25% in NA, numbers unconfirmed by ICV2)
3. GW, largest company in "hobby games" sub-sector (grew by 7% in NA, numbers confirmed by GW)
There is a hefty "anomaly" in the middle there if you take ICV2's numbers at face value, and without at least some sort of grounding or confirmation from a secondary source, that doesn't seem like a prudent thing to do, given the lack of transparency and insight we have into ICV2's numbers and methods..
I still don't see an anomaly. It may not coincide with the growth of GW, but that seems reasonable as GW appears to be focusing on consolidation and not growth, and it doesn't coincide with the growth of an unrelated toy category, which again is reasonable because they aren't related.
All the information out there, anecdotal or not, as well as the plethora of new companies appearing, points to a growth in the board/tabletop gaming industry. A growth that doesn't appear to be happening at GW. No?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Zweischneid wrote:PhantomViper wrote: Zweischneid wrote:
1. Toys/Games-sector (decline by 2% in NA, numbers confirmed by Chamber of Commerce)
This is false. Please read what you post...
The article that you posted is for licensed toys only. With the probable exception of X-Wing none of the other games even enters this category...
Good spot.
I wish we had similarly detailed information on what ICV2 includes (or excludes) in the "sector" they report on.
The categories they cover, based on information from their retailers, are:
"Collectible Games in the hobby channel","board games","card/dice games"," RPGs"," non-collectible miniature games".
With no mention or relation to any CoC "sectors".
36276
Post by: Zweischneid
Herzlos wrote:
The categories they cover, based on information from their retailers, are:
"Collectible Games in the hobby channel","board games","card/dice games"," RPGs"," non-collectible miniature games".
That's the point.
How representative are their retailers for all retailers? Probably not a lot.
Sure, going the "entire toy sector" with Power Rangers and Barbies in the mix isn't perfect. But it's not any worse than a rather arbitrary collection of stores that pay advertising fees to ICV2 (who in turn, surprise, report that those paying for advertising with them make bank).
65463
Post by: Herzlos
Yup, it's only their retailers. But that information must be closer to other games retailers than the figures for Power Rangers and Barbie.
If the trends were vastly different in terms of GW's performance (since that is essentially what we're talking about here), then it'd be reflected in GW's figures. As it isn't we can assume GW's performance has been lower (up to about 7%) than other games at a group of retailers exhibiting growth of (20-25%).
That's essentially all we can take from this information, but that should be enough for what we're discussing here. GW doing alright, Gaming in general doing better.
36276
Post by: Zweischneid
Herzlos wrote:Yup, it's only their retailers. But that information must be closer to other games retailers than the figures for Power Rangers and Barbie.
No. It may be. But there is no reason it must be. And we have no way to confirm or assess it. Given the outrageous number of 25%, I would guess it isn't.
65463
Post by: Herzlos
Fair enough. Based on the excitement I've witnessed for other games, and the change in what's been going on at clubs & conventions, I'd happily believe the icv2 figures.
123
Post by: Alpharius
It is becoming a bit of an echo chamber in here.
Is there a way to get this back on topic vs. a "I am right!" declaration thread?
70225
Post by: Jack_Death
Hate to tell you this, Z, but you are making the same rather pointed arguments about ICV2 that others have made many times. You will not make a dent. It's PROOF, don't you see ;->
Zweischneid wrote:
There is a hefty "anomaly" in the middle there if you take ICV2's numbers at face value, and without at least some sort of grounding or confirmation from a secondary source, that doesn't seem like a prudent thing to do, given the lack of transparency and insight we have into ICV2's numbers and methods..
15818
Post by: PhantomViper
Jack_Death wrote:Hate to tell you this, Z, but you are making the same rather pointed arguments about ICV2 that others have made many times. You will not make a dent. It's PROOF, don't you see ;->
Hey, look over here mommy, its an actual living strawman! 
42144
Post by: cincydooley
Herzlos wrote:Fair enough. Based on the excitement I've witnessed for other games, and the change in what's been going on at clubs & conventions, I'd happily believe the icv2 figures.
Well, that's sort of the problem, isn't it? icv2 doesn't really have any 'figures' to speak of.
Personally, I'd LOVE to see some of the $$ for the other companies. But being as they're all private and under no obligation to release them, it's unlikely to happen. What we do have is good old Steve Jackson, who bless his Munchkiny heart, releases his numbers:
Steve Jackson 2013 Stakeholders
Here, Steve notes that he had a Record Gross of $7MM, a $2.5MM increase over 2011, with around $1MM of that coming from the KS. That would put the non- KS gross up around $1.5MM, or an approximate 33% growth. I think this is important for two reasons: 1) it gives us an idea that (while I agree that 25% for the industry at large seems RIDICULOUSLY high) perhaps it's not THAT unreasonable; and 2) We get an idea of how much a smallish private hobby company with a large retail footprint brings in a year.
I don't know if we can extrapolate a ton from it, quite honestly, in regards to the gross #s for companies like FFG or Privateer Press; I doubt we can.
35671
Post by: weeble1000
Sean_OBrien wrote:ICV2 doesnt have long term issues...they are a news source. They dont have a dog in the fight to cause them to flog their numbers, they report things...good or bad.
On the claim that you keep making that growth is down in the sector...read it again. The title of the article is quite telling...Licensed toy sales down. Those are toys based on movies and what not. Sales of things like building sets are up 23%. To my eye, if you were to compare GW to something it would be closer to Legos than to Thomas the Tank. Industries like model railroading have seen nearly a 20% increase in sales by US manufacturers in recent years.
http://www.pmsa.us.com/HMA/Size_Of_Industry_Press_Release_2013.pdf
Also, probably a better analog than broad toy market information. Since 2009, hobby games have been doing great in the US market, so much so that they have been highlighted by Forbes, CNN Money and others several times in the last 4 years.I am not too sure why you are suspicious of the ICV2 source and support that suspicion with an article that doesnt apply to them or their figures.
Sean to the rescue. I was on the verge of pissing away half of my work day to look into this, now I know where to look.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
Interesting, these 5 Major Themes:
1. Hobbyists are aging and the industry is not attracting a younger demographic.
2. The economy impacted the industry as hobbyists cut back on their hobby expenditures.
3. Internet sales and direct sales to retailers are hurting the traditional distribution channels.
4. Cheaper and lesser quality products from sources outside the U.S. are costing hobbyists more in the long run.
5. The decline in hobby retail stores has made it more difficult for consumers to find products and to try and learn
more about them
66193
Post by: Ashitaka
Zweischneid wrote:
First contradiction: 20% or 25%. What is it?
Second contradiction: How can a "sub-sector" grow 25% when the largest company by far in said sub-sector only grows 7%
Third contradiction: How can a "sub-sector" grow 25% when the larger sector they belong to shrinks by 2%
Second point: The point that most people seem to be making is that all of the small companies are growing much, much faster than GW, and assuming that's true, or it's at least moving in that direction we would expect to see these results.
Third point: I think you are being disingenuous on this one. The category that you keep referring to as the larger sector, and Chamber of Commerce numbers includes "toys" which is Hasbro and Mattel. Hasbro's revenue last year was 4.06 Billion and Mattel's was 6.80 billion. So of course the "gaming" sub sector could grow 25% (as an example) while the overall toy sector decreases 2%. A $50 million increase in gaming is easily off set by Mattel taking a $200 million hit.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
Ashitaka wrote:Third point: I think you are being disingenuous on this one. The category that you keep referring to as the larger sector, and Chamber of Commerce numbers includes "toys" which is Hasbro and Mattel. Hasbro's revenue last year was 4.06 Billion and Mattel's was 6.80 billion. So of course the "gaming" sub sector could grow 25% (as an example) while the overall toy sector decreases 2%. A $50 million increase in gaming is easily off set by Mattel taking a $200 million hit.
In that same vein, isn't it much easier for a company that made $4MM in 2012 to grow 25% than a company that made $140MM?
44183
Post by: decker_cky
Zweischneid wrote:Second contradiction: How can a "sub-sector" grow 25% when the largest company by far in said sub-sector only grows 7%
If it includes board games, I don't think GW is the biggest company in the sub-sector. They certainly have the largest range, but board games appeal to a far wider market. Certainly GW is among the larger companies in the sector, but some of the larger board game companies likely have comparable sales. I also would imagine that board gaming is where the largest part of the growth is occurring, but that's pretty close to pure guesswork from me.
Zweischneid wrote:Third contradiction: How can a "sub-sector" grow 25% when the larger sector they belong to shrinks by 2%
I'd be shocked if wargames were 1% of the toy games sector, and there isn't really any reason why board games, baby toys, GI Joes and warhammer miniatures should be particularly linked to each other in sales. Recessions don't really just drop sales in all areas. For example did you know that bad market conditions tend to increase movie ticket sales? People need escapes in recessions more than when times are good, and warhammer is a good fit for an escape for a certain segment of the population.
Overall, you're right to question the weight that should be attributed to ICV2 numbers. GW has huge direct sales that aren't factored in. How much of X-Wing sales are direct? Probably not nearly as much. But to a degree, you can rely on it to recognize trends. I think we can all agree that in the miniature wargaming world, Privateer Press has grown and is clearly in the #2 spot after GW. There's also some other smaller companies which have been growing a market share in ames like Malifaux, Flames of War, and the support companies that are getting more established, like Mantic and Plastic Soldiers Company. If we jump back 5 years, it's clear that there's been a ton of growth in the competitors (at least it is to me). And I've lived in two very different markets where Warhammer Fantasy now is as strong as ever - but other companies/products have grown considerably over that time. There's a much bigger pie now, with GW's slice being the same size as it's ever been.
Now...that's not overtly a bad thing for GW's future. They're in a situation where they could continue to keep essentially level sales and pay out dividends to their shareholders indefinitely. For sure there's some issues, but the company isn't unhealthy. Most importantly, GW's IP is strong as ever, meaning there's a huge potential for licensing to continue (it was low this year, but there were no major computer game releases and there was the turmoil with that license which is now dealt with for the better in GW's mind).
49823
Post by: silent25
Did you miss the part about where I mentioned he didn't lock out a live electrical source on a flammable fuel system? Electricity plus fuel equals boom. On a 1000 gallon fuel tank, that equals a very big boom. That is the type of " bs" I'm talking about. Stuff that by ignoring it endangers the safety and livelihood of multiple people. The old timers said his type of attitude normally lead to being fired at best, worst, dead or crippled.
Back on topic. Has icv2 stated where it gets it's numbers from? I always assumed it was from Alliance and Diamond distribution. Also, that talk of 20 - 25% growth article seemed to be fueled by CCG games. It doesn't mention RPGs or miniature games contributing to it. There aren't any numbers there to actually show how GW is doing relative to the rest of the miniature games in terms of growth. WHFB may be the #4 selling game, but is it because its sales are declining or other games are growing faster? Automatically Appended Next Post: @Sean_OBrien: I wouldn't be crowing too hard about the state of the industry with what you linked. That shows plastic/die cast kits down 15% and "General Hobby" down 28% in the same period. It is clear certain fields are doing better, others worse. Your article states "sales up 3%" but it clearly only due to one segment soaring while others are clearly dropping.
2711
Post by: boyd
Herzlos wrote:Yup, it's only their retailers. But that information must be closer to other games retailers than the figures for Power Rangers and Barbie.
If the trends were vastly different in terms of GW's performance (since that is essentially what we're talking about here), then it'd be reflected in GW's figures. As it isn't we can assume GW's performance has been lower (up to about 7%) than other games at a group of retailers exhibiting growth of (20-25%).
That's essentially all we can take from this information, but that should be enough for what we're discussing here. GW doing alright, Gaming in general doing better.
The problem is that these companies are in different stages in terms of life cycle. GW is more mature wheras some of the other newer game companies are emerging. Emerging companies tend to have more growth because they are smaller. Growth is great for the short term, sustainability is the next step. One bad month or mediocre response to something new they do and they could be gone. GW's "meager" 3% growth is more than a good chunk of most of the total sales of most of these emerging companies. It will be interesting to see as PP matures how they handle their growth - I think they are a growing Company but I still think GW is leaps and bounds ahead of them in terms of production, quality, and visibility (there are things that PP does better than GW so don't get your panties in a bunch). PP is creeping up there - heck it took GW a good 15 -20 years to leave the middle of the pack and get where they are today. PP has been around for nearly 10 years? Its in roughly the same place GW was about 5-8 years ago - they are converting a large chunk of their core to plastic. Its much easier to grow when you are trailing behind someone and can see the risk and reward for doing certain things. While I am invested in GW, I will say I do think PP will catch up. I don't necessarily think they will over take them in the next several years but I think they will catch up and rattle their food dish.
15717
Post by: Backfire
Herzlos wrote:
If the trends were vastly different in terms of GW's performance (since that is essentially what we're talking about here), then it'd be reflected in GW's figures. As it isn't we can assume GW's performance has been lower (up to about 7%) than other games at a group of retailers exhibiting growth of (20-25%).
The article in question, in fact, said the following:
Hobby game growth was led by the CCG category, where the Big Three, Magic: The Gathering, Yu-Gi-Oh!, and Pokemon, all had strong years, with Magic continuing an incredible multi-year run, Pokemon rejuvenated with the new Black and White series, and Yu-Gi-Oh! especially strong in the hobby. HeroClix and World of Warcraft rounded out a strong Top Five in collectible games.
The two boxed game categories both did well in 2011, although deckbuilding and card games are starting to suck some of the energy from board games. A ton of new board game titles were absorbed by the market last year, although it seems to be getting harder to develop long-term hits.
No mention of the growth of tabletop miniatures industry.
As for Warmachine vs WHFB, it was reported:
Top 5 Non-Collectible Miniature Lines – Q4 2011
Title Publisher
1 Warhammer 40k Games Workshop
2 Warmachine Privateer Press
3 Warhammer Fantasy Games Workshop
4 Hordes Privateer Press
5 Malifaux Wyrd Miniatures
Their newest listing:
Top 5 Non-Collectible Miniature Lines – Spring 2013
Title Publisher
1 Warhammer 40k Games Workshop
2 Warmachine Privateer Press
3 Star Wars X-Wing Miniatures Fantasy Flight Games
4 Warhammer Fantasy Games Workshop
5 Hordes Privateer Press
So according to this listing, relative position of WHFB has not changed much in several years, it's not a new thing (though absolute position might be, but ICv2 does not mention it*). I think people are overplaying "but now GW has competition!!" line: It's not that many years when Confrontation, AT-43 and Helldorado were pretty popular, back in the '90s there were companies like Ral Partha which were quite big, etc. This is not to say that this time it couldn't be different, but listening to some people you'd think that GW has been a lone dinosaur for 30 years with no one else around, until shining knight in guise of Warmachine rose to challenge it.
*apparently, ICv2's subscribed issues have more complete information "with size estimates", anyone has access to those?
I'll say that I found the GW report surprising in that they reported good growth in North America, and weak sales in Europe. I would have expected it to be other way around. There is lot of anecdotes about GW games disappearing locally and getting replaced by Privateer Press and/or Malifaux, whilst in Europe those games don't appear to be anywhere as popular. I'd have expected it to show in the financials at least somewhat, but opposite seems to be true.
70225
Post by: Jack_Death
PhantomViper wrote:Jack_Death wrote:Hate to tell you this, Z, but you are making the same rather pointed arguments about ICV2 that others have made many times. You will not make a dent. It's PROOF, don't you see ;->
Hey, look over here mommy, its an actual living strawman!
I don't think that means what you think it means.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
boyd wrote:Herzlos wrote: While I am invested in GW, I will say I do think PP will catch up. I don't necessarily think they will over take them in the next several years but I think they will catch up and rattle their food dish.
I agree. And I think at that point GW will then be forced to act.
But today is not that day.
2764
Post by: AgeOfEgos
Backfire wrote:
I'll say that I found the GW report surprising in that they reported good growth in North America, and weak sales in Europe. I would have expected it to be other way around. There is lot of anecdotes about GW games disappearing locally and getting replaced by Privateer Press and/or Malifaux, whilst in Europe those games don't appear to be anywhere as popular. I'd have expected it to show in the financials at least somewhat, but opposite seems to be true.
I agree at your surprise--but I'm still curious about the 2nd half of the year. The 1st half was very likely propped up by (arguably) what should be their biggest release (New 40K). The 2nd half of the year however, was down from previous years--which is the 1st time of that happening since the LOTR bubble.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
AgeOfEgos wrote:
I agree at your surprise--but I'm still curious about the 2nd half of the year. The 1st half was very likely propped up by (arguably) what should be their biggest release (New 40K). The 2nd half of the year however, was down from previous years--which is the 1st time of that happening since the LOTR bubble.
Couldn't that have direct correlation with them losing their asses on the Hobbit stuff?
2764
Post by: AgeOfEgos
cincydooley wrote: AgeOfEgos wrote: I agree at your surprise--but I'm still curious about the 2nd half of the year. The 1st half was very likely propped up by (arguably) what should be their biggest release (New 40K). The 2nd half of the year however, was down from previous years--which is the 1st time of that happening since the LOTR bubble.
Couldn't that have direct correlation with them losing their asses on the Hobbit stuff?
Could very well be--I'm not sure on the Hobbit release date--and when the operational cost to launch was figured in.
24567
Post by: Kroothawk
First half June-November, second half December to May (including most of Xmas sales). Hobbit box release December, followed by 6 Codices/armybooks in 5 months.
49823
Post by: silent25
Kroothawk wrote:First half June-November, second half December to May (including most of Xmas sales). Hobbit box release December, followed by 6 Codices/armybooks in 5 months.
Well that shows where that giant turd landed then. Think this is as close as GW is going to come to saying the Hobbit game was a bomb.
And we don't need to reiterate why it bombed. There are a couple hundred pages spread across several threads that already explained that.
24567
Post by: Kroothawk
Grab the limited edition Hobbit starter box while it is still available
3933
Post by: Kingsley
Ouze wrote: Kingsley wrote: It's grown to the point where the thread is entirely predictable just by looking at the avatars, and that's never a good sign.
This is the most unintentionally ironic thing I think anyone's ever said on this website.
Much the reverse-- that's my entire point. Is there even any point to me posting my analysis? No, because people already know what my thoughts will be. The same goes for most of the "usual suspects." Threads like this really just aren't interesting anymore-- it's all been done to death.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
TBH the real bad news for GW isn't that they're growing slower than the rest of the miniatures industry (if they are). All that establishes is that growth is possible, we aren't dealing with an overall decline in gaming where even avoiding a decline in profit is a praise-worthy accomplishment.
What really matters is that GW barely grew following major price increases and cost cutting. That means that sales volume is down, threatening GW's biggest asset: their status as the "default" game for new players to enter the hobby with. Keeping their current position depends on having a critical mass of players, and right now they're losing it. Meanwhile price increase and cost cutting aren't sustainable in the long run, eventually GW is going to reach the point where increasing prices no longer makes up for the lost sales and there are no more expenses left to cut without sacrificing product quality. So I'm sure they're a solid investment in the immediate future (all their shareholders care about), but it's a worrying sign for the long-term health of the game we love.
TL;DR: GW isn't showing true growth, they're just squeezing the last bit of profit out of what they already have.
20880
Post by: loki old fart
 Peregrine wrote:TBH the real bad news for GW isn't that they're growing slower than the rest of the miniatures industry (if they are). All that establishes is that growth is possible, we aren't dealing with an overall decline in gaming where even avoiding a decline in profit is a praise-worthy accomplishment.
What really matters is that GW barely grew following major price increases and cost cutting. That means that sales volume is down, threatening GW's biggest asset: their status as the "default" game for new players to enter the hobby with. Keeping their current position depends on having a critical mass of players, and right now they're losing it. Meanwhile price increase and cost cutting aren't sustainable in the long run, eventually GW is going to reach the point where increasing prices no longer makes up for the lost sales and there are no more expenses left to cut without sacrificing product quality. So I'm sure they're a solid investment in the immediate future (all their shareholders care about), but it's a worrying sign for the long-term health of the game we love.
TL;DR: GW isn't showing true growth, they're just squeezing the last bit of profit out of what they already have.
This is my point exactly.
And then whats left for us
15717
Post by: Backfire
AgeOfEgos wrote:
I agree at your surprise--but I'm still curious about the 2nd half of the year. The 1st half was very likely propped up by (arguably) what should be their biggest release (New 40K). The 2nd half of the year however, was down from previous years--which is the 1st time of that happening since the LOTR bubble.
However, maybe that was to be expected since they've not have had as big release since 2008 and 5th edition 40k (which pretty saved GW's ass after LotR bubble had burst). That said, Kirby does sound mildly disapppointed with the result in his comments, admitting it was "a mixed year" with sales slightly dropping in 2013 and sorta sandbags that eventually they're going to have a bad year.. Since they made good profit even with their royalties collapsing this was not a bad year, but it seems obvious they expected bit more from such a big year of releases.
One thing which struck me was how little they make from FFG licenses, despite large number of GW licensed titles offered by FFG. It's all positive, of course, but probably partly explains why they still want to make occasional boxed game set of their own. Automatically Appended Next Post: Peregrine wrote:
What really matters is that GW barely grew following major price increases and cost cutting. That means that sales volume is down.
This is often repeated, however we do not know to which extent this is true since we don't have any real numbers of how much exactly price increases feature in their revenue growth. And we have no way of knowing, since we don't have required numbers. Just because some individual item has a 10% price increase does not mean that it should turn to 10% increase in revenue, everything else staying equal. Even calculating the average increase over their entire catalogue (as some people have done) tells us very little.
Kirby claimed in the report that they had a small growth in sales, though apparently mostly because of good performance from BL and FW. Which would seemingly imply that their core business sales are essentially flat.
27987
Post by: Surtur
Backfire wrote:This is often repeated, however we do not know to which extent this is true since we don't have any real numbers of how much exactly price increases feature in their revenue growth. And we have no way of knowing, since we don't have required numbers. Just because some individual item has a 10% price increase does not mean that it should turn to 10% increase in revenue, everything else staying equal. Even calculating the average increase over their entire catalogue (as some people have done) tells us very little.
Kirby claimed in the report that they had a small growth in sales, though apparently mostly because of good performance from BL and FW. Which would seemingly imply that their core business sales are essentially flat.
Actually, we have those numbers. We have them in spades really. While we don't have individual product sales, the have numerous accounts of the price changes over the years for some time. The averages paint a picture that is supposed to be close to results. If you dilute a price increase over the entire range by using averages, then that is what you should look for in terms of approximate revenue growth. The problem is, they've never come close to their average increase in price even when spiking core products like starters and troops/core.
65463
Post by: Herzlos
decker_cky wrote: Most importantly, GW's IP is strong as ever, meaning there's a huge potential for licensing to continue (it was low this year, but there were no major computer game releases and there was the turmoil with that license which is now dealt with for the better in GW's mind).
I'd say it's never been weaker; the CHS lawsuit has highlighted several things GW claimed to own but hasn't, and has set fairly firm boundaries on what other companies can do without stepping on their toes. The 3rd party market will be exploding fairly soon.
In terms of computer gaming licenses they are in a fairly good place, as they've got some series and mindshare, but in terms of tabletop gaming a lot of their IP protection has vanished.
1084
Post by: Agamemnon2
Herzlos wrote:I'd say it's never been weaker; the CHS lawsuit has highlighted several things GW claimed to own but hasn't, and has set fairly firm boundaries on what other companies can do without stepping on their toes. The 3rd party market will be exploding fairly soon.
I doubt it. The 3rd party market is already past saturation point. How many more sources for Ork heads do we actually need? If anything, we're going to see a significant reduction once the novelty wears off.
47181
Post by: Yodhrin
 Agamemnon2 wrote:Herzlos wrote:I'd say it's never been weaker; the CHS lawsuit has highlighted several things GW claimed to own but hasn't, and has set fairly firm boundaries on what other companies can do without stepping on their toes. The 3rd party market will be exploding fairly soon.
I doubt it. The 3rd party market is already past saturation point. How many more sources for Ork heads do we actually need? If anything, we're going to see a significant reduction once the novelty wears off.
The point being made was that the 3rd party market was rather samey before for two main reasons; what's easy to make that sells well, what can they make without getting sued. The latter of those is now much less of a concern, so while I don't doubt we'll continue to see many, many more variations on Ork heads, I also suspect we're going to see lots of diversification as new or existing bitz makers expand into areas they were hesitant to before.
65463
Post by: Herzlos
Or at the very least 3rd party parts will be easier to find, as they is legal precedent for using "compatible with Games Workshop Space Marines" instead of "for 28mm space knights".
There will also no doubt be ventures people have considered but left because they though they'd get sued but now have decent legal justification for.
I won't argue that we're probably saturated with Ork heads and melta-guns though.
20880
Post by: loki old fart
Herzlos wrote:Or at the very least 3rd party parts will be easier to find, as they is legal precedent for using "compatible with Games Workshop Space Marines" instead of "for 28mm space knights".
There will also no doubt be ventures people have considered but left because they though they'd get sued but now have decent legal justification for.
I won't argue that we're probably saturated with Ork heads and melta-guns though.
A lot of these bits suppliers are at the point where they could start their own game, with a decent rule set.
15717
Post by: Backfire
Surtur wrote: Actually, we have those numbers. We have them in spades really. While we don't have individual product sales, the have numerous accounts of the price changes over the years for some time. The averages paint a picture that is supposed to be close to results. If you dilute a price increase over the entire range by using averages, then that is what you should look for in terms of approximate revenue growth.
No you don't, because there are big differences in how much the individual items have their prices changed over the years. Some items have seen their price increase up to 30 or even 60% in just few years, some items have had no price changes at all during that period. Calculating the average over their entire catalogue won't help. Automatically Appended Next Post: Herzlos wrote:Fair enough. Based on the excitement I've witnessed for other games, and the change in what's been going on at clubs & conventions, I'd happily believe the icv2 figures.
Crazy idea: with console and PC game market being in doldrums, maybe there is actually a shift from computer games to tabletop games, amongst the "serious" gamers? This idea sounds completely counter-intuitive, but perhaps something like that is going on?
53592
Post by: Shaozun
Herzlos wrote:Yup, it's only their retailers. But that information must be closer to other games retailers than the figures for Power Rangers and Barbie.
If the trends were vastly different in terms of GW's performance (since that is essentially what we're talking about here), then it'd be reflected in GW's figures. As it isn't we can assume GW's performance has been lower (up to about 7%) than other games at a group of retailers exhibiting growth of (20-25%).
That's essentially all we can take from this information, but that should be enough for what we're discussing here. GW doing alright, Gaming in general doing better.
Not really. You have to compare anything in commerce with heapings of salt. Even prior financial statements to current ones have to be taken with a heaping of salt due to reporting differences (especially when GW changed significant ones in 2011 IIRC), let alone companies with COMPLETELY DIFFERENT business strategies.
Not forgetting that greater than inflation growth is unsustainable.
65463
Post by: Herzlos
How is beating inflation growth unsustainable? Because eventually you'll hit a saturation point?
2711
Post by: boyd
Shaozun wrote:Herzlos wrote:Yup, it's only their retailers. But that information must be closer to other games retailers than the figures for Power Rangers and Barbie.
If the trends were vastly different in terms of GW's performance (since that is essentially what we're talking about here), then it'd be reflected in GW's figures. As it isn't we can assume GW's performance has been lower (up to about 7%) than other games at a group of retailers exhibiting growth of (20-25%).
That's essentially all we can take from this information, but that should be enough for what we're discussing here. GW doing alright, Gaming in general doing better.
Not really. You have to compare anything in commerce with heapings of salt. Even prior financial statements to current ones have to be taken with a heaping of salt due to reporting differences (especially when GW changed significant ones in 2011 IIRC), let alone companies with COMPLETELY DIFFERENT business strategies.
Not forgetting that greater than inflation growth is unsustainable.
Prior year should be more comparable as they are required to show the accounting change in all reported years. Read the foot notes. It's a standard note. It's GAAP just about everywhere.
1270
Post by: Osbad
Shaozun wrote:Not forgetting that greater than inflation growth is unsustainable.
I wouldn't say so. The company I work for has had turnover increases exceeding RPI annually every year for at least the last 12 years, and probably longer, but I wasn't working for them then so I don't know.
It depends on your strategy, product quality, sales imperative, a lot of awfully hard work and like anything else: a bit of luck!
35671
Post by: weeble1000
Backfire wrote:One thing which struck me was how little they make from FFG licenses, despite large number of GW licensed titles offered by FFG. It's all positive, of course, but probably partly explains why they still want to make occasional boxed game set of their own.
The real LOL is that GW spent almost as much on just the costs of the Chapterhouse trial, not including attorney fees or anything else related to the nearly 3 years of litigation, as they got from FFG this year.
All of those FFG licenses were barely enough to pay for printing, flights, and hotel rooms. Man, what a great decision going to trial was.
36276
Post by: Zweischneid
Shaozun wrote:
Not forgetting that greater than inflation growth is unsustainable.
Not forgetting that growth, even if it's eaten by inflation, is still growth you need to work for... in an environment where your customers need to pay just that inflation % more for food, housing, gas, electricity, etc.. .
Toys and hobbies are an easy thing to cut for most people. Mattel sales only grew 1% last year. Hasbro lost 2%.
It's also a good reason to try to position yourself more as a premium product for better-off customers, who are less affected by inflation, than trying to run the business on a broad customer basis first and foremost.
67781
Post by: BryllCream
weeble1000 wrote:Backfire wrote:One thing which struck me was how little they make from FFG licenses, despite large number of GW licensed titles offered by FFG. It's all positive, of course, but probably partly explains why they still want to make occasional boxed game set of their own.
The real LOL is that GW spent almost as much on just the costs of the Chapterhouse trial, not including attorney fees or anything else related to the nearly 3 years of litigation, as they got from FFG this year.
All of those FFG licenses were barely enough to pay for printing, flights, and hotel rooms. Man, what a great decision going to trial was.
Probably still cheaper than letting other companies steal your ip and use it to make cheaper competing products.
35671
Post by: weeble1000
BryllCream wrote:weeble1000 wrote:Backfire wrote:One thing which struck me was how little they make from FFG licenses, despite large number of GW licensed titles offered by FFG. It's all positive, of course, but probably partly explains why they still want to make occasional boxed game set of their own.
The real LOL is that GW spent almost as much on just the costs of the Chapterhouse trial, not including attorney fees or anything else related to the nearly 3 years of litigation, as they got from FFG this year. All of those FFG licenses were barely enough to pay for printing, flights, and hotel rooms. Man, what a great decision going to trial was.
Probably still cheaper than letting other companies steal your ip and use it to make cheaper competing products.
Uh huh, that is exactly what Chapterhouse Studios was doing. It is a fact that Chapterhouse's products are more expensive than GW's comparable products. It's even in the transcript: "talked about yours being $1 for one shoulder pad, right? A. Yes. Q. And Games Workshop's being $8.25 for ten shoulder pads? A. Yes. Q. So that was why you were saying that yours was more expensive? A. Yeah. If you wanted ten of those, you had to pay $10 versus $8 and change from the Games Workshop site. Q. And then you said that your Warrior Priestess is $16 -- or I forget what you said. How much? A. I want to say it's 16. Q. Okay. And Mr. Merrett testified that the Striking Scorpion product that Games Workshop says is infringed by that product costs $41 for six figurines? A. Okay. Q. So how does that compare to your product? A. 16 times six, if you want to compare apples to apples, as he would want -- $96, I guess? Is that correct? 16 times six? Yeah. Q. Is it more or less expensive? A. More expensive." Those are only two examples. If you go through the products, which is really easy to do since both companies have prices right on their websites, Chapterhouse Studios is not selling cheap knockoffs of GW products. If something is a copy of another product, but costs more, how is that a functional business strategy? If a product is a poorer quality copy of another product, but costs more, how is that a functional business strategy? These are all things Games Workshop said: CHS's products are the same as GW products, they are of poor quality, and they cost more that Games Workshop products. Again, Bryll, wake up to the real world.
15818
Post by: PhantomViper
BryllCream wrote:weeble1000 wrote:Backfire wrote:One thing which struck me was how little they make from FFG licenses, despite large number of GW licensed titles offered by FFG. It's all positive, of course, but probably partly explains why they still want to make occasional boxed game set of their own.
The real LOL is that GW spent almost as much on just the costs of the Chapterhouse trial, not including attorney fees or anything else related to the nearly 3 years of litigation, as they got from FFG this year.
All of those FFG licenses were barely enough to pay for printing, flights, and hotel rooms. Man, what a great decision going to trial was.
Probably still cheaper than letting other companies steal your ip and use it to make cheaper competing products.
Not when those other companies are still around and producing those products after the trial, except that now they can use GW's name to promote their products as well!
67781
Post by: BryllCream
weeble1000 wrote: BryllCream wrote:weeble1000 wrote:Backfire wrote:One thing which struck me was how little they make from FFG licenses, despite large number of GW licensed titles offered by FFG. It's all positive, of course, but probably partly explains why they still want to make occasional boxed game set of their own.
The real LOL is that GW spent almost as much on just the costs of the Chapterhouse trial, not including attorney fees or anything else related to the nearly 3 years of litigation, as they got from FFG this year.
All of those FFG licenses were barely enough to pay for printing, flights, and hotel rooms. Man, what a great decision going to trial was.
Probably still cheaper than letting other companies steal your ip and use it to make cheaper competing products.
Uh huh, that is exactly what Chapterhouse Studios was doing. It is a fact that Chapterhouse's products are more expensive than GW's comparable products. It's even in the transcript:
"talked about yours being $1 for one shoulder pad, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And Games Workshop's being $8.25 for ten shoulder pads?
A. Yes.
Q. So that was why you were saying that yours was more
expensive?
A. Yeah. If you wanted ten of those, you had to pay $10
versus $8 and change from the Games Workshop site.
Q. And then you said that your Warrior Priestess is $16 --
or I forget what you said. How much?
A. I want to say it's 16.
Q. Okay. And Mr. Merrett testified that the Striking
Scorpion product that Games Workshop says is infringed by
that product costs $41 for six figurines?
A. Okay.
Q. So how does that compare to your product?
A. 16 times six, if you want to compare apples to apples,
as he would want -- $96, I guess? Is that correct? 16 times
six? Yeah.
Q. Is it more or less expensive?
A. More expensive."
Those are only two examples. If you go through the products, which is really easy to do since both companies have prices right on their websites, Chapterhouse Studios is not selling cheap knockoffs of GW products. If something is a copy of another product, but costs more, how is that a functional business strategy? If a product is a poorer quality copy of another product, but costs more, how is that a functional business strategy? These are all things Games Workshop said: CHS's products are the same as GW products, they are of poor quality, and they cost more that Games Workshop products.
Again, Bryll, wake up to the real world.
Open your eyes to the jury of peers who found chapterhouse guilty on all sorts of things. Chs are a company that are dedicated to using gw ip to sell products to the public. Clearly games workshop should devote resources to shutting them down.
Also, please don't quote court transcripts.
24567
Post by: Kroothawk
Ianrak over at Warseer wrote:I have just looked back at the fiscal reports for the years when previous new editions of 40k were released.
When 3rd edition released, revenues increased by 12%.
When 4th ed released, revenues increased by 15%.
When 5th ed released , revenues increased by 12%.
When 6th edition released , revenues increase by 3.5 %.
15818
Post by: PhantomViper
BryllCream wrote:
Open your eyes to the jury of peers who found chapterhouse guilty on all sorts of things. Chs are a company that are dedicated to using gw ip to sell products to the public. Clearly games workshop should devote resources to shutting them down.
And the same jury found that CHS was not guilty of an even bigger amount of stuff that GW claimed they were. Hence why CHS now can use GW product names when promoting their own products.
Why? Because they make your job of pretending that reality isn't what it really is harder?
36184
Post by: Alfndrate
BryllCream wrote:Open your eyes to the jury of peers who found chapterhouse guilty on all sorts of things. Chs are a company that are dedicated to using gw ip to sell products to the public. Clearly games workshop should devote resources to shutting them down.
Except you said cheaper product, the quote said that CHS's stuff was more expensive that the GW alternative. Unless you mean worse quality, and then well that shouldn't matter for GW who has a less expensive and higher quality product. They shouldn't give a feth.
Also, please don't quote court transcripts.
Yes, please don't, we don't want to have quotes from people that would be perjury (a crime) if they lied under oath. Probably one of the few times in life you can trust what someone has said.
44183
Post by: decker_cky
Herzlos wrote:decker_cky wrote: Most importantly, GW's IP is strong as ever, meaning there's a huge potential for licensing to continue (it was low this year, but there were no major computer game releases and there was the turmoil with that license which is now dealt with for the better in GW's mind).
I'd say it's never been weaker; the CHS lawsuit has highlighted several things GW claimed to own but hasn't, and has set fairly firm boundaries on what other companies can do without stepping on their toes. The 3rd party market will be exploding fairly soon.
In terms of computer gaming licenses they are in a fairly good place, as they've got some series and mindshare, but in terms of tabletop gaming a lot of their IP protection has vanished.
Different aspects of IP. I mean the story, the universe, the things companies would actually care to license out. At some point, GW will license out their properties to be made into real movies, and GW will likely make a pile of money, and realize that although they need to keep the hobby going to support the IP, keeping strong IP is more valuable than their actual games. Marvel and DC have to an extent done the same thing, cashing in hugely on super-hero movies in a time where their comics don't generate near the income they once did.
Regarding knock-offs, their IP protection is a bit better, but I don't believe even inferior knockoffs ever hurt them. Now maybe GW will stop wasting so much energy on frivolous lawsuits.
2764
Post by: AgeOfEgos
Let's keep the Chapterhouse case out of this thread---it tends to derail very quickly. Thanks.
Ryan
49823
Post by: silent25
Well bit of threadomancy here, but got some interesting information to help put these numbers in perspective. A local came back from Games Day and was able to talk with one of his friends who is high up in GW US.
40k: Doing great, sales and numbers are up. Accounts for over 2/3rds of GW sales now.
Fantasy: Horrible. Sales down over a third from last edition. 2015 was the planned release date for 9th, but was moved up to 2014 in attempt to revitalize the game. Numbers are reflected in new army releases as well.
The Hobbit: Absolute disaster. Only sold about a 3rd of its production run and the rest is gathering dust in the UK warehouse. They were anticipating LotR size sales number to give you an idea of the production run.
So to put GW's numbers in perspective, 40k was able to turn a disastrous year into an so-so year. They also claim that the current head of GW North America (her name is eluding me right now) is actually banging the drum on trying to turn things around and believes GW can't sustain itself with only 40k. They are supposedly looking at improving things, but couldn't comment otherwise except that GW is a large company and unfortunately doesn't move fast. It takes on average two years for an idea to move from inception to reality.
*edit* Brain fart.
36276
Post by: Zweischneid
49823
Post by: silent25
Brain fart: 2015 to 2014.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
GW report in GBP but take in a lot of their revenue in Euros and USD. Thus, their reported revenue has been helped by exchange rate fluctuations this year. I don't know how much effect that has had.
15717
Post by: Backfire
silent25 wrote:
The Hobbit: Absolute disaster. Only sold about a 3rd of its production run and the rest is gathering dust in the UK warehouse. They were anticipating LotR size sales number to give you an idea of the production run.
Really? Well that has been a huge miscalculation then: lots of people have been cynically suggesting that GW is only hanging on to license to stop anyone else getting it. It should have been obvious that it wasn't going to be as big as LotR in any case, though even the cynics probably failed to predict just how badly the movie failed to capture public imagination.
This is what Kirby said in 2005 report:
When I returned to the business five years ago, one of the first decisions I had to make was: should we take a license
from the producers of the film The Lord of the Rings? It was touch and go. The arguments for doing so were: acquiring
more hobbyists, acquiring more independent trade accounts, stopping someone else doing it, and going with the general
feeling throughout the Company that we had to do this. It was the last that was most important in my decision to say yes,
closely followed by the third. The first two I was more nervous about. Yes, we would get more, but for how long? Would
it be permanent and, if so, at what level?
I should have been more optimistic. Not only was the product much more successful than I ever dreamed it would be
(thank you Rick Priestley for a great game design), it has given us a valuable third product line to support Warhammer
and Warhammer 40,000. Lord of the Rings product sales have declined faster than we anticipated after the
unsustainable levels of the last two years, but we still see them contributing to our sales and expect them to do so far
into the future.
23979
Post by: frozenwastes
Kilkrazy wrote:GW report in GBP but take in a lot of their revenue in Euros and USD. Thus, their reported revenue has been helped by exchange rate fluctuations this year. I don't know how much effect that has had.
They compensate for currency fluctuations in the report (that's what all that constant currency business is).
The short version is that the decline of the pound happened at the perfect time for GW as an exporter. If the pound was still at 2008 levels, they'd be outright losing money and a lot of it.
34906
Post by: Pacific
Backfire wrote:silent25 wrote:
The Hobbit: Absolute disaster. Only sold about a 3rd of its production run and the rest is gathering dust in the UK warehouse. They were anticipating LotR size sales number to give you an idea of the production run.
Really? Well that has been a huge miscalculation then: lots of people have been cynically suggesting that GW is only hanging on to license to stop anyone else getting it. It should have been obvious that it wasn't going to be as big as LotR in any case, though even the cynics probably failed to predict just how badly the movie failed to capture public imagination.
I don't think the movies failed at all, in fact I think they were pretty successful financially?
In that case what failed was GW in capturing the public interest from those films in the way they did with LoTR - insert a reason here why that might have been the case; from the prices, to lack of advertising, to Martin Freeman's face not having the same effect as Elijah Wood in making people want to collect an army?
Incidentally, I wonder how GW will react to dropping WFB and LoTR sales. Will those games gradually scale back until they disappear, and GW become a company that only sells 40k, or will the company return to what many regard as the 'golden age' of wargaming of the 90's, with scores of different new games being released and both within existing and even new game universes?
15717
Post by: Backfire
Pacific wrote:[
I don't think the movies failed at all, in fact I think they were pretty successful financially?
The Hobbit (only one has come out so far) did fairly well financially, though less than anticipated. What was clearly missing, however, was any kind of positive buzz around the movie, like LOTR had back in the day. Or for example, Game of Thrones has today. Which is what GW should be licensing if they want to repeat LOTR phenomenon...
56050
Post by: doc1234
Backfire wrote: Pacific wrote:[
I don't think the movies failed at all, in fact I think they were pretty successful financially?
The Hobbit (only one has come out so far) did fairly well financially, though less than anticipated. What was clearly missing, however, was any kind of positive buzz around the movie, like LOTR had back in the day. Or for example, Game of Thrones has today. Which is what GW should be licensing if they want to repeat LOTR phenomenon...
Didn't fantasy flight beat them to it?
http://www.waylandgames.co.uk/fantasy-flight-games/battlelore/cat_1368.html
And I don't mean with the boardgames either.
99
Post by: insaniak
Pacific wrote:In that case what failed was GW in capturing the public interest from those films in the way they did with LoTR - insert a reason here why that might have been the case; from the prices, to lack of advertising, to Martin Freeman's face not having the same effect as Elijah Wood in making people want to collect an army?
I would suspect that presenting it as a whole new game rather than just as supplemental material for the old one might have made a difference, as well. Aside from the new characters, why would you buy into the Hobbit after already buying 3 rulebooks for ever larger games from the previous films?
7361
Post by: Howard A Treesong
The Hobbit seems to have had a lesser impact than LotR which was everywhere, it just was a major event those years. GW has that to deal with but their prices on the Hobbit were absurd, the LotR fever wasn't replicated, partly their fault, partly due to generally less enthusiasm for the franchise.
|
|
