So you're claiming that even though they say in their financial report that they don't do market research, they do market research, or otherwise gather market data? They explicitly state they don't ask the market what it wants, but you're assuming they try and figure out what the market wants?
Then why would they proudly state those things in their financial report? What would they have to gain?
And those financial reports could be what I described in the post above, neither you or I have factual knowledge. And just because a CEO/PR person ( or pretty much anyone ) states something it doesn´t necessarily mean that is happening/not happening within the confines of the company on a concretical level. You must know this, it´s so common. Just like promises of a new and exciting rules edition can be just words, so can these. I believe no one can prove that isn´t the case.
You seem to have some sort of fallacy in your head that it's not possible for companies to reject common sense. I can tell you from experience that in some places, the company culture is absurd, and common sense has no place. In fact, they're somewhat common. From their financial report, GW appears to quite possibly be one of those places.
Ofcourse it´s possible for companies to occasionally lack common sense, and I too have experienced absurd working enviroments when it comes to code of conduct. But the possibility of a company the size of GW really ignoring everything related to competitors, the development of wargames as a whole and everything else included just isn´t possible. It´s just not even remotely possible the people ( who are people just like us, and aware of things just as much as we are ) working at GW wouldn´t be aware of competitors products, how wargames are developing and the many other details involved. They are people. Why would an employee at GW be any less aware of the newest Privateer Press expansion, or how Infinity is played. They are just the same as you and I, they don´t work at GW with blindfolds and gags and earmuffs, secluded from the outside world. What I can agree on is that there are possibly people involved who aren´t even that much into wargames and working there, and thus affecting the outcome.
What other companies do you know of that don't engage in social media? That don't do marketing? That don't have sales? That don't engage (or even acknowledge) their playerbase? I literally know of none. Hell, I write a beer brewing app in my spare time that I have a Facebook page for so I can gather feedback.
Do you mean the companies the size of GW, or just companies in general? Altough I guess "playerbase" narrows it down quite a bit.
As a (former) long time WoW player, among other games, I can appreciate your point that all communities are filled with people complaining. It does get old. However, I think you're giving WAY too much credit to GW being run properly and actually knowing what's going on. Just because there are complainers in every community doesn't mean every community (and company that community is around) is the same.
By no means I mean to say GW is being run perfectly or well, and I believe I haven´t stated such a thing. What I have tried to bring out though is that not everything is like it might seem to people who just have no firsthand experience of business nor running a company. Those 20 dollar dataslate PDF´s are just as idiotic of a cashgrab to me as they are to you.
Yeah, I have a hard time agreeing with you Runic. It seems your argument is based on what you want to believe, and not on what we know. Ironically, that's about as biased as what you accuse others of being.
The facts we do know are that they've stated they do no research, nor care what the market wants.
When you cross check that with their practices compared to other companies, it fairly obvious that statement is true. If they did do research they'd find that customers are looking for fair prices, quality play-tested rulesets, and receive information about releases more in advance than the day of, among many other poor practices.
GW has no channels to receive feedback from, as they've cut them all. There's incredibly little in the way GW can communicate to the customer, and vice versa. If they did care about the customers, that wouldn't be true.
Seriously, for someone who's accusing others of not being objective, go read your own post. Its supported by nothing other than what you wish to believe and experiences in other businesses. Don't let GW's flat and declining revenue/profit bother you either, because that's probably just a blip, right? The release of 7th edition was obviously done to please the customers, despite being released in time for pre-orders to appear on the year-end report, right?
You really showed us your complete lack of bias and total objectivity with that thread though, eh?
Blacksails wrote: Yeah, I have a hard time agreeing with you Runic. It seems your argument is based on what you want to believe, and not on what we know.
What do you know in the actual meaning of the word, instead of assuming in the actual meaning of the word?
The facts we do know are that they've stated they do no research, nor care what the market wants.
And I know that too, since I´ve seen the reports and vaurious statements. What I, nor you, do not know is if that is actually the case. Still, the idea of a company of GW´s size doing no kind of research at all is just absurd and fictional. Again, statements don´t mean much in the end, occasionally there is even strategy behind them as I mentioned before.
Blacksails wrote: GW has no channels to receive feedback from, as they've cut them all. There's incredibly little in the way GW can communicate to the customer, and vice versa. If they did care about the customers, that wouldn't be true.
The part about not communicating is true. In a totally personal note I must say I wouldn´t be so sure I wanted to communicate with a community like this were I running a company. Might cause too many grey hairs.
Blacksails wrote: Seriously, for someone who's accusing others of not being objective, go read your own post. Its supported by nothing other than what you wish to believe and experiences in other businesses. Don't let GW's flat and declining revenue/profit bother you either, because that's probably just a blip, right? The release of 7th edition was obviously done to please the customers, despite being released in time for pre-orders to appear on the year-end report, right?
I stated my true standing about GW in another thread but it was just dismissed as trolling. There are vaurious things GW is doing wrong and that I don´t agree with, and some I even find ridicilous ( like dataslates and some supplemental codices ) but all I´m trying to say that not everything is what some of the more extreme members of the anti-GW part of the community makebelieve would have you see.
Anyway I appreciate you apparently atleast believing I have experience in corporate business, instead of stating that as fraud too ( like was with actual screenshots I provided, someone saying I have never played Warmachine when I´ve played it from 2008 and occasionally people saying I don´t know my own thoughts. )
I inquired with Tom Kirby via e-mail and he corroborated what has been repeatedly said in this topic regarding market research. Here's what he had to say, quoted verbatim from his reply:
Tom Kirby wrote:I officialy corroborate that.
What now, RunicFinland? Dare you challenge Tom Kirby, the man behind the Greatest Wargaming company in the history of wargaming?
-DE- wrote: I inquired with Tom Kirby via e-mail and he corroborated what has been repeatedly said in this topic regarding market research. Here's what he had to say, quoted verbatim from his reply:
Tom Kirby wrote:I officialy corroborate that.
What now, RunicFinland? Dare you challenge Tom Kirby, the man behind the Greatest Wargaming company in the history of wargaming?
"Officially" ... Hmm.
He just emailed me too. The message is attached below:
Well, you didn't respond to the part of my post that ties in the lack of market research with business practices one would expect from a company not doing market research. While its absurd, everything they've done points to that being a true statement. Seriously, they've stated that the GW hobby is buying their models. Not the game, not the modelling, not the painting, not the fluff. The buying.
Cutting content from books because they don't want anyone infringing on their IP doesn't strike me as something a savvy business would do. I can't find anything GW has done to convince me they perform adequate market research and are aware of the progress of their competitors. In a market that has grown steadily, GW has shrunk. That would not happen if they knew what the market wanted.
Your thread was dismissed as trolling because, frankly, it sure seemed like it. None of the arguments you presented were any real representation of the feelings of forum goers, or were at the very best, a simplistic joke of what those feelings are. You showed no intention of engaging in any sort of discussion, and it felt as though you were simply insulting anyone who thought GW were making some very poor decisions.
But is your point simply that you believe GW does market research, and we're all just wrong for believing a statement in a legal document? That we as the playerbase/online community are awful and toxic and its no wonder GW doesn't want to talk to us?
If so, I'll just point out every other wargame. Speaking from experience, the Spartan Games community encourages feedback, which oddly enough, keeps the community from turning toxic. When you ignore the player base, its not surprising there's a little bit of resentment.
Blacksails wrote: Well, you didn't respond to the part of my post that ties in the lack of market research with business practices one would expect from a company not doing market research. While its absurd, everything they've done points to that being a true statement. Seriously, they've stated that the GW hobby is buying their models. Not the game, not the modelling, not the painting, not the fluff. The buying.
Sounds like quite the absurd thing to say and my guess is 98% of the people involved with GW do not agree that the hobby is buying their models. Who made this statement, Kirby? Can you link that one?
Cutting content from books because they don't want anyone infringing on their IP doesn't strike me as something a savvy business would do. I can't find anything GW has done to convince me they perform adequate market research and are aware of the progress of their competitors. In a market that has grown steadily, GW has shrunk. That would not happen if they knew what the market wanted.
There are quite a lot of factors that cause and can cause negative financial reports. Just knowing what the market wants isn´t enough. On a small sidenote, do you know that the miniatures for Warmachine cost almost equally asmuch per pound as GW ones do? You just need to buy less of them to field an army. Just an interesting note.
Your thread was dismissed as trolling because, frankly, it sure seemed like it. None of the arguments you presented were any real representation of the feelings of forum goers, or were at the very best, a simplistic joke of what those feelings are. You showed no intention of engaging in any sort of discussion, and it felt as though you were simply insulting anyone who thought GW were making some very poor decisions.
Well, I´ve seen people being unsatisfied with all the points in said thread. I can link you threads with example posts if you want ( altough I´m not sure if that´s allowed, could be naming and shaming ) but I feel you might be reasonable enough to just believe me. I´ve seen plenty of people wanting less plain codices, and others wanting less complex rules. Those two for example shut eachother out. I´ve heard people in my LGS being disappointed about no new models, and people on Dakka saying they are annoyed because "it´s just a cashgrab." We should remember that the whole wargaming community isn´t here at DakkaDakka... just a fraction. Even if something is major here or on another forum, it can be just a drop in the ocean and reflect the view and feelings of just a few percent of total wargamers in existence.
Blacksails wrote: But is your point simply that you believe GW does market research, and we're all just wrong for believing a statement in a legal document? That we as the playerbase/online community are awful and toxic and its no wonder GW doesn't want to talk to us?
My point is that the sayings of even three highly influental people regarding how a company acts can have no actual truth behind them and the reality can be something completely else, both in good and bad as I mentioned. Occasionally even higherups can be obIivious to details about their company, especially very large ones. Of this, I have actual experience. I wrote these things already. Personally I find a company the size of GW functioning completely blind without any research, for more than 20 years and still running complete and absolute fiction. I could believe they do it less than some, but none? Nope, I find it absolutely impossible.
Regarding the toxic community and player base, I did write " In a totally personal note I must say I wouldn´t be so sure I wanted to communicate with a community like this were I running a company." - so no, I do not claim GW thinks this or that, as I have no factual knowledge on the matter, and no one else does either.
Not sure if it was you or someone else, this just came to mind, but anyway I heavily agree GW should incorporate playtesting outside their own.
Sounds like quite the absurd thing to say and my guess is 98% of the people involved with GW do not agree that the hobby is buying their models. Who made this statement, Kirby? Can you link that one?
Points or not, we cannot know for sure.
98%? Why not 94%? Or maybe 20%? The fact is, we don't know how many people have drank the corporate kool-aid, but clearly the culture Kirby wants to create is one where statements like are true. Direction from on high is what steers the company, and when that direction is off, the efforts of a few low management and desk jockeys that might truly believe in the best for the customer won't matter.
The statement was from the Chapterhouse Lawsuit. My google-fu came up short, but I'll dig through the thread here to find a link to the quote.
There are quite a lot of factors that cause and can cause negative financial reports. Just knowing what the market wants isn´t enough. On a small sidenote, do you know that the miniatures for Warmachine cost almost equally asmuch per pound as GW ones do? You just need to buy less of them to field an army. Just an interesting note.
I'm well aware the cost of Warmachine models. Did you have a point to make with that tid-bit?
There are indeed a lot of factors, but wouldn't it stand to reason that if a company was performing adequate market research, they'd also grow with the market? This probably goes doubly so for the behemoth that is GW, as they could have capitalized quicker and in larger volume to the demands of the customers. Instead, small skirmish started popping up, as well as spaceship/sci-fi games in different scales. Funny enough, most of these offerings are not dissimilar from much of the old specialist games; Epic, Necromunda, Mordheim, BFG, Bloodbowl.
Funny how that turned out.
Well, I´ve seen people being unsatisfied with all the points in said thread. I can link you threads with example posts if you want ( altough I´m not sure if that´s allowed, could be naming and shaming ) but I feel you might be reasonable enough to just believe me. I´ve seen plenty of people wanting less plain codices, and others wanting less complex rules. Those two for example shut eachother out. I´ve heard people in my LGS being disappointed about no new models, and people on Dakka saying they are annoyed because "it´s just a cashgrab." We should remember that the whole wargaming community isn´t here at DakkaDakka... just a fraction. Even if something is major here or on another forum, it can be just a drop in the ocean with a different view/feelings.
Oh I know, and my point was that your examples/points were over simplified, taken out of context, and deliberately juxtaposed to show an artificial divide in the community.
If you can boil the issue down to "Some people want more models, and some people don't, you can't please anyone!", don't be surprised when people don't take you seriously. You and I both know the issues are more nuanced than that.
And less plain codices and less complex rules are far, far from being mutually exclusive. The plainness of a codex has no bearing on the complexity of the rules. But this is why your examples and points are not taken seriously; you seem fairly unaware about the arguments being made by the more articulate nay-sayers. Go read through the threads talking poorly of GW and leave emotion at the door. Understand the arguments being made and understand how all of the issues in common are not mutually exclusive.
Regardless, I think we can all agree that a basic price drop/increase in value would be welcome universally.
My point is that the sayings of even three highly influental people regarding how a company acts can have no actual truth behind them and the reality can be something completely else, both in good and bad as I mentioned. I wrote these things already. Personally I find a company the size of GW functioning completely blind without any research, for more than 20 years and still running complete and absolute fiction. I could believe they do it less than some, but none? Nope, impossible.
Its not fiction though. Its comical and absurd, but the direction of the board is fairly clear. This has trickle down effects and ultimately shapes the way the company operates. Even if they did some research, its painfully inadequate, which is just as bad when the end result is virtually the same.
You also don't have evidence to support your side though. All the evidence we have points to a clear lack of communication, feedback, research, and planning beyond the next quarter.
Regarding the toxic community and player base, I did write " In a totally personal note I must say I wouldn´t be so sure I wanted to communicate with a community like this were I running a company." - so no, I do not claim GW thinks this or that, as I have no factual knowledge on the matter, and no one else does either.
The reason you wouldn't want to communicate with a community like this is because the community hasn't been communicated with.
GW has no communication with its customers.
It was stated by the CEO himself that they proudly do no market research.
Declining revenue.
Random changes to the game that anger and frustrate players instead of making them excited.
Everything points to GW not doing market research, like they said. Are you calling GW liars?
Do you have any evidence that they do? And if so, how?
Smart people have interpreted the financials as meaning there are dire times ahead unless the ship is righted. That includes financial analysts, midsize business CEOs and former CIOs of large companies. I think they are qualified enough to give valid opinions that are more than just complaints.
Blacksails wrote: I'm well aware the cost of Warmachine models. Did you have a point to make with that tid-bit?
Not to you I guess, but quite a lot of people are criticizing GW for the high cost of models and completely ignoring the fact WM/H almost the same pricing. "Reduced cost of models" I believe was brought out as one of the things "the community wants" - yet this is never prevalent in threads about Privateer Press.
Blacksails wrote: There are indeed a lot of factors, but wouldn't it stand to reason that if a company was performing adequate market research, they'd also grow with the market?
Not necessarily, as a lot of other things can go wrong and even factors that you can´t effect in a certain timeline can come up. Market reserach alone doesn´t guarantee growth though, but it would be foolish to say it wouldn´t help. It´s such a huge amount of things that become the end result in stuff like this, beginning with someone being tired/having a bad day at work to corporate level business decisions. A sum of hundreds if not thousands of factors.
Blacksails wrote: But this is why your examples and points are not taken seriously; you seem fairly unaware about the arguments being made by the more articulate nay-sayers. Go read through the threads talking poorly of GW and leave emotion at the door. Understand the arguments being made and understand how all of the issues in common are not mutually exclusive.
You shouldn´t generalize and talk on behalf of the community, as quite a bit of people actually took them seriously and I even continued discussions via PM´s ( as the public ones always turn into dare I say what no matter how you try to handle the discussion. ) I´ve read quite a lot threads and posts, and I have, next to some good arguments, also seen paradoxical statements being made, people treating companies that do the exact same things differently and so on. It´s hard to take someone seriously then aswell.
Blacksails wrote: Regardless, I think we can all agree that a basic price drop/increase in value would be welcome universally.
It would, and from companies other than GW too. They are making ten times more from a kit than it costs to create said kit. But it might be, and probably is their ( all companies in the business ) biggest revenue factor, and reducing it could have side-effects like cutting down and saving from other areas ( which in turn can lead to people being fired and so on. ) I cannot say if they can afford it, and who can and when. We would need a professional economy oriented analyst for that who also knows the values required from within said companies.
Its not fiction though. Its comical and absurd, but the direction of the board is fairly clear. This has trickle down effects and ultimately shapes the way the company operates. Even if they did some research, its painfully inadequate, which is just as bad when the end result is virtually the same.
Gonna have to agree to disagree on this one I guess, as again no one knows for sure. There are just assumptions in the end. I can easily believe though that they don´t do adequate research.
The reason you wouldn't want to communicate with a community like this is because the community hasn't been communicated with.
Disagree again, PP for example listens to their community a lot more and the same kind of behaviour, including flaming, whining, kneejerking and whatnot takes place all the same. It´s just people on the internet and nothing more asfar as I´m concerned. You can see it everywhere, Reddit and YouTube for some of the worst examples. Anonymity and all that shizzle, I believe you understand what I mean even if you don´t agree with me. You seem like a sensible guy.
agnosto wrote: Regardless of what Tom Kirby says, didn't they post a position recently for someone to travel the world and gather customer feedback?
If this is true, we can therefore apply the same logic that is used by many of you regarding Kirby and market research: This proves GW does care about it´s community. That argument is now completely decimated if this position recruitment is true and no one should claim they don´t care ever again, for they have essentially stated they want a person to gather them customer feedback, therefore caring about their customers.
If someone doesn´t just plain ignore the fact the same logic is applied and just clean it under a rug next ( therefore being oxymoronic ) I´m gonna be surprised.
Btw sorry for the edits, english isn´t my native language and I´m constantly fixing stuff to try and articulate it better to avoid accidental and eliminate deliberate misinterpretations.
RunicFIN wrote: Not to you I guess, but quite a lot of people are criticizing GW for the high cost of models and completely ignoring the fact WM/H almost the same pricing. "Reduced cost of models" I believe was brought out as one of the things "the community wants" - yet this is never prevalent in threads about Privateer Press.
.
It's more than that though. Yes, WM/H is almost the same pricing. However note that PP lowers the cost of plastic models when they are changed over (something GW could have done but chose to RAISE prices instead), and also note that there's something deeper about it. For me personally I feel like I'm getting a lot more for my money buying a unit from PP than from GW.
For example, I recently bought the Winter Guard Infantry box, the UA and Kovnik Joe. That ran me about $75, so it's around the same roughly as a 40k squad and transport (a little less but about equal). Personally, I feel like I'm getting a lot more value for the WGI/UA/Joe than say a Tactical Squad and a Rhino. It feels like a bigger part of my force, so even if it costs the same the perception is that you're spending less overall for more value.
RunicFIN wrote: Not to you I guess, but quite a lot of people are criticizing GW for the high cost of models and completely ignoring the fact WM/H almost the same pricing. "Reduced cost of models" I believe was brought out as one of the things "the community wants" - yet this is never prevalent in threads about Privateer Press.
.
It's more than that though. Yes, WM/H is almost the same pricing. However note that PP lowers the cost of plastic models when they are changed over (something GW could have done but chose to RAISE prices instead), and also note that there's something deeper about it. For me personally I feel like I'm getting a lot more for my money buying a unit from PP than from GW.
For example, I recently bought the Winter Guard Infantry box, the UA and Kovnik Joe. That ran me about $75, so it's around the same roughly as a 40k squad and transport (a little less but about equal). Personally, I feel like I'm getting a lot more value for the WGI/UA/Joe than say a Tactical Squad and a Rhino. It feels like a bigger part of my force, so even if it costs the same the perception is that you're spending less overall for more value.
I mentioned before you need less models to have an army in WM/H yeah. Spending 75$ on WM/H gives you a bigger % of a standard sized army than what it does in 40K. Is this what you mean? It´s true, yeah.
If this is true, we can therefore apply the same logic that is used by many of you regarding Kirby and market research: This proves GW does care about it´s community. That argument is now completely decimated if this position recruitment is true and no one should claim they don´t care ever again, for they have essentially stated they want a person to gather them customer feedback, therefore caring about their customers.
Wrong, it just means they're throwing a bone. Many companies say one thing and do the opposite. GW has shown they don't care about customer feedback, no matter what they say or claim. As the saying goes, "Actions speak louder than words". Besides I think the position in question was related to finding out how to improve retail sales.
RunicFIN wrote: Not to you I guess, but quite a lot of people are criticizing GW for the high cost of models and completely ignoring the fact WM/H almost the same pricing. "Reduced cost of models" I believe was brought out as one of the things "the community wants" - yet this is never prevalent in threads about Privateer Press. .
It's more than that though. Yes, WM/H is almost the same pricing. However note that PP lowers the cost of plastic models when they are changed over (something GW could have done but chose to RAISE prices instead), and also note that there's something deeper about it. For me personally I feel like I'm getting a lot more for my money buying a unit from PP than from GW.
For example, I recently bought the Winter Guard Infantry box, the UA and Kovnik Joe. That ran me about $75, so it's around the same roughly as a 40k squad and transport (a little less but about equal). Personally, I feel like I'm getting a lot more value for the WGI/UA/Joe than say a Tactical Squad and a Rhino. It feels like a bigger part of my force, so even if it costs the same the perception is that you're spending less overall for more value.
I mentioned before you need less models to have an army in WM/H yeah. Spending 75$ on WM/H gives you a bigger % of an army than what it does in 40K. Is this what you mean? It´s true anyway.
I mean it feels like more value, and really it's not that much less models. I've seen a lot of non-horde 40k armies that are like 30-40 models and that's around what a 50 point Warmachine army tends to run barring things like double Stormwall or certain types of lists (Oceans 18 springs to mind). The difference is a lot of 40k points tend to be rolled into expensive vehicles and transports so you pay more for those than you do per unit in Warmachine because they raise the price exponentially. I was once looking at starting a Necron force for 40k and with squads and transports, a 750 army was already over $300. That's ridiculous and I quickly shelved the idea. On the flip side I could build an 35-point eKreoss tier 4 list with all knights for ~$325 which feels more reasonable to me, if a little on the high end.
Which is exactly what I said about Kirby and his research statement, or any other statement perceived negative. If someone disagrees with me about the very thing you say in this very quote they are now disagreeing with you also. Thank you.
WayneTheGame wrote: GW has shown they don't care about customer feedback no matter what they say or claim.
Personal question for you: Why do you believe negative statements made by GW as the truth ( like Kirby and market research ) but dismiss any positive statements/things they do as lies/deceiving?
How do you justify this and how do you come to the conclusion that all the positive things ( like a customercare position and the will to listen to their community that comes with it ) is just lies and a facade, but all the things they say, that you find negative, you hold as the truth?'
I probably know your answer and you probably won´t see anything wrong with that kind of judgement, but let´s see anyway...
agnosto wrote: Regardless of what Tom Kirby says, didn't they post a position recently for someone to travel the world and gather customer feedback?
If this is true, we can therefore apply the same logic that is used by many of you regarding Kirby and market research: This proves GW does care about it´s community. That argument is now completely decimated if this position recruitment is true and no one should claim they don´t care ever again, for they have essentially stated they want a person to gather them customer feedback, therefore caring about their customers.
If someone doesn´t just plain ignore the fact the same logic is applied and just clean it under a rug next ( therefore being oxymoronic ) I´m gonna be surprised.
To be fair, if my memory is correct, the position was limited to this person visiting GW stores and it is/was a short-term position but it would most definitely be a step in the right direction. I wouldn't say that one person visiting GW stores and speaking with customers about their buying experiences constitutes real market research, they'd probably have gotten off cheaper and been more efficient if they had hired a firm that regularly does this sort of thing.
Which is exactly what I said about Kirby and his research statement, or any other statement perceived negative. Thank you.
WayneTheGame wrote: GW has shown they don't care about customer feedback no matter what they say or claim.
Personal question for you: Why do you believe negative statements made by GW as the truth ( like Kirby and market research ) but dismiss any positive statements/things they do as lies/deceiving?
How do you justify this and how do you come to the conclusion that all the positive things ( like a customercare position and the will to listen to their community that comes with it ) is just lies and a facade, but all the things they say, that you find negative, you hold as the truth?'
I probably know your answer and you probably won´t see anything wrong with that kind of judgement, but let´s see anyway...
Because I haven't seen anything to indicate that they're doing anything positive, and I keep an eye on what they do because I secretly want to play again. But in the years since I stopped I've seen them give the finger to competitive players, kill off their other games because they felt that they were taking away sales from the big games (which show outright stupidity as some profit is better than none at all), add things that didn't belong (i.e. flyers and Lords of War) and continue to push the game larger and larger without caring for making choices viable.
In short, they act in a way that corroborates the negative aspects which they also claim, not the hypothetical positives that may or may not be going on. The evidence points to the negative being true, and the positive being false.
You shouldn´t generalize and talk on behalf of the community, as quite a bit of people actually took them seriously and I even continued discussions via PM´s ( as the public ones always turn into dare I say what no matter how you try to handle the discussion. ) I´ve read quite a lot threads and posts, and I have, next to some good arguments, also seen paradoxical statements being made, people treating companies that do the exact same things differently and so on. It´s hard to take someone seriously then aswell.
I'm not generalizing or speaking on behalf of the community. I'm telling you that your post and the examples you're using are either taken out of context, or over simplified.
You simply can't say that person 'X' was disappointed by the models in a release, then claim its paradoxical when the same person (or indeed, another person altogether) is upset when a release is accompanied by no new models.
Its all in the details.
Anyways, you have yet to provide any sort of evidence or proof regarding your stance on how GW operates. Until then, the only logical assumption is that GW does no market research and doesn't care what the market wants. Its what has been stated by them, and stands up to reason when their practices are analyzed.
No company is perfect, but I doubt you'll find any wargame community as divided as GW is. While I'm certain there are issues over at PP, or Corvus Belli, I'm highly doubtful its as often, as vitriolic, and as divisive as the issues associated with GW. I know for a fact that the Spartan Games forums has issues that are trivial compared to what happens with 40k.
agnosto wrote: To be fair, if my memory is correct, the position was limited to this person visiting GW stores and it is/was a short-term position but it would most definitely be a step in the right direction. I wouldn't say that one person visiting GW stores and speaking with customers about their buying experiences constitutes real market research, they'd probably have gotten off cheaper and been more efficient if they had hired a firm that regularly does this sort of thing.
Agreed on all points. A bit disappointing if that´s the case with the position, but indeed a step in the right direction.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blacksails wrote: Until then, the only logical assumption is that GW does no market research and doesn't care what the market wants. Its what has been stated by them, and stands up to reason when their practices are analyzed.
Out of pure interest, since WayneTheGame just pointed out companies occasionally do/don´t do things differently than what they claim ( which is exactly what I said aswell ):
Do you, too, dismiss them hiring a customercare position not meaning anything/it being a lie, while simultaneously believing in "evidence" that is negative, such as Kirbys statement on market research?
Just want to know what people think when the exact same logic is applied and which was already enforced by another person with different views from mine. It tells me quite a lot about the logic of said people depending on their answer. No one can atleast say it´s a different thing, because it´s exactly the same thing ( a public display anyway, I find hiring for a certain position is basically a statement in itself. )
agnosto wrote: To be fair, if my memory is correct, the position was limited to this person visiting GW stores and it is/was a short-term position but it would most definitely be a step in the right direction. I wouldn't say that one person visiting GW stores and speaking with customers about their buying experiences constitutes real market research, they'd probably have gotten off cheaper and been more efficient if they had hired a firm that regularly does this sort of thing.
Agreed on all points. A bit disappointing if that´s the case with the position, but indeed a step in the right direction.
I'm a public education administrator; in my mind data is worthless unless it is actionable. I see this work being little better than a parent, climate survey. You can take the results, look at what people are saying and maybe adjust one or two things but it's not something that's going to provide the depth of information needed for systemic change throughout the organization. I would be interested to see the questions this person is asking GW customers.
So you're claiming that even though they say in their financial report that they don't do market research, they do market research, or otherwise gather market data? They explicitly state they don't ask the market what it wants, but you're assuming they try and figure out what the market wants?
Then why would they proudly state those things in their financial report? What would they have to gain?
And those financial reports could be what I described in the post above, neither you or I have factual knowledge. And just because a CEO/PR person ( or pretty much anyone ) states something it doesn´t necessarily mean that is happening/not happening within the confines of the company on a concretical level. You must know this, it´s so common. Just like promises of a new and exciting rules edition can be just words, so can these. I believe no one can prove that isn´t the case.
The facts we do know are that they've stated they do no research, nor care what the market wants.
And I know that too, since I´ve seen the reports and vaurious statements. What I, nor you, do not know is if that is actually the case. Still, the idea of a company of GW´s size doing no kind of research at all is just absurd and fictional. Again, statements don´t mean much in the end, occasionally there is even strategy behind them as I mentioned before.
Twice now you've posted that you believe that Tom Kirby, CEO of a publicly traded company is deliberately and blatantly violating his fiduciary duty by lying to shareholders regarding GW not doing market research as part of their business plan in the quarterly financial reports sent to investors. You support your claim that Kirby is lying by saying that it's theoretically possible for CEOs to lie to shareholders, CEOs of other companies have lied to shareholders for various reasons, that you personally believe he's lying and that nobody on dakka and prove wtih certainty that Kirby isn't lying. The paradoxical nature of you dismissing people's criticism of GW and opinion of their business practicing as unfounded hate and unsubstantiated misguided misconceptions but then making the claim that GW's CEO is lying to share holders because you personally find his statements hard to accept as true is stunning and casts you in a poor light.
If he was in fact lying to shareholders isn't that illegal or something?
As I said, actions speak louder than words. Kirby could have stated that they DO market research, and their actions would still show that they don't.
I don't care what Kirby says, it's what his company does that counts. And GW acts as though they don't do market research and don't give a feth what their customers actually want. No amount of speculation is going to change the fact that they act clueless, whether or not they really are.
Twice now you've posted that you believe that Tom Kirby, CEO of a publicly traded company is deliberately and blatantly violating his fiduciary duty by lying to shareholders regarding GW not doing market research as part of their business plan in the quarterly financial reports sent to investors. You support your claim that Kirby is lying by saying that it's theoretically possible for CEOs to lie to shareholders, CEOs of other companies have lied to shareholders for various reasons, that you personally believe he's lying and that nobody on dakka and prove wtih certainty that Kirby isn't lying. The paradoxical nature of you dismissing people's criticism of GW and opinion of their business practicing as unfounded hate and unsubstantiated misguided misconceptions but then making the claim that GW's CEO is lying to share holders because you personally find his statements hard to accept as true is stunning and casts you in a poor light.
I´ve only said it´s possible, copy paste me where I state that it is so. And also prove it, if you deem it´s impossible.
I also said there are other possibilities than Kirby smoothing things out in investors eyes with public letters and statements ( which is by the way something that happens every day in business. ) Lying and presenthing things in a different light are different things. Smoothing out the edges for investors isn´t illegal. Lying that they made 20% more profit than last year if they only made 5% ( or anything else ) is illegal. Ofcourse I guess laws can and will vary in different countries.
It casts you in a poor light to put words in my mouth and make what I say seem more extreme by leaving out the details I already wrote.
WayneTheGame wrote: If he was in fact lying to shareholders isn't that illegal or something?
As I said, actions speak louder than words. Kirby could have stated that they DO market research, and their actions would still show that they don't.
I don't care what Kirby says, it's what his company does that counts. And GW acts as though they don't do market research and don't give a feth what their customers actually want. No amount of speculation is going to change the fact that they act clueless, whether or not they really are.
Keep in mind that Kirby was holding two positions at the time of the report. The preamble is written from the perspective of his position as Chairman of the Board, not the CEO. What he writes is in essence an, albeit one-sided, dialog with investors about his thoughts on the current state of the company and in no way is a legal representation of the company's health; that information is in the data presented in the report. You'll note that in the most recent, annual report, Kirby states that GW had a "good year" and then goes on to define what he thinks it means even though he admits to horrible earnings.
MWHistorian wrote: FunicFin,
We have an official statement an actions by the company to indicate that GW does no market research.
Show us evidence that they do market research (besides wishful thinking) or find something else to talk about.
I´ll do it after you show us evidence that they don´t care about their customers, as we have an official job opening for customer care indicating that they care about their customers. It´s the exact same logic and it was already verified ( albeit probably by accident ) by WayneTHeGame.
MWHistorian wrote:Seriously, go through all the threads and look at which ones were closed and why. You'll see a trend that marks a vocal minority of GW apologists being rude, trollish and with a strong desire to tell GW critics to shut up and go away.
You have now done what you describe yourself. I don´t even need to guess if you will attempt to sweep this one under the rug, but you have. Clear as day. Before this you claimed I was lying and creating fake screenshots, and I proved you wrong. Not sure what to think of you anymore really.
I´ll do it after you show us evidence that they don´t care about their customers, as we have an official job opening for customer care indicating that they care about their customers.
The point was about market research, not caring about their customers.
I'd hardly call a singular position asking people in their own stores what they think about their products market research or caring about their customers.
MWHistorian wrote: FunicFin,
We have an official statement an actions by the company to indicate that GW does no market research.
Show us evidence that they do market research (besides wishful thinking) or find something else to talk about.
I´ll do it after you show us evidence that they don´t care about their customers, as we have an official job opening for customer care indicating that they care about their customers.
MWHistorian wrote:Seriously, go through all the threads and look at which ones were closed and why. You'll see a trend that marks a vocal minority of GW apologists being rude, trollish and with a strong desire to tell GW critics to shut up and go away.
You have now done what you describe, yourself. I don´t even need to guess that you will attempt to sweep this one under the rug, but you have.
Because you're beating a dead horse.You're saying the same thing over and over again with no supporting evidence. There's no point to the conversation if you won't budge from your opinion or give some examples. I never said they don't care about customers, I said that they don't do market research.
Finding something else to talk about because the topic has hit a wall isn't the same as telling you to go away. The argument has become circular.
You're misinterpreting what I and others are saying and its an annoying habit of yours.
What makes you think one position (that again was related to retail stores) means they now care about their customers? Why the hell are you using that as some verifiable example when everything else they've done indicates the opposite? One maybe good thing versus many, many bad things = still a lot of bad things.
Besides, the common opinion re: that position is that the person would make good suggestions that would be dismissed because it would reduce "value" of the brand or whatever lamebrain bullcrap they delude themselves into thinking.
You're misinterpreting what I and others are saying and its an annoying habit of yours.
I should probably count how many times I have been misinterpreted deliberately or accidentally in 10 hours alone. Seems to happen to everyone. Can you ( everyone ) also stop talking as "us" or "we" since you´re just individuals, I find talking/writing this way is just a shallow attempt in trying to make ones own arguments/statements/plain sentences more powerful.
WayneTheGame wrote: What makes you think one position (that again was related to retail stores) means they now care about their customers? Why the hell are you using that as some verifiable example when everything else they've done indicates the opposite? One maybe good thing versus many, many bad things = still a lot of bad things.
When it comes down to it it´s just a person accepting negative official statements/gestures as the truth and deeming all positive official statements/gestures as lies.
Blacksails wrote: If you're being misinterpreted so many times, maybe the problem lies with you and your ability to communicate your point?
I wonder if that's the case. If so, I'll try to be more clear and precise with what I say.
I'm saying that there is evidence (random changes to game, no communication with players) and official statements that say GW doesn't do market research.
There is no evidence that they do do market research.
When it comes down to it it´s just a person accepting negative official statements/gestures as the truth and deeming all positive official statements/gestures as lies.
What positive official statements and gestures, and who's calling them a lie?
WayneTheGame wrote: What makes you think one position (that again was related to retail stores) means they now care about their customers? Why the hell are you using that as some verifiable example when everything else they've done indicates the opposite? One maybe good thing versus many, many bad things = still a lot of bad things.
When it comes down to it it´s just a person accepting negative official statements/gestures as the truth and deeming all positive official statements/gestures as lies.
Because again, they have STATED the negatives and shown practically nothing for the positive. What other logical conclusion would there be?
When it comes down to it it´s just a person accepting negative official statements/gestures as the truth and deeming all positive official statements/gestures as lies.
What positive official statements and gestures, and who's calling them a lie?
I'm pretty sure he means that customer care position or whatever that I mentioned, which therefore means they really do care about feedback from customers, and somehow that negates saying in the preamble that they do no research or ask the customer what they want, because the logic there is just because Kirby says it doesn't mean it's true.
I'm pretty sure he means that customer care position or whatever that I mentioned, which therefore means they really do care about feedback from customers, and somehow that negates saying in the preamble that they do no research or ask the customer what they want.
Which is what I'm thinking too.
So one thing, which is debatable to how it actually demonstrates any real attempt to either perform market research or show they care about their customers.
Blacksails wrote: If you're being misinterpreted so many times, maybe the problem lies with you and your ability to communicate your point?
I don´t think so, misinterpretation happens in almost every thread to a lot of users. If you read the rules of DakkaDakka it even states there this happens all the time.
And why are you fellas having the need to attack me personally when I have now refrained from talking about your annoying habits or discrediting you? Makes it especially sad since you´re apparently some united front. Guess I´ll be the bigger man and just take it without retaliating ( that´s what some of you want anyway, I´m sure. )
I don´t think so, misinterpretation happens in almost every thread to a lot of users. If you read the rules of DakkaDakka it even states there this happens all the time.
And why are you fellas having the need to attack me personally when I have now refrained from talking about your annoying habits or discrediting you? Makes it especially sad since you´re apparently some united front. Guess I´ll be the bigger man and just take it without retaliating ( that´s what some of you want anyway, I´m sure. )
When it comes down to it it´s just a person accepting negative official statements/gestures as the truth and deeming all positive official statements/gestures as lies.
What positive official statements and gestures, and who's calling them a lie?
WayneTheGame, previous page. Ctfl+F "throwing a bone"
WayneTheGame, previous page. Ctfl+F "throwing a bone"
Uhhh, yeah, that's not calling it a lie. That's questioning the merits of it. Two entirely different things.
If you're going to discuss this, you have to back these actions up. A single job asking around stores hardly constitutes doing anything really.
"Many companies say one thing and do the opposite. GW has shown they don't care about customer feedback, no matter what they say or claim. "
Pretty sure that is the definition of lying and/or deceiving.
Anyway: People accepting official gestures/statements when they are negative, dismissing them when they are positive. I´m just saying that on a principal level it´s oxymoronic judgement.
People accepting official gestures/statements when they are negative, dismissing them when they are positive. I´m just saying that on a principal level it´s oxymoronic judgement.
Are you reading what people are typing?
A singular job position, who goes around to GW stores and ask customers about their products is...what, exactly? What should I be acknowledging that as? In a multi-million dollar corporation that spans a few continents, I'm expected to applaud GW for some sort of positive action?
Seriously?
Think about it for a second. Its a single job. That only goes to GW stores. To ask people already buying their product what they think of their product.
I don't know why you're shocked or think its oxymoronic that I can acknowledge the negative stuff and fail to acknowledge this tiny, practically meaningless gesture.
Can you enlighten me what this position could actually produce that will end up being meaningful to me as a customer that doesn't shop at GW retail stores?
Blacksails wrote: A singular job position, who goes around to GW stores and ask customers about their products is...what, exactly? What should I be acknowledging that as? In a multi-million dollar corporation that spans a few continents, I'm expected to applaud GW for some sort of positive action?
To regocnize that it can mean they care about their customers just asmuch a statement can mean they don´t do market research, on a principal level when applying the very logic that was demonstrated when talking about Kirby.
Which statement/gesture is of bigger magnitude is besides the point, as I already said: on a principal level. Of course on concretical level a CEO´s statement can, and is by most, perceived more heavy than a single job.
I hope you now understand. Now you or someone else will probably again critisize me for pointing that out as irrelevant or whatever. It´s like I´m a Tzeentch GD and seeing the future, but ah well.
To regocnize that it can mean they care about their customers just asmuch a statement can mean they don´t do market research.
So you truly believe that a multi-million dollar, international corporation can be said to do market research and show they care about their customers by employing a singular person to ask around their shops?
You don't see how a lot of people aren't all of a sudden apologizing to GW? Or how this one job in no significant way refutes the position they do no market research?
One person doesn't mean they care, and it certainly can't be considered any sort of research. Sorry, but no.
Blacksails wrote: A singular job position, who goes around to GW stores and ask customers about their products is...what, exactly? What should I be acknowledging that as? In a multi-million dollar corporation that spans a few continents, I'm expected to applaud GW for some sort of positive action?
To regocnize that it can mean they care about their customers just asmuch a statement can mean they don´t do market research, on a principal level when applying the very logic that was demonstrated when talking about Kirby.
Which statement/gesture is of bigger magnitude is besides the point, as I already said: on a principal level.
I hope you now understand.
That's not the market research we're talking about. This is.
Market research is any organized effort to gather information about target markets or customers. It is a very important component of business strategy.[1] The term is commonly interchanged with marketing research; however, expert practitioners may wish to draw a distinction, in that marketing research is concerned specifically about marketing processes, while market research is concerned specifically with markets.[2]
Market research is a key factor to maintain competitiveness over competitors. Market research provides important information to identify and analyze the market need, market size and competition.
Market research, which includes social and opinion research, is the systematic gathering and interpretation of information about individuals or organizations using statistical and analytical methods and techniques of the applied social sciences to gain insight or support decision making.[3]
Sending one guy to GW stores to ask already loyal customers what they think isn't market research.
So no. There's no evidence that GW does market research. (And stop arguing about "caring about the customers." That's not what's being discussed.)
To regocnize that it can mean they care about their customers just asmuch a statement can mean they don´t do market research.
So you truly believe that a multi-million dollar, international corporation can be said to do market research and show they care about their customers by employing a singular person to ask around their shops?
You don't see how a lot of people aren't all of a sudden apologizing to GW? Or how this one job in no significant way refutes the position they do no market research?
One person doesn't mean they care, and it certainly can't be considered any sort of research. Sorry, but no.
Meh, I can´t get you to understand and I sincerely tried. But to answer your question: No, I do not, and no one person doesn´t mean they care.
I´ll try again:
Rule: This is the only thing I´m saying/claiming regarding this subject/point:
1. Person X sees a negative statement/gesture of GW, and sees it as the truth.
2. Person X sees a positive statement/gesture of GW, and deems it as a lie/deceiving.
Person X is therefore paradoxical and uses different logic ( again, on a principal level ) on the negative statements/gestures of GW than the positive ones.
That is all.
What I do not think nor claim:
1. That one person proves anything.
2. That the job of a customer feedback presentative has something, anything, to do with market research.
I think Runic's point isn't so much that you should applaud it so much as at least recognize that it exists and the intent behind it.
GW is not some evil empire hell-bent on world domination and the destruction of peace and prosperity for all time.
It is a global, publicly owned corporation run by a small-minded nincompoop and manned by a cadre of yes-men hell-bent on showing profits to shareholders.
Do they care about customers? Yes, they have to or they would have been out of business long ago.
Do they care enough about customers to actually ask them their thoughts? At only the most visceral level.
The issue here is management's misgovernance and incompetence more than outright ill-will.
Then again, I never attributed ill-will to GW, just incompetence.
For the most part. Some of their legal practices could be interpreted as ill will, but it's most likely from incompetence.
The one man to go around and ask a few people what they think isn't market research and won't be useful in turning their company around. If they don't find out what's wrong, they'll continue to lose sales. If they continue to lose sales, they'll eventually go under. They have got to turn it around but unless they realize there's a problem, it'll never happen.
Then again, I never attributed ill-will to GW, just incompetence.
I, myself, get caught up in my own rants about GW (and don't get me started about Mantic). I think it all stems from frustration of long-term supporters of GW and seeing how the company has changed over time from having an open dialog with the fan/customer base to the current state of "we don't care, give us your money and GTFO."
Then again, I never attributed ill-will to GW, just incompetence.
Chapter House Studios and the author of Spots the Space Marine may disagree...
And independent FLGS's.
And Australia...
and Paulson. But these are business decisions made by lawyers and we can all agree how ridiculous this stuff can become; look at Apple and Samsung suing each other over everything and now we have Apple claiming copyright over a rectangle with rounded corners which is what bar-phones have looked like from day one.
Then again, I never attributed ill-will to GW, just incompetence.
Chapter House Studios and the author of Spots the Space Marine may disagree...
And independent FLGS's.
Yeah, this is something I think about from time-to-time. I generally apply incompetence, but sometimes I get to thinking that the heads of GW have a purely commercial and thereby antagonistic relationship with their customers. I think it's something that happens when the management can't relate to their customers, and Tom Kirby's background seems to point to that being a possibility.
Let´s try to remember anyhow that DakkaDakka and other online communities are just a fraction of the total wargamers in existence, and we cannot know what the majority of wargamers think as none of us actually interact with but a fraction of them/only see what a fraction of wargamers actually think. Most don´t use/actively post on forums nor voice their opinion. Just because here or on other forums there is a belief that GW is going under because of a general opinion formed from being unsatisfied doesn´t mean much in the total scale of things.
It is also a fact that the most active users are the most passionate about their hobby on average, and therefore have stronger feelings and ideas about it. The majority aren´t such people and they are more likely to be fine with the way things are. I know a lot of people who don´t care about things such as psykers in 7th edition, "plain" codices and the like. They are perfectly happy and not even interested that much when it comes to the small things that on the other hand make some people even quit completely.
A lot of people talk like they know what is going on in whole countries or even continents regarding the general consesus. They probably don´t.
There could be 3200 active forum posters saying that GW is going under, that the game is bad and whatever other negative things are being said. And then there´s the hundreds of thousands who don´t use said forum, forums or any forums at all that might be just fine with how things are and happily buying more, resulting in the forementioned being a tiny minority that won´t probably affect anything at all. The situation may very well be that 12% of total wargamers are saying that the game is bad, GW is going under and all that jazz, and 88% being fine and continuing to support and buy GW´s product. Doing bad even for years in a row doesn´t mean much in the end.
Wargamers not active on online communities/forums outnumber us who voice our opinions by a massive amount. And none of us know what the actual majority of all wargamers think. You might know DakkaDakka, and a few other forums. Again, a drop in the ocean some like to deem something bigger in their minds.
Yeah, this is something I think about from time-to-time. I generally apply incompetence, but sometimes I get to thinking that the heads of GW have a purely commercial and thereby antagonistic relationship with their customers. I think it's something that happens when the management can't relate to their customers, and Tom Kirby's background seems to point to that being a possibility.
EDIT: also all the other groups mentioned.
You're right to an extent. If management removes themselves too far from interaction with the customer, the end result in this disassociation is reduced customer satisfaction and eventually reduced earnings. Look at the backlash over "New Coke" back in the day for a good example of how this works.
RunicFIN wrote: Let´s try to remember anyhow that DakkaDakka and other online communities are just a fraction of the total wargamers in existence, and we cannot know what the majority of wargamers think as none of us actually interact with but a fraction of them/only see what a fraction of wargamers actually think. Most don´t use/actively post on forums nor voice their opinion. Just because here or on other forums there is a belief that GW is going under because of a general opinion formed from being unsatisfied doesn´t mean much in the total scale of things.
It is also a fact that the most active users are the most passionate about their hobby on average, and therefore have stronger feelings and ideas about it. The majority aren´t such people and they are more likely to be fine with the way things are. I know a lot of people who don´t care about things such as psykers in 7th edition, "plain" codices and the like. They are perfectly happy and not even interested that much when it comes to the small things that on the other hand make some people even quit completely.
A lot of people talk like they know what is going on in whole countries or even continents regarding the general consesus. They probably don´t.
There could be 3200 active forum posters saying that GW is going under, that the game is bad and whatever other negative things are being said. And then there´s the hundreds of thousands who don´t use said forum, forums or any forums at all that might be just fine with how things are and happily buying more, resulting in the forementioned being a tiny minority that won´t probably affect anything at all. The situation may very well be that 12% of total wargamers are saying that the game is bad, GW is going under and all that jazz, and 88% being fine and continuing to support and buy GW´s product. Doing bad even for years in a row doesn´t mean much in the end.
Wargamers not active on online communities/forums outnumber us who voice our opinions by a massive amount. And none of us knows what the actual majority of all wargamers think. You might know DakkaDakka, and a few other forums.
[spoiler]
On-line dissatisfaction isn't why I believe GW is slowly going down.
It's their financial reports and analysis of data by people who understand such things. Could they be wrong? Sure. But on-line discontent or poor GW performance in my local area isn't the reason I believe.
(I'm glad those spoiler tags are so easy to work with.)
A lot of people talk like they know what is going on in whole countries or even continents regarding the general consesus. They probably don´t.
I'll just pull this line out which covers most of what you're getting at.
What we have are statements from the largest distributors and retailers in Australia saying that the new Dystopian Wars rule book outsold 7th ed 7:1. Other independent retailers across the globe have reported similar cases where GW is shrinking.
While you're correct that forum users are indeed a minority of all wargamers, the actual representation of negative to positive is completely unknown.
Everything we do know, from financial reports, to statements from retailers/distributors, to mass anecdotal evidence doesn't paint a pretty picture for GW. How bleak or pretty that picture is is certainly up for debate, but its not ideal, I'll say that much.
Blacksails wrote: Other independent retailers across the globe have reported similar cases where GW is shrinking.
This could also be a minority of all independent retailers, though. There´s quite many of those, would need quite a list to see whole picture.
Blacksails wrote: While you're correct that forum users are indeed a minority of all wargamers, the actual representation of negative to positive is completely unknown.
Yeah, it is. I thought I mentioned that too. Incase I didn´t, anyway, yeah. Must say it would be interesting to see the absolute end total. If only there was a way to make a poll into which every wargamer in existence would respond without exception.
RunicFIN wrote: Let´s try to remember anyhow that DakkaDakka and other online communities are just a fraction of the total wargamers in existence, and we cannot know what the majority of wargamers think as none of us actually interact with but a fraction of them/only see what a fraction of wargamers actually think. Most don´t use/actively post on forums nor voice their opinion. Just because here or on other forums there is a belief that GW is going under because of a general opinion formed from being unsatisfied doesn´t mean much in the total scale of things.
It is also a fact that the most active users are the most passionate about their hobby on average, and therefore have stronger feelings and ideas about it. The majority aren´t such people and they are more likely to be fine with the way things are. I know a lot of people who don´t care about things such as psykers in 7th edition, "plain" codices and the like. They are perfectly happy and not even interested that much when it comes to the small things that on the other hand make some people even quit completely.
A lot of people talk like they know what is going on in whole countries or even continents regarding the general consesus. They probably don´t.
There could be 3200 active forum posters saying that GW is going under, that the game is bad and whatever other negative things are being said. And then there´s the hundreds of thousands who don´t use said forum, forums or any forums at all that might be just fine with how things are and happily buying more, resulting in the forementioned being a tiny minority that won´t probably affect anything at all. The situation may very well be that 12% of total wargamers are saying that the game is bad, GW is going under and all that jazz, and 88% being fine and continuing to support and buy GW´s product. Doing bad even for years in a row doesn´t mean much in the end.
Wargamers not active on online communities/forums outnumber us who voice our opinions by a massive amount. And none of us knows what the actual majority of all wargamers think. You might know DakkaDakka, and a few other forums.
On-line dissatisfaction isn't why I believe GW is slowly going down.
It's their financial reports and analysis of data by people who understand such things. Could they be wrong? Sure. But on-line discontent or poor GW performance in my local area isn't the reason I believe.
(I'm glad those spoiler tags are so easy to work with.)
Twice now you've posted that you believe that Tom Kirby, CEO of a publicly traded company is deliberately and blatantly violating his fiduciary duty by lying to shareholders regarding GW not doing market research as part of their business plan in the quarterly financial reports sent to investors. You support your claim that Kirby is lying by saying that it's theoretically possible for CEOs to lie to shareholders, CEOs of other companies have lied to shareholders for various reasons, that you personally believe he's lying and that nobody on dakka and prove wtih certainty that Kirby isn't lying. The paradoxical nature of you dismissing people's criticism of GW and opinion of their business practicing as unfounded hate and unsubstantiated misguided misconceptions but then making the claim that GW's CEO is lying to share holders because you personally find his statements hard to accept as true is stunning and casts you in a poor light.
I´ve only said it´s possible, copy paste me where I state that it is so. And also prove it, if you deem it´s impossible.
I also said there are other possibilities than Kirby smoothing things out in investors eyes with public letters and statements ( which is by the way something that happens every day in business. ) Lying and presenthing things in a different light are different things. Smoothing out the edges for investors isn´t illegal. Lying that they made 20% more profit than last year if they only made 5% ( or anything else ) is illegal. Ofcourse I guess laws can and will vary in different countries.
It casts you in a poor light to put words in my mouth and make what I say seem more extreme by leaving out the details I already wrote.
GWdoesn't care about pleasing its customers. It doesn't know what we want
Can you prove that there aren´t people within Games Workshop that care about their customers? Can you prove "GW doesn´t know what we want"?
Market research doesn´t cover even half of the things that comprise "knowing what the community wants" incase we are talking about the same thing. And just because someone has said they don´t do market research doesn´t actually mean anything. You can bet GW follows their competitors and is staying aware of the market and it´s shifts. The idea that they really would function completely blind as a multimillion company is absurd and fictional. Ofcourse they do research on some level.
Thing is, none of you actually know, you assume. So do I, but I´ve spent enough time in the world of corporate business to know there´s not a single company as big as GW that doesn´t do any kind of research. Just doesn´t happen, and a pseudo PR statement from someone like Kirby doesn´t really prove anything. He might infact be completely oblivious to some of the things the company does ( like research for example ) or he might be trying to build trust and visions of a positive future to investors by making it seem like they don´t need to do anything to dominate the market. I´ve seen that happen before too but I won´t mention any names.
You can stop quoting Kirby now, as it really doesn´t mean anything on a concretical level. In the end it´s just words. And if you ( not directed at an individual ) don´t trust GW and their word in anything positive, why do you take something negative like Kirbys statement about research as the ultimate truth?
If the highlighted portion of your post I quoted above is supposed to mean, imply or infer something other than GW does market research because no company as big as GW would not do market research regardless of published statements from the CEO in official investor reports, please tell me what it is you meant.
Yes, GW does, to a an extent, care about what their customers want or at least care about their satisfaction with their products. GW has a customer service department which makes it demonstrably true that they care about their customers.
Again, when a CEO makes an official statement to shareholders regarding the company's business plan I take that statement at face value and hold it to be true unless it's proven otherwise. Your personal opinion may be that GW should do market research but your personal opinion isn't sufficient evidence to determine that Kirby is lying or ignorant of how the company he runs really operates.
Yeah. There's three options:
1.) GW doesn't do any market research. This seems to fit their general corporate attitude and the attitude reflected in the chairman's preamble.
2.) GW DOES do market research, and Kirby knows it, in which case, he lied to investors in a document meant to keep investors apprised of the financial activities of the company, which would include market research.
3.) GW DOES do market research, but Kirby doesn't know that, which means he doesn't know his own company's operations on even a relatively broad level and/or doesn't have anything to do with the company's strategy on even a relatively broad level, which smacks of incompetence.
RatBot wrote: Yeah. There's three options:
1.) GW doesn't do any market research. This seems to fit their general corporate attitude and the attitude reflected in the chairman's preamble.
2.) GW DOES do market research, and Kirby knows it, in which case, he lied to investors in a document meant to keep investors apprised of the financial activities of the company, which would include market research.
3.) GW DOES do market research, but Kirby doesn't know that, which means he doesn't know his own company's operations on even a relatively broad level and/or doesn't have anything to do with the company's strategy on even a relatively broad level, which smacks of incompetence.
I think that you are misinterpreting the purpose for a Chairman's Preamble. While most companies use this space to communicate useful information to investors; some use it as a cheering section or soapbox to speak from. It has no legal relevance other than being a platform of communication from the Chairman to investors. Hardly anyone reads them as the legally required data is held in the actual report, not the preamble. Unfortunately, it seems that Mr. Kirby views the preamble as a place to...well, amble and he even admits as such in the most recent report. It's a testament to the fact that the majority of GW shares are held by institutional investors that he's allowed to maintain his position and write such tripe in official reports; however, he does not illegal in saying what he does.
RatBot wrote: Yeah. There's three options:
1.) GW doesn't do any market research. This seems to fit their general corporate attitude and the attitude reflected in the chairman's preamble.
2.) GW DOES do market research, and Kirby knows it, in which case, he lied to investors in a document meant to keep investors apprised of the financial activities of the company, which would include market research.
3.) GW DOES do market research, but Kirby doesn't know that, which means he doesn't know his own company's operations on even a relatively broad level and/or doesn't have anything to do with the company's strategy on even a relatively broad level, which smacks of incompetence.
I think that you are misinterpreting the purpose for a Chairman's Preamble. While most companies use this space to communicate useful information to investors; some use it as a cheering section or soapbox to speak from. It has no legal relevance other than being a platform of communication from the Chairman to investors. Hardly anyone reads them as the legally required data is held in the actual report, not the preamble. Unfortunately, it seems that Mr. Kirby views the preamble as a place to...well, amble and he even admits as such in the most recent report. It's a testament to the fact that the majority of GW shares are held by institutional investors that he's allowed to maintain his position and write such tripe in official reports; however, he does not illegal in saying what he does.
Fair enough, which is why I didn't at least directly accuse him of doing something illegal, because I don't know exactly how much the preamble must be based on factual information, if at all. Still, I don't know how "We do no market research!" would be reassuring to any investors who actually consider GW to be an important part of their portfolio, especially with ever-decreasing performance figures. I would assume the chairman's preamble should be where the chairman reflects on the company's successes and addresses where they can shore up weaknesses, since that's what investors would care about (well, care about beyond actual performance figures).
RatBot wrote: Yeah. There's three options:
1.) GW doesn't do any market research. This seems to fit their general corporate attitude and the attitude reflected in the chairman's preamble.
2.) GW DOES do market research, and Kirby knows it, in which case, he lied to investors in a document meant to keep investors apprised of the financial activities of the company, which would include market research.
3.) GW DOES do market research, but Kirby doesn't know that, which means he doesn't know his own company's operations on even a relatively broad level and/or doesn't have anything to do with the company's strategy on even a relatively broad level, which smacks of incompetence.
I think that you are misinterpreting the purpose for a Chairman's Preamble. While most companies use this space to communicate useful information to investors; some use it as a cheering section or soapbox to speak from. It has no legal relevance other than being a platform of communication from the Chairman to investors. Hardly anyone reads them as the legally required data is held in the actual report, not the preamble. Unfortunately, it seems that Mr. Kirby views the preamble as a place to...well, amble and he even admits as such in the most recent report. It's a testament to the fact that the majority of GW shares are held by institutional investors that he's allowed to maintain his position and write such tripe in official reports; however, he does not illegal in saying what he does.
Fair enough, which is why I didn't at least directly accuse him of doing something illegal. Still, I don't know how "We do no market research!" would be reassuring to any investors who actually consider GW to be an important part of their portfolio, especially with ever-decreasing performance figures.
GW's such small fish that it's probably an intern running the account for the institutions; nobody actually reads the preamble anyway as it's usually just platitudes to either explain why a company has had record profits and still just offering 1cent dividends or, in GW's case, "Had a great year" while profits are down 40%. Such investors don't care anything about the company as long as trends are stable and they're still paying a dividend.
RatBot wrote: Yeah. There's three options:
1.) GW doesn't do any market research. This seems to fit their general corporate attitude and the attitude reflected in the chairman's preamble.
2.) GW DOES do market research, and Kirby knows it, in which case, he lied to investors in a document meant to keep investors apprised of the financial activities of the company, which would include market research.
3.) GW DOES do market research, but Kirby doesn't know that, which means he doesn't know his own company's operations on even a relatively broad level and/or doesn't have anything to do with the company's strategy on even a relatively broad level, which smacks of incompetence.
I think that you are misinterpreting the purpose for a Chairman's Preamble. While most companies use this space to communicate useful information to investors; some use it as a cheering section or soapbox to speak from. It has no legal relevance other than being a platform of communication from the Chairman to investors. Hardly anyone reads them as the legally required data is held in the actual report, not the preamble. Unfortunately, it seems that Mr. Kirby views the preamble as a place to...well, amble and he even admits as such in the most recent report. It's a testament to the fact that the majority of GW shares are held by institutional investors that he's allowed to maintain his position and write such tripe in official reports; however, he does not illegal in saying what he does.
Fair enough, which is why I didn't at least directly accuse him of doing something illegal. Still, I don't know how "We do no market research!" would be reassuring to any investors who actually consider GW to be an important part of their portfolio, especially with ever-decreasing performance figures.
GW's such small fish that it's probably an intern running the account for the institutions; nobody actually reads the preamble anyway as it's usually just platitudes to either explain why a company has had record profits and still just offering 1cent dividends or, in GW's case, "Had a great year" while profits are down 40%. Such investors don't care anything about the company as long as trends are stable and they're still paying a dividend.
Makes sense to me. I assume it's the continual issuing of dividends that's keep people invested in GW. I am certainly no investment analyst but I'd say that continually dropping sales, and cost cutting just to keep profits steady are not signs of a healthy company, nor one I would invest in with the hopes of making money in the long term. If I just wanted some quick dividend payouts, though, then sure.
RatBot wrote: Makes sense to me. I assume it's the continual issuing of dividends that's keep people invested in GW. I am certainly no investment analyst but I'd say that continually dropping sales, and cost cutting just to keep profits steady are not signs of a healthy company, nor one I would invest in with the hopes of making money in the long term. If I just wanted some quick dividend payouts, though, then sure.
The dividend payments, and the fact that GW just isn't that important. Large investment businesses don't work by spending lots of effort trying to predict the future of every company they invest in, they buy a diverse range of stocks so that their investments on average provide a net profit regardless of the individual performance of those stocks. GW's numbers are superficially decent, and you don't realize how bad their situation is unless you spend a lot of effort learning about GW. So these businesses will continue to own shares of GW until their problems become so obvious that even a brief glance at the share price and financial report will say "this is a doomed company", and then they will dump their shares according to the automatic procedures and buy stock in some other company. And nobody in the investment company will care at all about the change, GW's decline will just be one number among many to be averaged out.
Makes sense to me. I assume it's the continual issuing of dividends that's keep people invested in GW. I am certainly no investment analyst but I'd say that continually dropping sales, and cost cutting just to keep profits steady are not signs of a healthy company, nor one I would invest in with the hopes of making money in the long term. If I just wanted some quick dividend payouts, though, then sure.
I owned GW stock for much the same reason until the mid-year report when the stock fell and automatic measures that I had in place sold the stock for me. GW management are playing a middlegame whereby they are gutting the company to maintain share price stability and investor confidence. It's funny that people complain about GW being unresponsive but I emailed investor relations back when finecast first started with my concerns and received a return message from Tom Kirby's office a few days later.
agnosto wrote: It's funny that people complain about GW being unresponsive but I emailed investor relations back when finecast first started with my concerns and received a return message from Tom Kirby's office a few days later.
Would it have helped that you emailed as a stockholder rather than a customer?
Pacific wrote: Out of interest what sort of reply did you get Agnosto?
It just stuck to the party line that he felt it was a good move for the company, that they were aware of quality issues and were working towards sorting them out. I was a comparatively small shareholder so I'm sure it was written by a secretary or the like.
I'm curious though. I don't expect a good first half, seeing as the only real big hitter was the release of 7th, part of which appeared in last year's report.
We'll see. It'd certainly be telling if they had another poor half. Maybe the quick release will help them, and maybe it'll only serve to burn out customers faster. Time will tell.
TheAuldGrump wrote: So, now that 7th ed. WH40K has been out for a while, how are its sales doing?
Locally... it is doing not so good - but at least one 2nd ed 40K game has sprung up....
The Auld Grump
In my local area it hasn't done well at all. There was a huge surge of people selling armies and they had a hard time moving stock. They started pushing other games instead such as X-Wing, Malifaux, Warmachine and even Relic Knight.
My view is that the current course of action will simply dump previously loyal customers as fast as or faster than before. However if GW can pick up new customers even faster, they will increase sales. So it will be interesting to see the half year results
I'm curious though. I don't expect a good first half, seeing as the only real big hitter was the release of 7th, part of which appeared in last year's report.
We'll see. It'd certainly be telling if they had another poor half. Maybe the quick release will help them, and maybe it'll only serve to burn out customers faster. Time will tell.
Well, let's see...
We've had a management statement that performance is "broadly in line with expectations" much like we did before the EOY report, and that didn't end well.
We have the release of their flagship product diluted across the accounting cutoff to a largely tepid response.
The release of Nagash and the End Times arc has undoubtedly been greeted largely positively, but it is very much for the poor relative of the product range, so while I don't doubt the impact will have been positive, the scope of the impact will likely be limited.
We have persistent rumours that the last two softcover two Codexes will be out this year, but accompanied by equally persistent rumours of limited models to accompany them. While BA, and even Necrons, are popular armies, the scope of the release might suggest again that it can only have a limited impact, even if it's the greatest wave of releases since the DE update.
More Hobbit.
Taking all that into account, it is very hard to make a case for a decent interim report. I suspect the End Times will do enough to shore things up for a bit longer, but it is difficult to forecast anything but another drop in revenue and profits. Indeed, if anything positive was in the cards the management report would be crowing about it.
