Wait, so i just saw some forgeworld stuff today, all the packaging was plastered with "Made in China".

This seriously upset me. Up until this point i figured the reason why games workshop stuff was so expensive was because it was all made in the UK. I knew that i was paying 30 dollars for 5 dollars worth of plastic, i just figured that obviously the price of labor in the UK must be astronomical and people need to make some money. Chinese Labor is not expensive - nor is plastic. Maybe i am late to the band wagon - but I'm not buying anymore games workshop stuff until they start charging reasonable prices.

You are exactly right!Cheap labor cheap prices just ask wal-mart.

This is another nail in the forgeworld coffin: too expensive, products being near impossible to construct without extensve conversions and now this.

Its gonna get to the point where GW products will being made in China with the counterfeit products being made next door. if they are using chinese labour (a fraction of the cost of uk/us labour) then costs should go down. UK and US companies should realise that by shipping work off to china it means less jobs and money in the counties that mainly buy their products.

Welcome to the GW "hobby". GW will charge what people will pay. The price increases, especially for the boxed sets (regardless of people crying "it's such a deal") almost inflating 40% over 5 years from $50 to $90 and yet we keep on going back for more!

Sorry for being so cynical. I love the models and the games. I hate the prices which for me, and I'm not speaking for everyone, have limited how much I buy and force me to go the ebay route. Sorry GW. You've priced me out of buying new models at full price.

Lower prices? We've become adjusted to the high prices and GW/Forge World knows this; prices will never be lowered. They may remain stagnant for awhile, but they'll never come down in price.

all i have to say on the topic is: the Op's rank of "Annoyed Blood Angels Devastator" is quite fitting for his post and, all my GW pachages say "made in UK" on them

Stubby wrote:Wait, so i just saw some forgeworld stuff today, all the packaging was plastered with "Made in China".

This seriously upset me. Up until this point i figured the reason why games workshop stuff was so expensive was because it was all made in the UK. I knew that i was paying 30 dollars for 5 dollars worth of plastic, i just figured that obviously the price of labor in the UK must be astronomical and people need to make some money. Chinese Labor is not expensive - nor is plastic. Maybe i am late to the band wagon - but I'm not buying anymore games workshop stuff until they start charging reasonable prices.

could it have been the raw materials you saw or was it definitely the finished product?

Forge world and GW have been producing full pieces in china for years now. It is not news that GW has been running jewelry level markups for the past couple of years(1000% or more) you just happen to order some of the china made pieces. GW also still produces pieces in the UK and USA. The question is how quickly the production ratio is shifting from the older UK and US plants to the newer asian factories.

@ jordanis- The box might say made in the UK and be telling the truth while containin pieces made in china, the box itself is indeed made in the UK. Now look to see where your codex was made.:b

Even if all the hobbyists who buy GW stuff stop buying theyll probably raise their prices its insane how a defiler cost 62 US dollars! plus the glue and primer and paint that has a new formula that make the paint dry out faster and on top of it all everything is overpriced

So far as they've said so far, all of the regular GW minis are still made in the UK and US, although bases have been coming out of china for several years now, as have all pretty much all of the hobby materials.

Forgeworld though has been gradually shifting to Chinese production for the last few years. Partly to cut costs and partly, I think, to try to keep up with the demand.

Khorne Flakes wrote:Even if all the hobbyists who buy GW stuff stop buying theyll probably raise their prices its insane how a defiler cost 62 US dollars! plus the glue and primer and paint that has a new formula that make the paint dry out faster and on top of it all everything is overpriced

US $62 for a defiler? We pay AUS $103 for a defiler and our currency is currently almost on a par with yours:(

kizzdougs wrote:US $62 for a defiler? We pay AUS $103 for a defiler and our currency is currently almost on a par with yours:(

You have crazy import taxes though. Probably because your customs people have to check that every package coming in doesn't have any seeds or animals hiding in it or something

Before you all assume that you're automatically being screwed, it helps to know a few facts.

1. Production in China is becoming more expensive. Also, transport costs tend to undercut any savings in production costs.

2. China has a lot of expertise in resin casting. If you've ordered from FW recently, you will have seen a big improvement in the quality. This is because they are now using better resin and the quality control of the casting is greatly improved - because it's being done in China. I know this from someone who has his own resin casting business in China and who's been to the FW casting facility there.

3. FW doesn't produce anything in plastic, so Stubby's original comment about plastic being cheap it irrelevant.

GW paints are now manufactured in China as well.

Tailgunner wrote:Before you all assume that you're automatically being screwed, it helps to know a few facts.

1. Production in China is becoming more expensive. Also, transport costs tend to undercut any savings in production costs.

2. China has a lot of expertise in resin casting. If you've ordered from FW recently, you will have seen a big improvement in the quality. This is because they are now using better resin and the quality control of the casting is greatly improved - because it's being done in China. I know this from someone who has his own resin casting business in China and who's been to the FW casting facility there.

3. FW doesn't produce anything in plastic, so Stubby's original comment about plastic being cheap it irrelevant.

GW paints are now manufactured in China as well.

Regardless of where its being made, plastic is no longer cheap. Relative to where it was 5 to 10 years ago its raised in price by several hundred percent. If you think about the actual work and energy that goes into makeing a GW plastic or a FW resin peice, you'll realise that your actually paying a fair price for what your getting.

a "fair" price is a subjective term. The markup on plastics, even at inflated cost, is still in the 100's of %.

If you look at markup on other "hobbies" such as musical instruments the markup is at best 35% of the retail value (and no one pays retail).

A $1000 drum set runs about $600 to be made, which then sells to the retailer at $800, is priced at $1000 and can then be haggled down to $900, which is only about a 12% margin to the store and 30% to the manufacturer.

I know that GW hobby isn't as prolific as playing guitar but the business model is the same idea.

The problem with GW pricing is their overhead as a company. No other model company puts a store every other town like GW does. I myself drive about an hour to the closes lgs to play, bypassing a closer GW.

GW is an overinflated company that needs to just close out stores where LGS's exist or move to strictly becoming a manufacturer in order for retailer cost to go down, and thus retail prices to drop.

To compare again, DW Drums doesn't sell directly to the public. You HAVE to go thru a dealer. GW does sell direct, and thus demands that their retailers charge the same price.

We are dealing with the Emperor Palpatine of hobby companies here.

If that is the case Tailgunner why has everyone been shutting down plant in the west to set up shop in China?

Nice inducements no doubt and cheap labour?
If there was not a significant cost saving, even including transport, firms would not go out there.

While I agree GW prices are steep the same can be said for miniatures imported to the UK from the U.S such as Privateers Warmachine, Darkage and Mercs if it costs $30 in the U.S it will be £30 over here not £17.50 or so.

Damn my codex really is made in china haha.

Catyrpelius wrote:Regardless of where its being made, plastic is no longer cheap. Relative to where it was 5 to 10 years ago its raised in price by several hundred percent. If you think about the actual work and energy that goes into makeing a GW plastic or a FW resin peice, you'll realise that your actually paying a fair price for what your getting.

GW are one of the most expensive companies out there. Others offer products of the same quality for less. There are a lot of plastic manufacturers churning out high quality plastic kits now and all are cheaper than GW. GW's economies are all messed up, sure they have colossal overheads from all those stores, but what about economy of scale? If they don't benefit from their scale meaning they have to charge significantly more than many smaller games companies then their business model is flawed. Opening shops shouldn't make you worse off. The benefits of economy of scale should outweigh those overheads, otherwise every new shop cuts into the profit margin. Perhaps that's why GW have such a huge turnover, such a huge amount of shops and yet only keep a few million quid each year. And that's before you think about whether you make more money by dropping prices and attracting more customers. Every year their answer is to raise the prices, but that's not sustainable in the long run. How long until a box of Marines is £25? £28? £30? When will they simply run out of people prepared to drop such a lot of money for little plastic?

Thats why I buy secondhand from ebay! Prices of this stuff are absurd! I think its incredibly ridiculous to charge a price for something based on its value in the game. Best of luck with your boycott!

SilverMK2 wrote:

kizzdougs wrote:US $62 for a defiler? We pay AUS $103 for a defiler and our currency is currently almost on a par with yours:(

You have crazy import taxes though. Probably because your customs people have to check that every package coming in doesn't have any seeds or animals hiding in it or something

Customs duties in Aus are pretty run-of-the-mill. Tax isn't especially high either. Neither of those explains the price difference.

I think you people are crazy enough to continue to play WH or 40K while there are many other good games out there at a much lower price.

but they arent AS good as 40k & FB...

This was from another thread that was locked:

"I'm probably too sleepy to get this right so bear with me... I think this is interesting. I think we can actually figure out a rough estimate of how much it costs them to produce a kit from this report. 59% of their sales they get to keep the full amount and 41% are to independant sellers @ a 50% discount. so 6 kits direct for every 8 kits to independant stockists. (6*60+8*30)/14=$42.86 (average sale price) on which they make a 72% margin($30.86 margin) so actual cost to them to make a $60 kit is $12. so GW gets $48 if you buy it from them and $18 if you buy it from an independant retailer (the retailer pockets the difference) "

These are from GW's own numbers in their report. (before the recent prices rises).

wildger wrote:I think you people are crazy enough to continue to play WH or 40K while there are many other good games out there at a much lower price.

Other games that let you field a hundred models and finish the game in a couple of hours?

These are numbers from their last financial report. This is on average so on some individual products they are going to be making more money, and on some they are going to be making less. For someplace like Walmart who makes a scary low margin like 6% you could buy the same box for less than $13. This is why GW price seems so out of line, for most things that most people buy they charge a lot more money compared to how much it costs them to produce.

Edit: this was supposed to go right after my previous post ... (shakes fist)

Scott-S6 wrote:

wildger wrote:I think you people are crazy enough to continue to play WH or 40K while there are many other good games out there at a much lower price.

Other games that let you field a hundred models and finish the game in a couple of hours?

Kings of war.

Well, I don't think any of us were under the illusion that GW was operating as any sort of charity. They're a for profit business with share holders to satisfy. In terms of pricing, they'll keep upping the price of things to maintain and increase their margins while trying to stop short of driving enough people away to hurt their overall profit. All the while, they'll look or internal cost savings just like everyone else.

While there are some great up and coming games, none of them look to be big enough to provide serious competition to GW yet. Given a few years, maybe, but for now GW is the big kid on the block with enough market share to do more or less what it likes.

For us, we either find another game that we like and people in our area play, buy from independent retailers and eBay where the prices are similar, but GW gets a lesser cut or just keep buying from GW and dislike it. If we really want to change GW's pricing practice, the first option is the best one to take. It's also the hardest sell for those of us with large armies, who like GW's games and/or have to sell people in the area on a new game.

You still buy GW's justification for their high prices due to the material / cost / labor / etc?

GW and FW is all the same , the only justification to how they price their product is simply : It'll be as high as what buyers are willing to pay.

insaniak wrote:So far as they've said so far, all of the regular GW minis are still made in the UK and US, although bases have been coming out of china for several years now, as have all pretty much all of the hobby materials.

Forgeworld though has been gradually shifting to Chinese production for the last few years. Partly to cut costs and partly, I think, to try to keep up with the demand.

And Insaniak hits the nail on the head.

It's also worth noting that if Games Workshop had everything being produced in China, the profit reports for the last would have been very, very different.

I do have to wonder where in China that Forge World is contracting out to though. I've not seen any recasts come up on eBay, etc yet.

Speaking of plastics, dont plastics have to do with oil/petroleum? Conspiracies say we hit peak oil a few years ago...(not that I really care)

My opinion doesnt matter anyways seeing I'm so indecisive I havent bought anything from anyone for months now

For your amusement (note, not my creation. I thought it was funny. If its offensive I'll tear it down)

A the previous report has GW stating an inyent to move more figures to plastic production because there is less volativity in the price of plastics even with oil price fluctuations.

Obviously that is going to be in relation to metal prices which are not goodm but the wording was still indicating stability in plastic prices.

the materials price of the stuff GW makes is a few percent of the total cost at most. It's pretty much irrelevant to the price discussion. Polystyrene was about $1 per lb last time I looked, do any of GWs kits weigh a pound in total? Metals figures are probably a lot more driven by materials pricing, but how much do they weigh maybe an ounce each? Tin is at an all time high price of $11/lb. so being generous there is maybe $0.60 in each metal figure materials wise. It's a PR move to bring it up as justification for price rises.

Has anyone here ever even consider that, GW is not a franchised company and have stores under direct control world wide, which costs money. ALSO how many or if any other miniature hobby out there actually have a store for them selves, lets not even talk about the staff they hire to help / start people to play the game. This is like saying why are Louis Viton bags... YES BAGS cost $2000 if you're lucky, when i can pick up a normal sports bad for maybe $50.

lord marcus wrote:

Scott-S6 wrote:

wildger wrote:I think you people are crazy enough to continue to play WH or 40K while there are many other good games out there at a much lower price.

Other games that let you field a hundred models and finish the game in a couple of hours?

Kings of war.

£15 for 10 skeleton archers from mantic vs £18 for 16 skeletons archers from GW.
£25 for 10 skeleton cavalry from mantic vs £18 for 8 skeleton cavalry from GW.
£12.50 for 20 skeleton warrior from mantic vs £18 for 16 skeleton warriors from GW.

Really doesn't seem much cheaper to me. Core units are cheaper but the others are more expensive.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

asmith wrote:the materials price of the stuff GW makes is a few percent of the total cost at most. It's pretty much irrelevant to the price discussion.

Very true.

GW's profits are currently about 10%. So when you buy that £35 landraider there's approx £3.50 left after everything has been paid for.

That's about the same margin as Hasbro Toys (but a fraction of the volume - Transformers alone sold triple what GW sold in '07). Bandai are currently getting around 7% margins on models and toys but are turning over around 20x what GW does.

GW is not a large company. They have a lot of stores and an enormous product range (and every product has a cost associated with it in terms of moulds, stock, printing, storage, shelf-space) but they do not have the volume of sales to fully support it.

If they dropped the price on that landraider till there was zero profit in it, it would still be £31.50. The only way prices are coming down is if they slash the product range by dropping a whole bunch of armies. Even closing stores doesn't really help since they make less by selling to indy stores.

Scott-S6 wrote:
£15 for 10 skeleton archers from mantic vs £18 for 16 skeletons archers from GW.
£25 for 10 skeleton cavalry from mantic vs £18 for 8 skeleton cavalry from GW.
£12.50 for 20 skeleton warrior from mantic vs £18 for 16 skeleton warriors from GW.

Isnt that a little unfair? The weird unit amounts makes me think you're using the Tomb Kings. Vampire counts is their equivalent (granted they have been updated so they are a little nicer except their old metals)

So in reality compared to black knights it would be £25 for 10 skeleton cavalry from mantic vs £75 for 10 skeleton cavalry from GW.
£12.50 for 20 skeleton warrior from mantic vs £30 for 20 skeleton warriors from GW.

asmith wrote:These are numbers from their last financial report.

But you've taken the pre-operating costs numbers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kenshin620 wrote:

Scott-S6 wrote:
£15 for 10 skeleton archers from mantic vs £18 for 16 skeletons archers from GW.
£25 for 10 skeleton cavalry from mantic vs £18 for 8 skeleton cavalry from GW.
£12.50 for 20 skeleton warrior from mantic vs £18 for 16 skeleton warriors from GW.

Isnt that a little unfair? The weird unit amounts makes me think you're using the Tomb Kings. Vampire counts is their equivalent (granted they have been updated so they are a little nicer except their old metals)

So in reality compared to black knights it would be £25 for 10 skeleton cavalry from mantic vs £75 for 10 skeleton cavalry from GW.
£12.50 for 20 skeleton warrior from mantic vs £30 for 20 skeleton warriors from GW.

Why are vampire counts more equivalent than tomb kings?

If anyone wants to take a look on the little white boxes which the GW paints get delievered to the store in, the are MADE in France, and PACKAGED in China.

Go figure......

Maybe I have discovered the root of the problem

Scott-S6 wrote:

If they dropped the price on that landraider till there was zero profit in it, it would still be £31.50. The only way prices are coming down is if they slash the product range by dropping a whole bunch of armies. Even closing stores doesn't really help since they make less by selling to indy stores.

I don't think you are correct here at all. GW operates at a very large gross margin much larger than just about any business you can think of. The fact that they can barely turn a profit despite this huge margin I think is attributable directly to these stores. To put it simplistically they are earning a lot of money and then spending it all before it shows up on the profit line. Bad business practice is not something that provides value to consumers, with GW you are paying directly for it.

Meh, nevermind. Move along, nothing to see here.

asmith wrote:GW operates at a very large gross margin much larger than just about any business you can think of.

That's ridiculous. Lots of industries operate on several hundred percent markups or higher. After a decade spent sourcing product from China I know exactly how cheap many of the things we buy really are.

The gross margin is neither here nor there as it takes nothing of the operating costs into account. GW operates an extremely large range of injection moulded product for a company of reasonably modest turnover. Every product bears a cost and yet the sales of many items are quite low.

Would the product range be strengthened by cutting the number of units in order to reduce the prices on the remaining ones?

Name one without looking it up... I bet you'll be suprised.

All their injection molding and production is taken into account in their gross margin number. So that doesn't have anything to do with anything. Likewise any low sellers they may have are also accounted for in their gross margin number. I don't think their number of products has anything to do with their operating costs. So in answer to your question no it wouldn't help.

asmith wrote:................................Bad business practice is not something that provides value to consumers, with GW you are paying directly for it.

I think you are confusing bad with unique business practices.

GW has grown from being the first importer of RPGs to Europe to being the biggest (premier?) wargaming manufacturer and retailer in the world. It has done this off the back of the retail outlets that it basically uses as advertising.

Now in the US you have [it would appear] to have many LGS, in the UK [Europe?] we do not. What we do have is GW store everywhere. So I can understand that you see the GW store model as flawed but it simply under pins everything that GW are. If they took away those stores and concentrated on manufacture only then they would diminish as an entity, cease to be able to offer amount of releases at the rate that they appear and eventually fold. No good thing for wargaming.

On topic. Made in China? Who gives a feth! Nearly everything in the room I am sitting in was made there. None of it cost me any less because of it.

I'd actually worry if it was made here or in the US more. Useless, lazy bourgeois pigs that we are.

as far as i know there isnt even a GW store in all of California all LGS's and comic shops

I think this is the biggest difference between the UK and the US. in the UK there is a store everywhere and is where everyone gets introduced to to games workshop. In the US 99% of people are never exposed to a GW store. I am in an urban area and there is no store within a 4 hour drive of me as far as I know. So the stores basically do not exist for the US consumer, yet we are paying for them through inflated pricing.

I only say bad business practice because they make a huge gross margin and have little profit to show for it, this is usually regarded as bad management.

10% isn't a bad margin (net profit). As I pointed out, Hasbro toys makes about 10%. Bandai toys and models make 6% and doing pretty well at the moment.

Personally, I think GW need a new equivalent to Hero Quest and Space Crusade with the national level tv-advertising that both of those games had. They made good money for MB games and got a generation of players into the hobby.

notprop wrote:

asmith wrote:................................Bad business practice is not something that provides value to consumers, with GW you are paying directly for it.

I think you are confusing bad with unique business practices.

GW has grown from being the first importer of RPGs to Europe to being the biggest (premier?) wargaming manufacturer and retailer in the world. It has done this off the back of the retail outlets that it basically uses as advertising.

Now in the US you have [it would appear] to have many LGS, in the UK [Europe?] we do not. What we do have is GW store everywhere. So I can understand that you see the GW store model as flawed but it simply under pins everything that GW are. If they took away those stores and concentrated on manufacture only then they would diminish as an entity, cease to be able to offer amount of releases at the rate that they appear and eventually fold. No good thing for wargaming.

On topic. Made in China? Who gives a feth! Nearly everything in the room I am sitting in was made there. None of it cost me any less because of it.

I'd actually worry if it was made here or in the US more. Useless, lazy bourgeois pigs that we are.

Also in addition to this, when have you ever seen GW advertise anywhere? By that I mean TV and Radio, Newspapers etc.

And they seem to have done pretty well without that up to now. I can't think of any other business which has grown oer the years as GW has to become a worldwide company and doesn't actually advertise. It's pretty amazing when you think of it.

Just throwing that out there.....

@ scott -s6: I think you are confused about what a gross margin is and are conflating it with some other term. Games Workshop's gross margin is 75%!

asmith wrote:Name one without looking it up... I bet you'll be suprised.

I don't need to look anything up. Most consumer electrical goods are higher margins than that.

A table lamp costing £2.50 from the supplier in china will generally retail for £12-13 (excluding tax).

@ the decapitator: In my opinion that is a good example of one of their bad business practices that makes them charge more.

asmith wrote:@ scott -s6: I think you are confused about what a gross margin is and are conflating it with some other term. Games Workshop's gross margin is 75%!

I know exactly what gross margin is and I know exactly what it's used for. Net profit is a vastly more significant figure.

You say that GW makes "little profit". Their net profit margin is better than bandai toys and hobby.

Scott-S6 wrote:

asmith wrote:Name one without looking it up... I bet you'll be suprised.

I don't need to look anything up. Most consumer electrical goods are higher margins than that.

A table lamp costing £2.50 from the supplier in china will generally retail for £12-13 (excluding tax).

So name a company with a higher gross margin. Better yet name one with several hundred percent gross margin. I know you can't because the highest gross margin you can even theoretically achieve is 100%

@ asmith - precisely, you already had a saturated market for comic/LGS when GW first started taking the Warhammer universes to the US. That was a gamble that didn't work and the reduction in the US store was the result.

Were as in the UK this was never the case. Even now I have 3-4 GWs within 20 minutes drive. The nearest non GW retailer is Wayland Games and thats only a warehouse (still I drive 30 mins there for that sweet, sweet 20%!).

I think the best way to account for the GM/profit discrepancy that you indicate (and I have not looked at the GW figure since they were realased so I may be wrong ) is that they are still expanding i.e. more of those expensive stores. I believe in the CEO's statement he went as far as to state that those looking for significant returns should look elsewhere, GW are a company that is looking to sustain growth over the long term and not look to take profits.

asmith wrote:

Scott-S6 wrote:

asmith wrote:Name one without looking it up... I bet you'll be suprised.

I don't need to look anything up. Most consumer electrical goods are higher margins than that.

A table lamp costing £2.50 from the supplier in china will generally retail for £12-13 (excluding tax).

So name a company with a higher gross margin. Better yet name one with several hundred percent gross margin. I know you can't because the highest gross margin you can even theoretically achieve is 100%

Lets be clearer on terms then.

The example above is a gross profit of 80%. Equivalent to a markup of 400%. Many of the customer of my previous employer had markups of over 500% and that was marked up over our (the importer's) price, not the manufacturer's.

GW's gross is 75%. Not particularly high or low for a company in retail.

Their net profits are 10% at present. Quite reasonable for their market sector.

Do you want to justify the "low profit" comment? And provide an example of company in a related sector which makes net profits substantially higher than that.

they currently have 10% profit because of all the extreme measures they have been taking over the last several years. 10% profit margin is overall not that high, but if you look at it in comparison to the gross profit margin it is extremely low.

Now please backup your claim that 75% is even close to a margin most other companies operate at. You are going to struggle to find even one company outside pharmacueticals that operates close to this level. Most retailers who you claim operate at a 75% level actually operate below 20%.

Scott-S6 wrote:

asmith wrote:

Scott-S6 wrote:

asmith wrote:Name one without looking it up... I bet you'll be suprised.

I don't need to look anything up. Most consumer electrical goods are higher margins than that.

A table lamp costing £2.50 from the supplier in china will generally retail for £12-13 (excluding tax).

So name a company with a higher gross margin. Better yet name one with several hundred percent gross margin. I know you can't because the highest gross margin you can even theoretically achieve is 100%

Lets be clearer on terms then.

The example above is a gross profit of 80%. Equivalent to a markup of 400%. Many of the customer of my previous employer had markups of over 500% and that was marked up over our (the importer's) price, not the manufacturer's.

GW's gross is 75%. Not particularly high or low for a company in retail.

Their net profits are 10% at present. Quite reasonable for their market sector.

Do you want to justify the "low profit" comment? And provide an example of company in a related sector which makes net profits substantially higher than that.

so according to you its impossible to have a gross margin over 100% as that would mean you are making the item for free which is mathematically impossible...so in that case scott 1, a-smith 0

I think you meant that the other way around no?

no i didnt, asmith, i agree with scott more than you, i think you two are more or less saying the same thing, but in different ways and because english is such a horrible language, it appears as if you are differing on your beliefs...but i agree with the way scott states it better...its like "i like chocolate" versus "chocolate, me like!"


Automatically Appended Next Post:
gawd i suck at analogies

You can't have a gross margin higher than 100% unless someone is paying you to take their product right?

And actually we are not saying the same thing at all. He is saying that they are justified in their pricing because they are making a reasonable profit and their gross margins are in line with other businesses (which I still maintain they are not, they are much higher than just about everyone else). I am saying their pricing is high because their gross margin is very large compared to just about everyone else, and there resulting profit margin should be much higher (actually prices should be much lower) if they operated at the same profit margin to gross margin ratio as just about every other store or manufacturer people deal with operate at.

yea, and hes not denying that, scott is saying that their 75% gross margin is average, which is true, and that their net profit (which is the more important figure) is only 10% which makes sense as well

No their 75% gross margin is not average. Please provide examples if that is true. No one has yet provided one.

By the way scott s6 it's usually not considered that ethical to go back and edit your mistakes out of your posts without explaining the changes.

how about you provide examples that it isnt average, if your so hell bent on proving us wrong, do the work yourself, not make us research it, because my bias will make me cite evidence of my point...i dare you to find 10 examples that a 70-80 % margin is abnormal...heres an example that i bet your familiar with: sodapop at fast food restaurants: it costs them less than $0.10 for the cup and soda, and Mcdonalds sells their soda for $1.00, so they have a 90% gross margin, other places have an even higher margin, like movie theaters, thats closer to 99%

Let's see I'll just name 10 companies and then look them up.

Walmart
Kmart
Mattel
Macys
Coke
Pepsi
Sony
samsung
Mcdonalds
google




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Walmart 25.3%



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kmart 23.9%



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mattel 48.1%



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Macys 45.7%


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Coke 65.6%


Automatically Appended Next Post:
pepsi 57.6%


Automatically Appended Next Post:
sony 34.9%


Automatically Appended Next Post:
samsung 33.6%



Automatically Appended Next Post:
mcdonalds 41.3%


Automatically Appended Next Post:
google 64.9%


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Are you happy now? I even tried to pick some with notoriously high gross margins like coke and pepsi.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
now try it yourself, pick any company outside of pharmaceuticals and try to find a gross margin higher than GW's. I'm not saying they are the record holders but pick just about any company and their gross margin will be lower.

try again with companies relevant to GW, i mean they produce and sell, not just receive then resell, reselling always has lower margins because your paying another company for their product then marking it up a little bit to make money yourself...most of the companies you listed do that...the 3 that dont: Google, coke and pepsi...they are all over 60%...also, cite sources...it makes your argument more valid

you are confusing gross margin with markup which is the same thing scott did before he went back and corrected himself.

Yes turn it around on me that's the ticket, you guys make an extraordinary claim and I have to prove it's wrong. Have fun with that. I tried though

then explain gross margin to me, Mr. economics...

edit

forget it, skipped back to page two.


http://research.financial-projections.com/IndustryStats-GrossMargin

Gross margins by sector, interesting stuff if we consider the banking sector and GW side by side. Both are apparently evil empires and yet they end up with so little.

Abercrombie and Fitch has a gross margin of 63.7%


You buy cheap and get the gak most return on your product or service I don't see a problem with this.

Gross margin doesn't include certain costs that you would need to look at the GW financial statements to properly categorize (ie. it may not include the cost of their store and warehouse rent or it may, depending on what the accountants wanted to write down)

Here's an interesting bit at the bottom of the Wiki page for Gross profit margin:

In some industries, like clothing for example, profit margins are expected to be near the 40% mark, as the goods need to be bought from suppliers at a certain rate before they are resold. In other industries such as software product development, since the cost of duplication is negligible, the gross profit margin can be higher than 80% in many cases.

Just looking at it from the outside, GW fits in there pretty closely with the developers and their respective business models don't seem much different when you consider how low their reproduction costs (stamping out the N+1 piece of plastic) are in relation to their development costs("It costs a million bajillion dollars to AutoCAD a new vehicle sprue!!!")

That being said, I imagine Scott-S6 would have a better idea of the specific details that might lead to GW having margins more in line with a toy company than a hybrid software developer/retailer (other than the obvious ones)

Damnit, I ate my copy of 'Economics for Dummies'!

Hmm dont know if this is the right topic but I've recently scanned through the other british companies and looks like they're hitting hard times with the new taxes and stuff (I'm a poor ignorant american, dont burn me) People like Victrix, Perry, Mantic, and probably a few others are increasing their prices. Any connection to GW's price increases? (did they do it a head of time?)

SilverMK2 wrote:You have crazy import taxes though. Probably because your customs people have to check that every package coming in doesn't have any seeds or animals hiding in it or something

Nah, our import taxes are quite low. The issue is with the AU$ having appreciated so much in the last couple of years. GW prices from country to country are fixed, so when you get a currency appreciate or depreciate as much as the AU$ has you get some really screwy price differences.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

aerethan wrote:The problem with GW pricing is their overhead as a company. No other model company puts a store every other town like GW does. I myself drive about an hour to the closes lgs to play, bypassing a closer GW.

GW is an overinflated company that needs to just close out stores where LGS's exist or move to strictly becoming a manufacturer in order for retailer cost to go down, and thus retail prices to drop.

You say GW has a problem, and needs to adjust. But GW is the only long term, financially successful miniature company in the industry. It's fair to say their model works for them, and that people on the internet saying their business model is wrong are probably talking out their bottoms, just a little.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Howard A Treesong wrote:There are a lot of plastic manufacturers churning out high quality plastic kits now and all are cheaper than GW.

Yes, but how many have built a customer base that's anywhere near GW's?

GW's economies are all messed up, sure they have colossal overheads from all those stores, but what about economy of scale? If they don't benefit from their scale meaning they have to charge significantly more than many smaller games companies then their business model is flawed.

Umm, I don't mean to be rude but that's gibberish. Overheads are fixed costs that are not affected by the number of units sold, such as lease costs on each store. Economies of scale are related, in that increasing the total number of sales reduces the costs of the fixed overheads per unit sold, but they're not related in the manner you imply. That is, a company can have high overheads and high sales, just by the nature of the business they operate, while another company can have modest sales and no overheads - for instance, GW vs a guy who makes moulds in his garage and sells them on ebay.

When will they simply run out of people prepared to drop such a lot of money for little plastic?

When they run out of customers that's their problem, not ours. All we have to worry about is whether we're willing to pay what it cost.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

asmith wrote:I don't think you are correct here at all. GW operates at a very large gross margin much larger than just about any business you can think of. The fact that they can barely turn a profit despite this huge margin I think is attributable directly to these stores. To put it simplistically they are earning a lot of money and then spending it all before it shows up on the profit line. Bad business practice is not something that provides value to consumers, with GW you are paying directly for it.

You're assuming it is bad business practice. When you isolate the core point of difference between the only long term, profitable company in the industry and use it to claim they have a bad business model, you're probably being silly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

asmith wrote:So name a company with a higher gross margin. Better yet name one with several hundred percent gross margin. I know you can't because the highest gross margin you can even theoretically achieve is 100%

Gross margin is a completely irrelevant measure unless you are comparing to a company with a nearly identical business model. It is merely reflective of the relative proportions of direct and fixed costs.

Your later effort contrast gross and net profit as some kind of indicator of business efficiency indicates an almost complete lack of understanding of management accounting. Have you had any financial training?

What asmith is missing is that GW, very unusually, both manufacturers and retails it's product.

It's gross profit seems to be high but that's because you are comparing cost of production to sales at retail.

Not cost of production to sales at trade price (as you would with most manufacturers) or cost at trade price to sales at retail.(as you would with most retailers)

This is why comparing their gross to most other companies is erroneous.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

asmith wrote:No their 75% gross margin is not average. Please provide examples if that is true. No one has yet provided one.

By the way scott s6 it's usually not considered that ethical to go back and edit your mistakes out of your posts without explaining the changes.

I was throwing terms around fairly loosely. I clarified my position for you.

I notice you have failed to offer an example of a company in a similar sector which has substantially higher net profits to justify your "low profits" comment.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MikeMcSomething wrote:Gross margin doesn't include certain costs that you would need to look at the GW financial statements to properly categorize (ie. it may not include the cost of their store and warehouse rent or it may, depending on what the accountants wanted to write down)

Quite so, it generally doesn't include anything which is not a cost of production. What you classify as production cost varies dramatically which is why the figures Asmith posted for other industries are not comparable.

The GW stores are not a cost of production and are not included in their figures along with warehousing and all sorts of other costs associated with operating the retail arm. As such, the difference between their gross and net is very large.

McD's consider their retail outlets and staff to be a cost of production (since they make the food there) so their net and gross profits are virtually identical. (the only other cost is the staff and facilities that aren't retail - i.e. regional and head offices)

I promised myself I wasn't going to post in this thread again but I'm doing it anyway

"This is why GW price seems so out of line, for most things that most people buy they charge a lot more money compared to how much it costs them to produce."

This has been my whole point throughout this f'ing thread. The only sidetrack was the fact I had to spend a page and a half support the "ridiculous" assertion that GW makes a higher gross margin than just about any other company you buy things from. (We do have a nice illustration here of the mental contortions people will put themselves through when they are wrong, first their margin was low (later "clarified"), then it was about average, now it is high but that fact is irrelevant).

GW prices are high on comparable items because of their business model. This is the point I was trying to make, using gross margin as an indicator, and now you guys are parroting almost the identical thing back to me and declaring victory.

As to the question of whether or not they have a bad business model, it is only my opinion of course. I think it's most telling is the fact that over the last several years when their profit has been low, what was their fix? It was to close many of these stores. Their stores are why the prices of their goods are so high compared to most other goods you buy from anywhere else. This is what I have been saying and it's nice to see you guys have come around to my way of thinking.

Jesus H Christ people you guys love to argue for arguments sake don't you?

asmith wrote:"This is why GW price seems so out of line, for most things that most people buy they charge a lot more money compared to how much it costs them to produce."

I disagree that that is true. Having seen the cost prices of lots of items straight from the factory, they are a tiny percentage of the final retail price.

The figures you quoted don't support your point in any way as those companies do not manufacturer and retail. Even when you do find an example that does you will need to be very careful that the GP is calculated with equivalent costs. GW do not include the costs associated with retail in their GP. Many companies do include this.

ETA, I'll give you a specific example. This table lamp - http://www.wilkinsonplus.com/Table-Lamps/Wilko-Boston-Table-Lamp-Ceramic-Base-Printed-Shade/invt/0275039?htxt=PsAGyAqy/DSGVBgOHPBfATKVETOKIWHcwqoICuDrG/xTcDPfxIrYzUvEu76RzzM6wutKTeo9AOCB%0AtDs76aYYKg%3D%3D
Retail for £26 - £22 before tax.
Since I personally ordered the container loads of those from the factory I know exactly what the factory sold them for. I also know what the factories typical margins are and I specified all the components so I can estimate the production cost of that item. Approx $10 - £6.50
That's a GP (assuming that one company was manufacturing, distributing and retailing them) of 70%. This retailer competes in the lowest end of the retail market. The majority of our customers operated on vastly higher markups.

Of course, neither the factory, the importer or the retailer had a GP of 70%. Which is why your comparison was erroneous.

asmith wrote:GW prices are high on comparable items because of their business model. This is the point I was trying to make, using gross margin as an indicator,

Except you haven't shown us any comparable products yet. And, you miss the point that their GP is cost of production compared to retail price so cannot be compared to manufacturers that sell to trade or retailers that do not manufacture.

asmith wrote: I think it's most telling is the fact that over the last several years when their profit has been low, what was their fix? It was to close many of these stores.

In the US. Which is less than a third of their sales. Might it not also be hypothesised that the reason sales are so low in the US compared to Europe is because of the lack of store coverage? If you compare sales vs population in the three main areas (northern europe, rest of europe, USA) northern europe dramatically outperforms the others. Northern Europe also has a dramatically higher store density.

They have also closed many stores throughout Europe in the last few years, not just the U.S.

This is true, stores in poorly performing locations have gone. Northern Europe has not seen the mass withdrawal that the US has seen.

You are missing the point that the comparable items I am talking about are other items that people purchase every day.

And you miss the point that none of the examples you gave are comparable.

Walmart's GP cannot be compared to GW's as Walmart does not manufacture anything. They also have costs included in their GP that GW does not. If you compare only the cost of manufacture to retail (as GW do for their GP) then you'll find that GW's GP is pretty standard. (I gave an example of an everyday product, you have not done so)

And you still haven't offered an example of a company in a similar sector which makes significantly more net profit to justify your "low profit" claim.

Im confused , tell me if im reading this right.
are they saying that :

Scott-56 : GW isnt making much money off us , considering their Net Income is so low.

asmith: GW is indeed making tons of money off us , its not customer's fault GW chose to waste most of the Gross Profit on up keeping their local shops.
something like that?

That's exactly right luna! On that note I'm retiring from this thread.

Edit: Again!

No, what I'm saying is that Asmith's point of "gw is making loads of money" is rubbish since he hasn't offered a single example of production cost to retail price to compare GW's figures against. Also, their net profit isn't low - it's comparable to many other companies making toys and games.

As for GW wasting money by running shops - why would closing all the shops lower the price of the product? Suddenly, they're selling the product at a dramatically lower price. Sure, they aren't paying for the shops but the retailer is and that's still being paid for by the customer.

Asmith has offered absolutely nothing to support his idea that GW stores are much less efficient than indy stores and that would have to be the case for GW's policy of selling mostly through their own stores to be "bad management".

asmith wrote:GW prices are high on comparable items because of their business model. This is the point I was trying to make, using gross margin as an indicator, and now you guys are parroting almost the identical thing back to me and declaring victory.

I only came into this thread on the third page, but I can tell you from the first time I read about people trying to use gross profit in this thread, I thought there was very little understanding of what it can actually be used to establish.

As to the question of whether or not they have a bad business model, it is only my opinion of course. I think it's most telling is the fact that over the last several years when their profit has been low, what was their fix? It was to close many of these stores. Their stores are why the prices of their goods are so high compared to most other goods you buy from anywhere else. This is what I have been saying and it's nice to see you guys have come around to my way of thinking.

The only way you could determine if their profit was low was to compare them to others in the industry. Which is difficult, as GW is the only public company in the wargame miniatures market. Which tells you something right off the bat - this isn't a particularly profitable industry. In fact, GW is the only company to manage to be profitable over a a few decades in the industry. As such, singly them out for having a poor business model is a silly thing to do, unless you have particularly solid information to argue your case.

And given you dont' have solid information, but loose speculation, and absolutely no effort to measure the benefit of the mainstreet stores to the size of GW's customer base, it's fairly safe to conclude you really don't have much of an argument.

Jesus H Christ people you guys love to argue for arguments sake don't you?

More to the point, how many people in this thread are attempting to analyse a business without any financial training?

sebster wrote:The only way you could determine if their profit was low was to compare them to others in the industry.

Very true. However, they make a better net profit than Bandai toys and hobby and about the same as hasbro. This suggests that they aren't way off the mark.

sebster wrote:More to the point, how many people in this thread are attempting to analyse a business without any financial training?

I've got a decade of purchasing experience for a decent size company. Costings and profitability are a big part of that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:but I can tell you from the first time I read about people trying to use gross profit in this thread, I thought there was very little understanding of what it can actually be used to establish.

Quite right. Since gross profit is something that companies use internally, there are no hard rules regarding exactly which costs should be included. Using it to compare two business is pretty futile.

On the bright side, most of the Chinese stuff I got was of better quality than the FW produces in their own shed.

It's simple. GW and FW need massive profits to supply all of their people with rocket packs and space yachts.

Unfortunately, they can't retain any staff because their workers tend to buy small tropical islands to retire to within two years of starting with the company, leading to massive turnover.

Ahh, many's the day I kick myself for becoming a plastic surgeon to the stars, when I could have made far more money in the lucrative "plastic soldiers" industry.

:(

LunaHound wrote:asmith: GW is indeed making tons of money off us , its not customer's fault GW chose to waste most of the Gross Profit on up keeping their local shops.

But Asmith is totally missing the point.

If GW didn't have shops they wouldn't be selling the product at retail and realising the big GP. (most other companies GPs are lower because they only see a portion of the profits - the manufacturer, distributor and retailer all take a piece of the pie, GW keeps the whole pie. They're also including costs in the figure that GW do not - the distributor and retailer count the costs of distribution and retail against their GPs, GW counts only the cost of production)

Take the shops out of the equation and GW's costs go down. However, their income is also dropping sharply because they aren't now charging retail for the products they're charging trade and their GP has just dropped.

None of this has any bearing on whether the shops are a good idea or not.


There are two things that have to be examined to decide if the shops are a good idea or not.
Firstly, financial. While the shops cost money, they also realise more income than moving the same product through an independent. So, would closing the shops save more in operating costs than they gain in added income?
Secondly, social. Having the shops allows GW a presence in those areas. Are there indy retailers to take up the slack if the store closes? In the US, possibly. In the UK, certainly not. Also, is a GW store better or worse at bringing in and retaining customers than an independent?

Even if it was more efficient to close the stores (and there isn't sufficient information in the financial reports to make that judgement) it could still be disastrous in some areas.

So, Assault on Blackreach Box going form $85 AU in the first 6 months of release, to nearly $150 AU as of 2 years later, does not ring 'profiteering' alarm bells in anyone elses mind?? Scumbags. If World of Warcraft went from $15 p/m to $30, I wonder how many people would quit playing it?????

Have you seen what you actually get in an Ironclad Dreadnought Box? 2 SMALL Sprues, AND 1 base. $75AU.

Keyhole sniffers, of the lowest kind.

They have my Vitriol and spite. After 20 Years of playing, they pretty much have my retirement fund in the Bank.

Scum and Villainy. Oh, and the Models are AWESOME!

Plastic Crack........

Scott-S6 wrote:Very true. However, they make a better net profit than Bandai toys and hobby and about the same as hasbro. This suggests that they aren't way off the mark.

Sure, but just being a toy companie doesn't necessarily make them particularly good for benchmarking. You really need to look at size and business models as well. Also, I'm not convinced GW is really in the same industry as those other toy companies, as the product and customer base is very different, if GW raised the prices again, people would leave, but very few would swith to buying Transformer toys, they'd be more likely to switch to Rackham or Privateer.

I've got a decade of purchasing experience for a decent size company. Costings and profitability are a big part of that.

Thing is, I'm a CPA with training in this very field, and a management accountant by trade, and I don't think I've got the body of knowledge to make any real insight into GW as a business.

But I've got enough knowledge to know a lot of what's going on in this thread makes no sense at all.

Quite right. Since gross profit is something that companies use internally, there are no hard rules regarding exactly which costs should be included. Using it to compare two business is pretty futile.

It's not just that, gross margin is, more than anything else, relfective of the business model. It tells you how a business is operating, not whether it's operating properly or not.

Consider two businesses selling widgets. Company A manufactures the widgets at a direct cost of 50c each, and sells some in it's own store for $5, and sells some more to Company B for $2. Company B changes the label on the widgets and sells them under it's own name, also for $5.

If the overhead costs of the factory, and the required return on the capital invested in that factory worked out at around $1.50, both companies would be exactly equally profitable. But if you directly compared their gross profits you'd see Cpy A was $4.50, and Cpy B just $3.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

akira5665 wrote:So, Assault on Blackreach Box going form $85 AU in the first 6 months of release, to nearly $150 AU as of 2 years later, does not ring 'profiteering' alarm bells in anyone elses mind??

No, because profiteering is a word with a real meaning. Particularly, it refers to raising prices to take advantage of an emergency, such as a flood or a war. It makes absolutely no sense when being used to criticise a company making plastic toys.

If World of Warcraft went from $15 p/m to $30, I wonder how many people would quit playing it?????

I suspect Blizzard would know exactly how many people would drop out, and this would be the primary factor in setting their price at $15.

They have my Vitriol and spite. After 20 Years of playing, they pretty much have my retirement fund in the Bank.

Which is fine. You don't owe them your business, any more than they owe you models at a price you'd like to pay.

Hello,
It's funny the day after I read this I saw one on Ebay from China, it was out of packace and did not quite look right, I think it was aq daemon prince. So expect the knock-offs, and really pay attention to who your'e buying from.

Regards,
Carl

sebster wrote:

Scott-S6 wrote:Very true. However, they make a better net profit than Bandai toys and hobby and about the same as hasbro. This suggests that they aren't way off the mark.

Sure, but just being a toy companie doesn't necessarily make them particularly good for benchmarking. You really need to look at size and business models as well. Also, I'm not convinced GW is really in the same industry as those other toy companies, as the product and customer base is very different, if GW raised the prices again, people would leave, but very few would swith to buying Transformer toys, they'd be more likely to switch to Rackham or Privateer.

Quite so. But if Bandai hobby division was making 40% net then we could compare that to GW and say - maybe they could do better if they sold to trade and abandoned the stores. Since they're in the same ballpark then there's nothing to say that their business model is obviously on the wrong track.

Quite right. Since gross profit is something that companies use internally, there are no hard rules regarding exactly which costs should be included. Using it to compare two business is pretty futile.

It's not just that, gross margin is, more than anything else, relfective of the business model. It tells you how a business is operating, not whether it's operating properly or not.

Consider two businesses selling widgets. Company A manufactures the widgets at a direct cost of 50c each, and sells some in it's own store for $5, and sells some more to Company B for $2. Company B changes the label on the widgets and sells them under it's own name, also for $5.

If the overhead costs of the factory, and the required return on the capital invested in that factory worked out at around $1.50, both companies would be exactly equally profitable. But if you directly compared their gross profits you'd see Cpy A was $4.50, and Cpy B just $3.

Exactly. Which is why Asmith's example figures were completely pointless - no businesses on the list that were comparable at all.

akira5665 wrote: If World of Warcraft went from $15 p/m to $30, I wonder how many people would quit playing it?????

very few since when you start playin WoW, blizzard takes your soul

Maxstreel wrote:...force me to go the ebay route. Sorry GW. You've priced me out of buying new models at full price.

IMO there are few decent reasons to pay full retail. As long as you buy legit (not stolen) products GW doesnt care where you buy it, they got their money from the wholesale to the retailer. If you buy direct from them for full retail is just a bonus.

Heres the only times I pay full retail:

1) Its the only option...cant get it anywhere for less.

2) Its something I must have as soon as its available, and the only way to do it is preorder from GW (or PP, etc)

3) Im supporting a LGS. I know its hard for a small games store, so I dont mind picking up a few things at full price now and then.

4) Its something I want RIGHT NOW, and I dont mind spending a couple extra $$ to have it immediately, instead of waiting a week for it to get mailed.


That being said, I do most of my games purchasing online. Mostly ebay. Ill hit thewarstore.com now and then for non-GW stuff.


As far as made in China...dont get too worked up about it. Its all a cycle. Wealthy companies move their business to poorer foreign lands who work cheaper so they can save a bunch of money. This then puts more money in the hands of the poor folks there. As they get more money, they want more. Esp after they learn what the same job pays in other places. Eventually the cost of labor rises to the point where labor + long distance shipping meets what it would cost to make it in the companies home country, and some (rarely all) of the jobs come back, because now they can save money (and time) by not shipping so far. Then the cycle begins again.

Look at tech support jobs that went to India...many are coming back for exactly the reasons mentioned above. That and because of pissed off customers who cant understand a damned word the Indians are saying.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

akira5665 wrote:

Scum and Villainy. Oh, and the Models are AWESOME!

Plastic Crack........

Games Workshop...no where in the galaxy will you find a more retched hive of scum and villainy...


Oh, and plastic crack for sure. At least the plastic crack is easier to work with, and much lighter, than the metal crack they used to sell.

Yeah, my post that was 99% tongue in cheek was taken waaaaaay too seriously by some(Sebs I'm looking at you big fella!)

Yes, profiteering was actully used correctly, in the context that -
1. Nobody else sells the AOBR box set.
2. The templates, dice and rulebook come in the Box.
3. If you want the rules, in a book that doesn't fall apart in 3 weeks - you need to steer clear of the Hardcover version......

Supply and demand, and basing prices on aforementioned factors.

Like after a flood that contaminates the tap water, Mr Profiteer charges $8 for a $2 bottle of water.

Release 5th Ed, make a crappily glued/bound rulebook in Hardcover...

Sell a box with 'all you need'(inc RB) - and as you see the NEED of us Plastic Crack addicts escalate - you double the price.

And I stand by my 'Keyhole Sniffer' call, BTW...


GW Exec, looking at pricing options in AUS..

akira5665 wrote:Yes, profiteering was actully used correctly, in the context that -
1. Nobody else sells the AOBR box set.
2. The templates, dice and rulebook come in the Box.
3. If you want the rules, in a book that doesn't fall apart in 3 weeks - you need to steer clear of the Hardcover version......

Supply and demand, and basing prices on aforementioned factors.

Like after a flood that contaminates the tap water, Mr Profiteer charges $8 for a $2 bottle of water.

No, it wasn't used correctly, it was and remains completely wrong. I'll repeat my point to you earlier, profiteering requires some element of taking advantage of an emergency, such as a flood or a war. Applying the word to a company selling plastic toys makes no sense at all. Please accept this, learn something, and leave the thread a little better informed.

sebster wrote:No, it wasn't used correctly, it was and remains completely wrong. I'll repeat my point to you earlier, profiteering requires some element of taking advantage of an emergency, such as a flood or a war. Applying the word to a company selling plastic toys makes no sense at all. Please accept this, learn something, and leave the thread a little better informed.

Without that last sentence, you were making a valid point. That last bit adds nothing to your point, and potentially detracts from it as people see the tone and ignore the rest of the message.


Let's keep it civil, folks.

The poster that pointed out high overhead is the issue at hand is correct.

Its also nuts that we have GW stores and they make the product. That messes with the economy of the game more then anything else.

spireland wrote:The poster that pointed out high overhead is the issue at hand is correct.

Its also nuts that we have GW stores and they make the product. That messes with the economy of the game more then anything else.

But as has been explained in this thread, a lot, overhead in and of itself isn't a bad thing, if it's part of a successful business model. That GW model has seen them grow the company into not only the biggest miniature company in the hobby, but almost certainly bigger than the rest of the miniature companies combined, and likely by a long a way. Simply saying 'they have high overheads' doesn't do anything, if you don't bother to assess what benefits GW is gaining from those stores. It means there is a place for gamers to play, it means gives a legitimacy to the hobby to parents that an independant store in a smelly underground location can't provide.

There are reasons GW has grown from a start up company run on passion for the hobby to a very large company, while competitors have disappeared, or remained small companies run on passion. They are a better run business than the others.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

insaniak wrote:Without that last sentence, you were making a valid point. That last bit adds nothing to your point, and potentially detracts from it as people see the tone and ignore the rest of the message.


Let's keep it civil, folks.

When someone uses a word incorrectly, you correct them in plain English with an example, and then they just declare their use was fine... what are you supposed to do? At some point you have to call people out on that kind of behaviour.

The Gross profit argument is very shaky, Apple makes about 36.5% Gross profit ($37.5 billion in revenues) and netted about $5.72 billion in '09, and had a 15% profit margin. That's a hell of a lot of money, but they also: Advertise, run their own stores, own the factories that make their products and repair returned or defective items, ship said items from China to the rest of the world. Not saying they're perfect, but they are a pretty well run company.

GW's a lot like Apple in that regard, they eat the costs of all of manufacturing, shipping to distribution centers, runs they're own retailing and has next to nothing for an advertising budget. Reading this investor's readout, they've made quite a few strides the last few years trying to not borrow money in fact they are debt free now.

http://investor.games-workshop.com/downloads/results/results2010/2009-10_FullYearPressStatement.pdf

And this is why tournaments are great!

Driving an hour to drop $50 on a box of plastic junk that you have to assemble yourself sucks.

Driving an hour to drop $5-10 on a tournament entry fee that gets you a $50 box of plastic junk that you have to assemble yourself sucks less, and at least you got to play games for it.

Stormrider wrote:The Gross profit argument is very shaky, Apple makes about 36.5% Gross profit ($37.5 billion in revenues) and netted about $5.72 billion in '09, and had a 15% profit margin. That's a hell of a lot of money, but they also: Advertise, run their own stores, own the factories that make their products and repair returned or defective items, ship said items from China to the rest of the world. Not saying they're perfect, but they are a pretty well run company.

GW's a lot like Apple in that regard, they eat the costs of all of manufacturing, shipping to distribution centers, runs they're own retailing and has next to nothing for an advertising budget. Reading this investor's readout, they've made quite a few strides the last few years trying to not borrow money in fact they are debt free now.

http://investor.games-workshop.com/downloads/results/results2010/2009-10_FullYearPressStatement.pdf

No, a technology company grossing almost $40 billion is almost nothing like GW, a miniatures company grossing a hundred million pounds. In this case the gross margin tells you nothing other than that their business structures are very different, which everyone should have known already. Benchmarking needs to be within the same industry, and with companies of roughly the same size. This is problematic with GW, because no other miniatures company has ever managed to grow to anything like GW's size. But then, that really should tell people that maybe their business model is actually quite good.

Has anybody compared them to WOTC? They seem to be pretty similar in most respects. WOTC even had their own stores.

MikeMcSomething wrote:Has anybody compared them to WOTC? They seem to be pretty similar in most respects. WOTC even had their own stores.

Then wisely abandoned that idea imho.

sebster wrote:When someone uses a word incorrectly, you correct them in plain English with an example, and then they just declare their use was fine... what are you supposed to do?

Learning to accept that not everyone on the entire internet has to agree with you would be a good start. If someone you've never met, on the other side of the planet, uses a word in a way that you consider incorrect, so what? The world isn't going to come crashing down around your ears just because some random internet user doesn't meet your personal standards of literacy.

Deal with it, and move on. You don't need to 'call people out' on it. It accomplishes nothing useful, and leads in unpleasant directions that we would rather discussions here not go.

insaniak wrote:Learning to accept that not everyone on the entire internet has to agree with you would be a good start. If someone you've never met, on the other side of the planet, uses a word in a way that you consider incorrect, so what?

No, he didn’t just use a random word incorrectly, that word was the basis for his entire argument. The term ‘profiteering’ was the entire basis for his claim against GW, and that didn’t make any sense because GW is selling plastic soldiers, not exploiting human need during an emergency.

I corrected him on this, and he made the choice that he’d rather keep his argument, instead of reconsider and build a more considered argument. If we want a forum where people can actually debate things, we need to expect a little better than that.

The world isn't going to come crashing down around your ears just because some random internet user doesn't meet your personal standards of literacy.

Except the point isn’t about literacy. I’ve don’t correct people on this forum for spelling mistakes, or for using poor grammar. The point, simply, is about the quality of the argument, and in this case the argument relied on a concept that the poster misunderstood, making his argument poor.

Deal with it, and move on. You don't need to 'call people out' on it. It accomplishes nothing useful, and leads in unpleasant directions that we would rather discussions here not go.

Without people putting some level of honesty into their arguments, and the community expecting that of other posters, the standard of discussion is going to be very poor.

People don’t have to be right, they don’t have to be well read on a subject. But it’s important that when they make a mistake, they are honest enough to admit, and rephrase their argument. If it’s okay for people to just say’ oh no, my argument really does make sense’ when it clearly doesn’t, no-one is ever going to get better?

sebster wrote:I corrected him on this, and he made the choice that he’d rather keep his argument, instead of reconsider and build a more considered argument.

And that's fine. Your point remains just as valid after his response as it was before it. If he chooses not to agree with it, that's his choice. You will never get everyone to agree that you are correct, no matter how right you think you are, or how unreasonable you think they are being.

All of which is getting aside from the point. I didn't post what I did because you corrected him. I posted because you did so in a way that was rude and unnecessary.

Hi all,

Just thought I should jump in and say thanks for the correction. I paid it no heed initially as I felt that when I have made the analogy of "Plastic Crack' it would carry acrross with the idea of a 'necessity'.

Just like when I say "Thanks mate" - It does not meen we are Bald eagles , bonded for life, but in the Aussie Vernacular, a good friend. I understand what my words mean, I understand how to 'imply' meaning.

I'll take that as a learning experience away from this thread, thanks Sebs

But honestly.... Who really cares??

profiteer (plural profiteers)

One who makes an unreasonable profit not justified by their corresponding assumption of risk.

EG- The attorney increased his fee by ten times as much when the judge declared that no one could represent themselves.

(Wikionary)

Or - GW increased the cost of thier models when they realised Johnno was addicted to 40K, and doubled prices over the last few years Dammit

Dashofpepper wrote:And this is why tournaments are great!

Driving an hour to drop $50 on a box of plastic junk that you have to assemble yourself sucks.

Driving an hour to drop $5-10 on a tournament entry fee that gets you a $50 box of plastic junk that you have to assemble yourself sucks less, and at least you got to play games for it.

If only we had more tourneys with decent prize support in the portland area. : <

Dashofpepper wrote:And this is why tournaments are great!

Driving an hour to drop $50 on a box of plastic junk that you have to assemble yourself sucks.

Driving an hour to drop $5-10 on a tournament entry fee that gets you a $50 box of plastic junk that you have to assemble yourself sucks less, and at least you got to play games for it.

And imagine if the gas for driving an hour (and back?) was free too!