Historically, Games Workshop releases it's annual report mid-late July---so within the next 3 weeks we should see the report. I believe it shows sales up to end of May---which means it may not reflect the latest PR debacles they've went through.

Last report was the half year during Jan.---and it showed sales dropping 4%--which they offset by slashing stores/staff/etc. Their stock plummeted as a result of that report---and has crawled back up since then.

What's your thoughts? Good report incoming---or another bad showing? Remember, only up to May here---so the latest wave of bad news hasn't affected sales yet (If it will).

As much as I love GW and want them to get better, their recent actions would seem to encourage a negative growth rather then a positive one.

I'm genuinely interested, regardless of result.

The finecast was too recent to really affect it. With the dark eldar, I think we are going to see positive.

With Dark Eldar in 4Q10 and Grey Knights in 2Q11, it will be positive.

I'm dubious either new codex is as important to GW as new recruits, due to their current marketing model. That's just my supposition though.

I'd like to see some negative results - but I agree with kronk. The release of the new Dark Eldar models and the Grey Knights will most likely make the report positive.

Conspiracy alert:

Waittaminute... Their Annual Report won't show anything past May?

And the rage-storm they let loose was in June?

Those clever sons-of-female-dogs! I sense... a conspiracy!

Between DE, GKs, and Tomb Kings, I expect positive. The next report should be really interesting though.

Stable sales, higher proffits.
The last thing that will show up there will probably be gray knights since I do think they are savvy enough to not schedule a price hike (not to mention all the other unforeseen bad pr) right before a big report.
Next January's report might show a big sales drop though.

New codex releases will be a positive but it will be a cautious report (IMO).

European retailers at least, were given significant extra credit in May and encouraged to use it, also the pre embargo and price rise surge was very large. It will make the Qtr's figures look great. However GW are obliged to mention these factors in their release.

It's the one after this I'm really curious about.

The six month report from last November was not good reading.

In the second half of their year, though, they launched two new Codexes for 40K, Deldar and GK, both with new model ranges.

It was Christmas.

They should also have benefited from the pre-price rise buying surge as noted above.

The next interim report will be interesting reading since it will reflect the introduction of Finecast and the whopping price rises of June.

I can't see it being anything but negative.

I don't know about the rest of the world, but in the UK, the recession is really starting to bite.

Well if Wayland's situation is any indication the price rise caused a massive supply rush to most online retailers as thousands of people passed emergency bulk orders, so i guess that would influence the may results anyway.

Kilkrazy wrote:In the second half of their year, though, they launched two new Codexes for 40K, Deldar and GK, both with new model ranges.

It was Christmas.

They should also have benefited from the pre-price rise buying surge as noted above.

Last year they launched stuff, had a pre (annual) price-rise surge and it was also Christmas last year too.

Although, apparently DE was/(is) huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge for them, so combined with the first-day-of-finecast-feeding-frenzy on 28th May, they may have done OK.

The next interim report will be interesting reading since it will reflect the introduction of Finecast and the whopping price rises of June

And the termination of virtually all sales to the Antipodes....

I also think January's report will likely make uncomfortable reading. Will SoM and 'crons sales outdo the damage they've done to themselves? We'll see.

My money, for what it's worth is on steady but unspectacular (real) decline in turnover, and increase in profit for this year. Larger (real) decrease in turnover and static profit for next interim. But will see. GW have already survived 3 years beyond when I originally predicted in 2004 that they'd go under, so wha do I know! (Obviously not enough about the currency markets and licencing deals...)

The current customer base would have responded well to the sales of the products during that time period.
Will it be enough to offset the people that are leaving for other games systems entirely?

I wonder how far the 'pre-trade embargo surge' will figure into it? Considering what the big internet retailers have been saying, maybe GW should bring in a new embargo every week

Warhammer Fantasy was launched too during this reporting period right? From the internet grumbling (I am not a Fantasy player so don't know)----it seems like it was somewhat rejected by players. Wonder how that will affect the report.

I don't believe in internet grumbling. The people I know personally who play fantasy seem to have really taken to 8th.

I don't think this report will be too bad. As mentioned, there will be two new codicies worth of sales reflected as well as a holiday season and pre-price raise boost. Of course, the last two are true every year so they might not have as big of an effect. The true indicator of whether the recent GW BS will affect sales will be in the jan '12 report.

I think that it will be positive for the previously stated reasons.

It might not be so bad for them in January as well. With not only the Necrons and Storm of Magic, but also with the Sisters of Battle getting a White Dwarf Codex. This might be a move to making the Sisters more "affordable". That might get some players picking them as their first army or as am additional army. Of course, that's just speculation of the more wishful thinking variety.

I expect that their sales volume will be about unchanged but revenue will be higher.

I also expect that GW will underperform the broader market 7% increase Jan-May 2011.

The fact remains they are losing customers. Whether they are moving to other systems or quitting all together for various reasons. I was a DE player. The new models, while beautiful, did not bring me back in.

Of 25 to 30 players that were here in my area 8 years ago, I know of 3 that remain. I live in an area barely touched by the recession. So you tell me, what says more about GW's health?

rich1231 wrote:European retailers at least, were given significant extra credit in May and encouraged to use it, also the pre embargo and price rise surge was very large. It will make the Qtr's figures look great. However GW are obliged to mention these factors in their release.

That is as close to channel stuffing as you can get and still remain legal and not only is it a dubious policy at best it also has the problem of magnifying issues that arise the following qtr or so.

Ouze wrote:It's the one after this I'm really curious about.

This. As KK said, the next 6-month update (Jan 2012) will be extremely telling, I think. We'll see the effects of the "embargo", the finecast, and other recent changes. I wonder if that one will be doom and gloom. (I would vote Doom and Gloom, unless something extremely positive and unforeseen from GW occurs in August-November).

sourclams wrote:I expect that their sales volume will be about unchanged but revenue will be higher.

I also expect that GW will underperform the broader market 7% increase Jan-May 2011.

Interesting - I am expecting to see revenue remaining as is with potentially a distinct split between US (going down) and ROW (slight increase). I think the BL arm will be higher and I am very curious as to the royaly/ licence paid and received line. With revenue remaining as is, and taking into account price rices, I am expecting volume to have gone down. The GP margin should remain stabilish in comparison to last year but I am cannot remember when the move to one man stores happened exactly - but I am very very curious to see the impact on revenue per store in comparison to the prior year.

Rumors of a price hike boost short term sales so if that time frame is covered they will probably have a positive report.

I want to see the next one.

Guys, profits and sales numbers are silly putty in a savvy corporation's hands. I would always expect the report to be 'rosier' than the real situation. This doesn't mean that it will be completely misleading, but nor would I expect 100% honest accounting in negative scenarios...

MajorTom11 wrote:Guys, profits and sales numbers are silly putty in a savvy corporation's hands. I would always expect the report to be 'rosier' than the real situation. This doesn't mean that it will be completely misleading, but nor would I expect 100% honest accounting in negative scenarios...

don't bother. People on this forum always try to talk like they know anything without even basic knowledge of economics or accounting.

I mean, its evident from the available answers already.

Positive sales growth does not mean a good report.

nor does negative sales growth mean a bad report.

Now if we were talking about profits, and not sales, that would be a different story.

It's not just the raw numbers. The buy side is and has been for awhile now avoiding consumer disc, of which plastic toys certainly is!

Analysts will see through the issues above, they have relationships too.

My own feedback, my wife asked me what will I take next. Well with only local options for sales, maybe 10% discount to store prices, which are discracefully high, forget it.

I stocked up on space marines before online from o/s was closed and that's it.

So assuming I'm the marginal ROW growth rep, forget sales growth ex nth hemisphere.

I like GW however unlike oil, their pricing and demand are very elastic.

I'll call good growth this qtr, shocking 4q11.

Kouzuki wrote:

don't bother. People on this forum always try to talk like they know anything without even basic knowledge of economics or accounting.

I mean, its evident from the available answers already.

That's fairly dismissive. I believe FullHead and SourClams have a fair amount of education/experience in the financial sector---as well as others.

Fullheadofhair is a professional equity analyst.

I'm a professional agricultural commodities analyst, so my forays into the equity side is amateurish dabbling by comparison to what fullheadofhair can present.

GW will not give you a negative report. ever.

They are well versed in baffling with bull!@## and dazzling you with diamonds, that you will just end up saying- well, THIS time it wasn't so bad. While not even knowing what your looking at.

My personal opinion is that they will say that they are doing well, while at the same time we get to see in real life increased people leaving, the stores still closing, and stores still continuing to go under, or reduce thier shelfspace to the shiny new lickies and chewies, while not really selling all that much.

I'll be the first to tell you that this "One Man" store idea is a dog, that is going to end up costing them more in the long run then just doing the smart thing and improving thier regular stores and increased attention to mail order, while not making it a business to headhunt and waste money on trying to be all and end all.

The local gaming stores are having enough of a handle to just keep the lights on, that I don't see one man stores doing anything other then having a GW name brand on them to be ready to be sacrificial lambs to the NEXT round of closings to satisfy GW's bs business plan.


The economy isn't justifying the increase of this gak to the price that they are asking. So even if they make a little money in the short run, they are cutting thier own throats in the long.

Your poll doesn't really make a lot of sense for what you are asking there.

Grot 6 wrote:They are well versed in baffling with bull!@## and dazzling you with diamonds, that you will just end up saying- well, THIS time it wasn't so bad. While not even knowing what your looking at.

Look at our profits, now look at our sales, now look back at our profits. Sadly, sales numbers aren't in line with our profits, but it could be, now that we've introduced FINECAST(tm), slashed staff and raised prices. Look at my hand, its our annual report... look again, the report is now DIAMONDS. Anything is possible when you invest with GW. (I'm issuing a dividend.)

keezus wrote:Look at our profits, now look at our sales, now look back at our profits. Sadly, sales numbers aren't in line with our profits, but it could be, now that we've introduced FINECAST(tm), slashed staff and raised prices. Look at my hand, its our annual report... look again, the report is now DIAMONDS. Anything is possible when you invest with GW. (I'm issuing a dividend.)

I chuckled.

I dont think this report wil be effected much.

The next report though is where we wil see if there is much of a change.


Does PP release their reports ? it would be intrested to see them both compared.

Spyder68 wrote:
Does PP release their reports ? it would be intrested to see them both compared.

They're not traded Scott, as they're private (At least last I read PP was still private). I don't think they have any intentions of changing that.

As an interesting side note, Tom Kirby led the management buy out of GW back in the early 90s.

Ahh ok.. Didnt know that.

Maybe thats why PP can do some of the deals they do then!

I certainly suspect that plays a major part. Matt Wilson owns the company (I'm unsure if he still shares a partnership as one of them left IIRC).

Incidentally, the late 90s/early 2000s is when the shift of ideology began in Games Workshop (Post management buy off). They went from a company ran by tabletop enthusiasts that happened to make money-----to a corporation ran by money that happened to make miniatures. That's just my opinion though.

Spyder68 wrote:Ahh ok.. Didnt know that.

Maybe thats why PP can do some of the deals they do then!

AgeOfEgos wrote:Incidentally, the late 90s/early 2000s is when the shift of ideology began in Games Workshop (Post management buy off). They went from a company ran by tabletop enthusiasts that happened to make money-----to a corporation ran by money that happened to make miniatures. That's just my opinion though.

Ultimately there's nothing wrong with this dynamic. Apple, McDonald's, Nike, Pepsi--all public companies dedicated to making money, but do so by giving their customers exactly what they want in new and market-leading ways, out-competing their competition for their core consumer demographic.

GW by contrast shows very little innovation in its approach, and has been satisfied with increasing margins to compensate for lost market share.

sourclams wrote:

AgeOfEgos wrote:Incidentally, the late 90s/early 2000s is when the shift of ideology began in Games Workshop (Post management buy off). They went from a company ran by tabletop enthusiasts that happened to make money-----to a corporation ran by money that happened to make miniatures. That's just my opinion though.

Ultimately there's nothing wrong with this dynamic. Apple, McDonald's, Nike, Pepsi--all public companies dedicated to making money, but do so by giving their customers exactly what they want in new and market-leading ways, out-competing their competition for their core consumer demographic.

GW by contrast shows very little innovation in its approach, and has been satisfied with increasing margins to compensate for lost market share.

Sad but true!

I wonder what it will take to finally get them to realize that yes, this is the 21st century that we're living in now!

sourclams wrote:GW by contrast shows very little innovation in its approach, and has been satisfied with increasing margins to compensate for lost market share.

I partially agree, but also don't. If you look at GW as a miniatures company, not a gaming company, they most certainly have been innovating for much of the last decade, embracing computer aided design and digital sculpting tools, advanced molds (ala the baneblade), and even, to some extent, finecast. Yes, the initial release has issues - they'll get straightened out. If you remember the iPhone 4 launch, where you had to hold the phone delicately lest you short the antenna and have your call drop, Apple had the same sort of issue. Innovation comes with its missteps, but I don't see any reason to believe that they won't be fixed. Quality miniatures and customer service have long been GWs best features.

Gaming-wise - I fully agree, they're not innovative. But consider that if they were to make large-scale sweeping changes, what would the outcry from the community be then? Especially from the "customers" who haven't bought anything in years but expect to have their ancient armies remain viable.

Marketting/Sales-wise, I doubly agree, no innovation to speak of. But to get out of the retail space at this point might not be wise either. It'd be a large cost to absorb on a gamble that some other marketing strategy would work better than running their own shops.

Good points.

The biggest changes GW's made to date involve having to purchase more models for your army as points costs go down - and actual costs go up!

I think GW have been considerably less innovative than a company in their position should and could be. I've often said that it took them until the last few years to get the quality of their kits up to where Frog were in the 1950s.

While the older GW kits -- most of them -- are still in the Frog era, the newest ones have reached the standards set by Airfix in the 60s. They have yet to achieve the innovation level of Matchbox in the 70s.

Japanese manufacturers like Tamiya and Bandai meanwhile have gone miles ahead in techniques such as slide moulds and multi-colour moulding. You look at a modern Gundam kit and even something like the Trygon is an embarrassment in comparison.

The advent of Internet based retailing would allow GW to sell mass customised kits, which would be a huge benefit, especially to younger customers, if they would adopt modern techniques.

What is the point of multi-colour molding when you're a company that's selling people paint and primer?

What is a slide mould? What benefit does it provide?

AgeOfEgos wrote:

That's fairly dismissive. I believe FullHead and SourClams have a fair amount of education/experience in the financial sector---as well as others.

>Implying you need any sort of education or experience in FINANCE to read annual reports.

Edited by Manchu to remove trollery.

Interested in the failure to ensue them

AgeOfEgos wrote:I certainly suspect that plays a major part. Matt Wilson owns the company (I'm unsure if he still shares a partnership as one of them left IIRC).

Incidentally, the late 90s/early 2000s is when the shift of ideology began in Games Workshop (Post management buy off). They went from a company ran by tabletop enthusiasts that happened to make money-----to a corporation ran by money that happened to make miniatures. That's just my opinion though.

Spyder68 wrote:Ahh ok.. Didnt know that.

Maybe thats why PP can do some of the deals they do then!

And I think an opinion shared by the majority of people who have followed GW over those years.

Guys, I don't think it is neccesary to start getting sensitive or point fingers at each other, or reading overly dramatic things into what has been posted here. Some people in here have the experience to illustrate how a report can be 'massaged' into sounding a certain way. How about instead of getting into elitist accusations and the like, we just ask questions about things we are unsure of or interested in and you know... shock... actually learn something?

You do not need a financial background to read an annual report. But you sure as gak need one to cut through the noise IMO. There are many, many ways to set up corporate finances to look a certain way. Shuffling debt, cutting resources then calling it profit, which it is in the short term. Sheltering debt in business expenses, classing other expenses as RandD... tons of things you could do.

In running my own business, I recently discovered that we had over 60 grand a year in recoverable taxes because things we were doing were easily classed as RandD, even though in my opinion it is only in the loosest sense. It is insane some of the things you can do.

Anyways, I defer to the gentlemen who make a living on it in the end, but I am not shy to voice my opinion. I also won't be butthurt if someone clearly knows more than me lol.

Redbeard wrote:What is the point of multi-colour molding when you're a company that's selling people paint and primer?

What is a slide mould? What benefit does it provide?

Multi-colour moulding would be a benefit to everyone who likes the game but isn't interested in painting their figures. We know there are lots of them.

A slide mould uses sliding parts to enable the moulding of more complex parts. The models can be more detailed and new kinds of shapes can be employed in the design.

They have started using slide moulds then, I just wasn't aware that was the name for it. The Baneblade was the first model to utilize them, and one of the articles they put out at the time described how they were used to allow the molding of gun barrels with actual holes in them.

As for the coloured plastics, they obviously know how, because Space Hulk was released that way; red for the blood angels, blue for the stealers. Why not for everything? Probably because they, like I, see little point to it. It's not exactly something other miniature game makers are doing either, so it probably has an added cost factor.

Redbeard wrote:

sourclams wrote:GW by contrast shows very little innovation in its approach, and has been satisfied with increasing margins to compensate for lost market share.

I partially agree, but also don't. If you look at GW as a miniatures company, not a gaming company, they most certainly have been innovating for much of the last decade, embracing computer aided design and digital sculpting tools, advanced molds (ala the baneblade), and even, to some extent, finecast. Yes, the initial release has issues - they'll get straightened out. If you remember the iPhone 4 launch, where you had to hold the phone delicately lest you short the antenna and have your call drop, Apple had the same sort of issue. Innovation comes with its missteps, but I don't see any reason to believe that they won't be fixed. Quality miniatures and customer service have long been GWs best features.

Gaming-wise - I fully agree, they're not innovative. But consider that if they were to make large-scale sweeping changes, what would the outcry from the community be then? Especially from the "customers" who haven't bought anything in years but expect to have their ancient armies remain viable.

Marketting/Sales-wise, I doubly agree, no innovation to speak of. But to get out of the retail space at this point might not be wise either. It'd be a large cost to absorb on a gamble that some other marketing strategy would work better than running their own shops.

If the rumors about 6th are true, it's a fairly aggressive step for their design team. I always wonder how much of an influence sales/upper management have on the team. For example, do they announce low selling units and ask the design team to take steps? Vehicles received quite a boost in 5th and they were likely low sellers before.

Their one man shop step was kind of out of the blue too.

kronk wrote:With Dark Eldar in 4Q10 and Grey Knights in 2Q11, it will be positive.

Definitely and don't forget the new releases in Fantasy.

Kouzuki wrote:

MajorTom11 wrote:Guys, profits and sales numbers are silly putty in a savvy corporation's hands. I would always expect the report to be 'rosier' than the real situation. This doesn't mean that it will be completely misleading, but nor would I expect 100% honest accounting in negative scenarios...

don't bother. People on this forum always try to talk like they know anything without even basic knowledge of economics or accounting.

I mean, its evident from the available answers already.

And people on this site ALSO dismiss folks that actually do have knowlege on economics and accounting.

I mean its eveident from the answer in this post alone.

Redbeard wrote:They have started using slide moulds then, I just wasn't aware that was the name for it. The Baneblade was the first model to utilize them, and one of the articles they put out at the time described how they were used to allow the molding of gun barrels with actual holes in them.

As for the coloured plastics, they obviously know how, because Space Hulk was released that way; red for the blood angels, blue for the stealers. Why not for everything? Probably because they, like I, see little point to it. It's not exactly something other miniature game makers are doing either, so it probably has an added cost factor.

It will be nice when they apply slide moulding to cheaper kits.

What I mean by multi-colour is when several colours of plastic are pumped into the same mould, moulding parts on the same sprue in separate colours. The more expensive Gundam kits (£20) are often done this way now. Combined with clever design of the sprues and the attachment points to the parts, it allows the construction of very nice looking models without painting.

Isn't slide moulding also pretty expensive compared to the "regular" plastic injection moulds?

Tamiya, Dragon and other producers of tank kits kinda make it a big deal that the turrets are done with slide moulding. Which leads me to believe that it's pretty expensive or they would do it to most of the kits instead of just select parts (some parts wouldn't benefit from it, but a lot of muzzles and stuff sure would). They sure look good though, I wish everything was made that way.

pixelpusher wrote:Isn't slide moulding also pretty expensive compared to the "regular" plastic injection moulds?

Define expensive. A fast look at some tanyia kits online doesnt seem like they are more expensive then GW tank kits, and in some cases cheaper.

GW kits are expensive for reasons which are nothing to do with the cost of slide moulds.

Most GW kits are produced without the benefit of slide moulding.

I don't see the point of an argument about it, so let's not go down that road.

carmachu wrote:

pixelpusher wrote:Isn't slide moulding also pretty expensive compared to the "regular" plastic injection moulds?

Define expensive. A fast look at some tanyia kits online doesnt seem like they are more expensive then GW tank kits, and in some cases cheaper.

Can't really compare Tamiya or Dragon kits to GW.
In this case I define expensive as "more expensive than regular 2-slide plastic injection moulds".

pixelpusher wrote:

Can't really compare Tamiya or Dragon kits to GW.

Why not?

They are polystyrene model kits for hobbyists.

The design and production method is the same.

pixelpusher wrote:

Can't really compare Tamiya or Dragon kits to GW.
In this case I define expensive as "more expensive than regular 2-slide plastic injection moulds".

Why? You cant just make that statment without some sort of facts to back them up. Why cant one make the comparison? As others point out they use more complicated methods then GW, but the prices arent nearly as high in my quick glances at some kits.

Sorry I guess I was unclear in "not compare"?

Tamiya & Dragon kits -pricing- isn't really comparable with the GW kits since GW has pretty much a monopoly on "Land Raider"-kits. Everyone can produce a "Pz. Kpfw IV Ausf. H".
GW most likely sets their own prices without any "real" regard to production costs and competition (compared to what MKM do), since they dont have PP coming out with a Land Raider next month.

Production costs? I bet that they're way higher for a random 1/35 german panzer. Especially since they get a ton of flak if they provide the wrong type of shürzen-hooks for that time period. So you'd have to do a ton of research just before you start designing the kit.
Three slide moulds seems to be really prominent in the new kits (barrels & turrets mostly). Further upping the cost.
And the amount of sprues & non styrene-parts is a tad higher in a box from Dragon

But competition and volume keeps the prices down for a typical 1/35 PzIV. Sort of? So since they're on two completely different markets I feel that it's not really sound to compare a Tamiya kit with a Games Workshop kit.

Is it clearer what I was trying to get at? :/

Yes.

Though I disagree that we cannot compare the price/quality of other kits with GW.

We just have to understand the reason why the GW kits are higher priced and lower quality.

Kilkrazy wrote:Yes.

Though I disagree that we cannot compare the price/quality of other kits with GW.

We just have to understand the reason why the GW kits are higher priced and lower quality.

As far as I am concerned there is a very simple explanation for why GW kits are higher priced and lower quality. Bad management coupled with pure corporate greed.

GW are blind to the long run problem they are going to have by pushing away adult gamers who have money to spend by massively overcharging. I love GW's background and would happily collect quite a few of their ranges. But not when I can buy a lot more models for say historical, or other scifi/fantasy ranges for the same money.

Point in fact I bought 10 metal models for a historical collection for £14 yesterday, high quality 28mm metal casts only minor flash. The same number of figures could quite easily have cost me twice or maybe even three times as much from GW.

GW are not going to go out of business tomorrow, but they are slowly killing themselves, it might take 10 years but they are going to one day go bust if they don't pay attention to the bigger picture.

Kilkrazy wrote:
Though I disagree that we cannot compare the price/quality of other kits with GW.

We just have to understand the reason why the GW kits are higher priced and lower quality.

I think that the definition of 'quality' has something to do with it. I'll admit, I know next to nothing about gundam models. I have, however, bought several 1:48 and 1:35 military scale models.

Misnomer 1: They're cheaper. No, not in my experience. At least, not the kits that looked like they'd be worth my time to make and paint. I'll acknowledge that there are some kits at the local store that are less expensive than the others (and less than GW kits too), but they're the most simplistic ones with little detail.

Misnomer 2: They're higher quality. Hardly. The plastic is often thin and feels brittle. I've had kits where the "treads" were a big rubber band type thing. I've had other kits where you had to individually glue each track linkage. Are either of these higher quality, or is it just a different approach?

I know that, compared to the military models, the GW kits are heavier. It's part of the 'heroic' aesthetic. Military models armour is paper thin compared to what you get on a GW tank. Maybe more plastic means higher cost - maybe not.


Different folks want different things. I don't want pre-painted minis, I enjoy painting. I don't want multi-coloured plastics, especially not if it impacts the price at all. I'm going to prime over it anyway. These things aren't advantages to me. I never got into any game that had pre-painted figures. I don't see the model kit scene any different from the infantry mini scene. If you look, you can find cheaper models or figs. If you look, you will also find more expensive alternatives in each category. GW's prices are not out of line for the industry. Perhaps they could be cheaper, but what incentive do they have to make them cheaper? All the old school gamers have all the models they need, they're here already, bragging about how they don't need to spend any more money, they've already finished their armies. The competitive tournament players are going to buy multiples of the newest bestest units with each codex release. They always have, they always will. Like with M:tG, the top-tier player will field the best stuff regardless of cost. The casual players will continue to buy new models they like the look of every so often.

And, would it be good for the hobby in general if they did cut their prices? Let's say GW did cut their prices. Let's imagine that they decided one morning to use their size and economy of scale to price out PP, Mantic, FoW, Malifaux and others. Is that good for wargaming as a whole? GW keeping their prices where they are (and I don't believe that their prices are unfair, or out-of-line for the industry) is allowing other companies to make headway. Competition is good for all of us. GW has seemingly abandoned the skirmish-scale games like Necromunda and Mordheim. Where does Malifaux operate? GW is aiming their primary games at larger scale conflicts, higher point cost battles are the norm. The void for 500-1000 point games is being filled by Warmachine/Hordes. Maybe it is a mistake on GWs part not to crush these new upstarts. Imagine if they did start pushing intro-level skirmish systems with some cheap figures - in such a way that those same models could be worked into the full wargame systems too. Would that be good for GW? Probably. Would it be good for the industry as a whole? I'm not so sure.

Gw Prices fair? Does $33 USD for a mounted figure and its on foot version in "finecast" sound fair to you? I think its ludicrous

lord marcus wrote:Gw Prices fair? Does $33 USD for a mounted figure and its on foot version in "finecast" sound fair to you? I think its ludicrous

PPs Dragoons (Mounted figure and foot version) cost between 30 and 45 USD in metal. If the quality wasn't an issue (an it obviously is) then I wouldn't say that it's ludicrous, no.

Thats not what i meant. Your comparing companies price points, I'm talking about the worth of a figure. Would YOU pay $33 USD for two, TWO figs total?

I've paid more than $33 for ONE figure, so yes.
I wouldn't pay that for just ANY figure though which is why this discussion is a bit pointless.

If you're saying that their prices would be unacceptable even if the casts were perfect then I would have to disagree with you. Everyone's going to have a different view of the value of both a dollar and their hobby crack though.

Because of this wide range of 'individual requirements' and 'what we are willing to pay' between every player or collector, a valid argument or even disscussion can not be entered into where everybody would be placated.

The price of this or that... the quality of this or that... cannot be effectivelly debated without ALL the costs... R&D, marketing, behind the GW scenes, etc

The veteran players have many issues about rules and format, which also detracts from the worldwide complaints.

The ONLY thing that will keep us apart from the whiney geeks and professional gamers, is to concentrate on the negative GW business decisions, ethics, practices, and unpredictable directions.

An all out effort regarding business direction would attract attention from the management and shareholders... arguing about prices and rules will not even attract the mail boy.

It is fact that the number of units sold is decreasing and the only reason that 'profit' has increased is because of the excessive price rises. It will be interesting to see if the units sold numbers are lower again this year.

Mik

Lord Castellan Mik wrote:
... arguing about prices and rules will not even attract the mail boy.

It is fact that the number of units sold is decreasing and the only reason that 'profit' has increased is because of the excessive price rises.

How is it that in one sentence you say that arguing about prices will get no where, and in the very next, you complain about price increases by calling them excessive?

How is it that you, and others, still insist that the price increases are excessive, without a single data point backing you up, other than your feelings? How can GW's price increases be considered excessive when it's trivially easy to show that GW's prices are actually right in line with other miniature and model manufacturers? They're not the cheapest alternative and Killkrazy will surely step in and point out the three or four companies that are cheaper. But they're not the most expensive either, and there are more companies that charge as much, or more, than GW on a per-model basis than there are that charge less.

Redbeard wrote:How is it that you, and others, still insist that the price increases are excessive, without a single data point backing you up, other than your feelings?

Your asking the average person to not use their emotions when talking about a subject?

Unfortunately, we'll need an educated, rational, and objective someone to compile an industry wide census on prices and research if this is true.

Redbeard wrote:
How is it that you, and others, still insist that the price increases are excessive, without a single data point backing you up, other than your feelings?

Because their sales volumes continue to trend lower over time. It's not 'us' that insist that price increases are excessive, it's the marketplace.

Price elasticities, utility curves, etc.

Until there's several good years of sales growth to break this trend, it is intact and, as Gartman would say, going from the 'upper left to the lower right'.

Its all speculation. No one can know for sure until the report is released. Their shares are up (5yr) and about as well as they have ever been, http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=GAW.L+Interactive#chart1:symbol=gaw.l;range=5y;indicator=volume;charttype=line;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=on;source=undefined.

Its a mixed bag. I hope they are doing well because I know people who depend on their success, but I also hope they see the error of their ways. Although in a capitalist market, this usually means lay-offs and prices hikes to make bottom line.

sourclams wrote:

Redbeard wrote:
How is it that you, and others, still insist that the price increases are excessive, without a single data point backing you up, other than your feelings?

Because their sales volumes continue to trend lower over time. It's not 'us' that insist that price increases are excessive, it's the marketplace.

Price elasticities, utility curves, etc.

Until there's several good years of sales growth to break this trend, it is intact and, as Gartman would say, going from the 'upper left to the lower right'.

That doesn't mean the price increases are excessive. That might mean that there's a worldwide recession going on. That might mean that they're recent rulesets aren't popular (Re: Fantasy?). That might simply indicate the existence of more competition, especially in low-model-count game settings. I'm not disputing that there are things they're not doing well. But, on a per-model basis, comparing their prices with other company's prices, I simply cannot get behind the argument that their price increases are excessive.

If they mention it at all then GW will probably try to sell their Finecast stuff as being a sucess but the reality is that it's too soon after release to track any trends either way.

Wait until christmas, then whether GW manage to sort out this product and what impact the switch and price increase on sales will have an effect... or not.

Redbeard wrote:

That doesn't mean the price increases are excessive. That might mean that there's a worldwide recession going on. That might mean that they're recent rulesets aren't popular (Re: Fantasy?). That might simply indicate the existence of more competition, especially in low-model-count game settings. I'm not disputing that there are things they're not doing well. But, on a per-model basis, comparing their prices with other company's prices, I simply cannot get behind the argument that their price increases are excessive.

*blows whistle* Foul- bad use of logic.

You cant claim the recession is the cause of something that was happening PRIOR to the recession. Sales volume has been dropping for years.

carmachu wrote:
*blows whistle* Foul- bad use of logic.

You cant claim the recession is the cause of something that was happening PRIOR to the recession. Sales volume has been dropping for years.

Foul? I thought this was a discussion, not a ball game. Besides, your data is bad. Sales dropped following the LotR "bubble", that was expected. They remained somewhat down-to-flat and then started turning around, increasing slightly from 2007-8 and significantly from 2008-2009. And following that, we're in the recession. How is it bad logic to believe that sales decreases in the last two years might be due to global economic factors?

The world isn't in a recession, by the way. US is in an economic soft spot, but is still growing at a modest ~2%/year (not recession), BRICS continue to grow, and even northern Eurozone is doing alright, it's mostly just southern Eurozone that's doing poorly. Globally, GDP continues to rise.

Redbeard wrote:

Foul? I thought this was a discussion, not a ball game. Besides, your data is bad. Sales dropped following the LotR "bubble", that was expected. They remained somewhat down-to-flat and then started turning around, increasing slightly from 2007-8 and significantly from 2008-2009. And following that, we're in the recession. How is it bad logic to believe that sales decreases in the last two years might be due to global economic factors?

When your bad logic is tying recession to bad sales, yeah its foul.

Sales VOLUME, aka number of units sold, are down, have been down, for YEARA. your comfusing that with other numbers. Thats the bad logic. Units havent increased, even if the bottom line has due to a variety of reasons.

sourclams wrote:The world isn't in a recession, by the way. US is in an economic soft spot, but is still growing at a modest ~2%/year (not recession), BRICS continue to grow, and even northern Eurozone is doing alright, it's mostly just southern Eurozone that's doing poorly. Globally, GDP continues to rise.

Try telling that to the people who are still unemployed, whose homes are still being foreclosed against. Sure, we're making very small increases overall, but most of these gains are being realized by corporations, who have yet to really increase their hiring.

carmachu wrote:
Sales VOLUME, aka number of units sold, are down, have been down, for YEARA. your comfusing that with other numbers. Thats the bad logic. Units havent increased, even if the bottom line has due to a variety of reasons.

So you're saying that a 15 million pound increase year-to-year sales from 2008-2009 is due entirely to price increases and not to volume at all? And you're saying my logic is suspect?

Redbeard wrote:
So you're saying that a 15 million pound increase year-to-year sales from 2008-2009 is due entirely to price increases and not to volume at all? And you're saying my logic is suspect?

They had a modest increase in sales from 2008-2009, although a great portion of that was due to exchange rate movement. If you adjust for that, they lost significant sales in continental Europe, gained very little in America/Asia and made their largest gains in the UK.

On the issue of unemployment:
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/unemployment-rate

Again, I blame capitalism. Millionaires need to make their millions, even if it means outsourcing and layoffs.

Sales would probably be better if people had jobs to pay the outrageous costs for the hobby.

Given the large number of behind the scenes changes made around March last year, I think we might just see an overall improvement in sales.

As for the future? GW are looking into new markets, like Russia and China. There's plenty of life in the old dog yet.

Redbeard wrote:

So you're saying that a 15 million pound increase year-to-year sales from 2008-2009 is due entirely to price increases and not to volume at all? And you're saying my logic is suspect?

Price increase, cost cutting measures(store closings, firings, other) money from IP usage, currency conversion.

Yes, its NOT from an increase in the number of units sold. GW's total revenue has gone up and down. Its sales of actual UNIT sold, has not gone up, but down.

carmachu wrote:

Redbeard wrote:

So you're saying that a 15 million pound increase year-to-year sales from 2008-2009 is due entirely to price increases and not to volume at all? And you're saying my logic is suspect?

Price increase, cost cutting measures(store closings, firings, other) money from IP usage, currency conversion.

Hang on, did you just attribute an increase in sales to cost cutting measures like store closings and firings? Where's that bad logic foul flag again?

Yes, its NOT from an increase in the number of units sold. GW's total revenue has gone up and down. Its sales of actual UNIT sold, has not gone up, but down.

Sorry, not buying it. You cannot convince me that a company that saw a year-to-year sales (not profit) growth of 14% did so entirely on the basis of currency fluctuations and price increases, with falling unit sales.

Did you forget what happened in 2008? Apocalypse was released. They introduced the Baneblade model, with, if not great success, at least enough success to justify releasing the stompa and shadowstormlordthing the next year. They introduced formations that saw people buying huge kits of guys. My friend bought one of the Space Marine company boxes, he's still working through all the models it came with.

What happened since then? Planetstrike has to be considered a flop, although it probably sold some terrain. Spearhead was a non-starter as far as anyone I know is concerned. They tried the apocalypse approach to LotR, with War of the Ring - I don't think I've seen anyone play this, but maybe it got a paltry few more sales out of the last breaths of that dying system. They did 8th ed warhammer, which seems to have been received less-than-well. What's more, 8th Fantasy stressed huge blocks of infantry, probably cutting into sales of big monsters, so now they're backpedaling, trying to boost high-cost kits with Storms of Chaos. Somewhat schizophrenic, and way too early to see what it will do to their results, but I'm guessing not much.

And this is why I don't think price increases are the culprit behind falling sales. When they gave us something we wanted (apocalypse) we bought it, in large quantities. When they gave us Spearhead, we yawned and ignored them. I think the real issue isn't in the price increases, it's in the lack of reasons for me to buy stuff.

Summer campaigns - they introduced new units for armies, people bought new models. But that's outside the current design team's approach.
White Dwarf/Chapter Approved - Make some new unit every couple of months. Make them conversion-heavy. You'll increase sales of White Dwarf, and the kits needed to convert these new models. How many people made Deathwatch killteams? Not to mention alternate lists like Lost&Damned (or was that from a campaign?), Feral Orks, or Kroot Mercs?

I've hung around gamers for decades. I've seen people eat ramen for months when their game of choice offers them something they want. Prices aren't the issue, it's the general malaise surrounding the new game design philosophy, dating back roughly to when Jervis's son started dictating company policy.

Redbeard wrote:

You cannot convince me that a company that saw a year-to-year sales (not profit) growth of 14% did so entirely on the basis of currency fluctuations and price increases, with falling unit sales.

I know. I know some folks like yourself refuse to accept facts of things, even when pointed them out at the time of the reports. You wish to believe what you want to believe. Its ok, I see that in fanboys all the time. But no matter what you tell me, the bottom line of those reports were- money went up, unit sales did not. Whether you believe or not, is not really relevant.

What was released isnt relevent. Those formations were huge. However, notice they arent around anymore? They arent profitable- because if they were.....we would still see them right?

People have always had problems with GW, since they went public.

dating back roughly to when Jervis's son started dictating company policy.

I lol'd.

Redbeard wrote:

Try telling that to the people who are still unemployed, whose homes are still being foreclosed against. Sure, we're making very small increases overall, but most of these gains are being realized by corporations, who have yet to really increase their hiring.

Although the last jobs report was a real doozy, and although there isn't really a hard and fast definition of 'recession', we are not currently in one in the US. It doesn't matter if you 'feel' based on your perception of media and current economic climate that the US isn't doing well, things in general are far better than they were in 2H2009.

Gains are being realized by corporations, as you note (corporations like GW) that are generally seeing a continuation of incredible profitability. This simply does not happen in recessions.

carmachu wrote: Its ok, I see that in fanboys all the time.

Calling people names doesn't really advance your argument. I think there's a name for this logic foul too. Secondly, calling someone a fanboy because their criticisms of a company don't match yours isn't even really fair. Is anyone who disagrees with you a fanboy? How critical of the company do I need to be in order to shed this label you want to stick on me? Because I've certainly been pretty vocal about their failures in how they approach game design - something that I believe has more to do with their bottom line failures than 'price increases'.

But no matter what you tell me, the bottom line of those reports were- money went up, unit sales did not. Whether you believe or not, is not really relevant.

What was released isnt relevent. Those formations were huge. However, notice they arent around anymore? They arent profitable- because if they were.....we would still see them right?

First of all, if you're trying to determine why a company isn't doing well, knowing the timing of events is relevant. If the argument is "they've lost sales because they raised prices", then tracking price increases to sales decreases is relevant. If, on the other hand, the argument is "they've lost sales cause they're not producing enough stuff people want to buy", then pointing out how the successful product releases happened in years with positive sales growth, and the years with unsuccessful product releases coincided with lowered sales seems pretty relevant to me.

Secondly, let's consider the idea that they weren't profitable. What did they consist of? Basically, it was multiple kits packaged together, with some marginal discount for buying the bulk item. In exchange, they cut packaging costs, and ensured more sprues sold. If the minor savings passed on to the consumer in this manner made these package deals unprofitable, that would lend some credence to the idea that the price increases are being driven by real world costs and not just greed.

I think your argument that they are not releasing anything worth buying is a strong one, Redbeard.
I'm an avid Orc player, but the new Orc and Goblin book was so similar to the old that it absolutely failed to inspire me to buy any new stuff. Now, orcs doubling in price didn't help that either, but mostly it was waiting such a long time for such a lacklustre product. From the release of 8th, how many months went by without a book? It's now been a year, and still, only 2 books released? That's pretty poor considering how fast GW change editions. The creative control isn't there anymore. Seems like the design studio just sort of potter along with limited oversight. There certainly isn't the pace of releases that Privateer or Mantic have going on. I collect 2 40K armies and 3 Fantasy armies. Surely I should have something, from those 5 forces, that sparks my interest in a year? Instead I get a lacklustre update that recycles 80% of the material from the previous edition and introduces only a couple of new units.

Redbeard wrote:
Calling people names doesn't really advance your argument. I think there's a name for this logic foul too. Secondly, calling someone a fanboy because their criticisms of a company don't match yours isn't even really fair. Is anyone who disagrees with you a fanboy? How critical of the company do I need to be in order to shed this label you want to stick on me? Because I've certainly been pretty vocal about their failures in how they approach game design - something that I believe has more to do with their bottom line failures than 'price increases'.

When you start your belief with the words "you cannot convience me" thats firmly in the camp of fan boy when it involves favor to GW, just as we have names like hater for folks that cannot be convinced of good GW does.

YOU stated you cannot be convince, despite any and all facts to the contray- that make either a fanboy, or something worse which I wont name since it will get me a one week vacation. Thats on you. YOU arent open to anything. why would I try convincing you? Name calling or whatnot, facts arent going to penetrate.

First of all, if you're trying to determine why a company isn't doing well, knowing the timing of events is relevant. If the argument is "they've lost sales because they raised prices", then tracking price increases to sales decreases is relevant. If, on the other hand, the argument is "they've lost sales cause they're not producing enough stuff people want to buy", then pointing out how the successful product releases happened in years with positive sales growth, and the years with unsuccessful product releases coincided with lowered sales seems pretty relevant to me.

Secondly, let's consider the idea that they weren't profitable. What did they consist of? Basically, it was multiple kits packaged together, with some marginal discount for buying the bulk item. In exchange, they cut packaging costs, and ensured more sprues sold. If the minor savings passed on to the consumer in this manner made these package deals unprofitable, that would lend some credence to the idea that the price increases are being driven by real world costs and not just greed.

If they were profitable, wouldnt they keep selling them? They've been losing sales of units every year, and every year they have been increasing prices to compensate, along with a few other things thats been shown in reports. Last year or the year before, if you were part of the discussion, you'd know that there was a bit of currency exchange, favorable to GW which hid some of the loss.

Price increases arent solely the cause. GW's had a number of shoot in the foot instances. But the facts are that GW's sales of units have decreased, repeatedly every year. Their losing sales for a number of reasons, including raising prices.

So...

Are they making money or losing money? Is the share price overly inflated, and if so, by who?

Compared to last year at this time, what do the numbers look like?

Redbeard wrote:
How is it that in one sentence you say that arguing about prices will get no where, and in the very next, you complain about price increases by calling them excessive?

In Australia the annual rate of inflation is around 4%
The average worker gets an annual wage rise (if they are lucky) of 3-4%

Therefore, when an item goes up by 15-20% every year or so… it IS excessive

GW is a high end hobby manufacturer, and therefore expensive (and rightly so, detail, etc), so when the price increases… it is expected

However, when the price rises excessively AND often… it is obscene

This tread (and many more like it) is not about debating which product is the cheapest, or who has the most detail
It is also not a competition over who is better value, Barbie dolls or Lego

An observation of fact was made… actual product unit numbers is decreasing

It does not state the many different reasons WHY, only that it is

And the fact that they still make profit is because of the rise in prices… excessive rise

It is not a complaint about prices… it is an observation from an Australian perspective

If your country gets an annual wage rise of 20%, then good on you… but we don’t

That was the only discussion intended… if you (anybody) go on and on about why or how, or why not…then a worthwhile debate cannot be upheld

You make valid observations yourself…

Redbeard wrote:
When they gave us something we wanted (apocalypse) we bought it, in large quantities. When they gave us Spearhead, we yawned and ignored them. I think the real issue isn't in the price increases, it's in the lack of reasons for me to buy stuff.

However, the fact remains that if the sale of 1000 items generates $1000 one year

If then, in the following year, sales are 900 items, then that generates $900 unless you increase prices AND cut costs

Eventually, the cost of each item will be unsellable to generate the regular expected (or higher) profit

Nonetheless, I still believe that all debates should be about GW business practices involving treatment of current followers (vets) and embracing the Internet and not the rules, or detail, or price

GW should be like FW where all the prices are in GBP and uses the Internet for sales regardless where you live

Mik

carmachu wrote:
When you start your belief with the words "you cannot convience me" thats firmly in the camp of fan boy when it involves favor to GW, just as we have names like hater for folks that cannot be convinced of good GW does.

Having 'names', or 'labels' for people who don't agree with you is simply a way for you to marginalize any voice that doesn't agree with you so that you can ignore it. It's bad logic and bad conversation.

YOU stated you cannot be convince, despite any and all facts to the contray

You're right. I said YOU cannot convince me that GW lost sales units between 2008-2009. I'm not illiterate, I can, and have, read the annual report. Sure, there were some currency fluctuations mentioned. Of course, doesn't that mean that all UK companies should have benefited the same? But, even discounting that, their sales increased. Here's a quote from that document, "Our profits, year on year, have improved a lot; the underlying
growth in our core business is more modest. Nevertheless it is there." - Tom Kirby, Chaiman's Preamble.

You want me to take your word, some random guy off the internet, who claims their sales didn't grow in that one specific year, over the chairman of the company, who is bound to be honest in his report? And you call me unreasonable. You cannot convince me despite facts to the contrary, because the facts are not to the contrary. GW may have lost sales volume four of the last five years, but not every year. That's the truth, that's the facts, and it's right there, in their annual statement.

You seem to have an ax to grind with GW. I don't. I believe that, in the interest of better discourse, you have to be willing to see the positive as well as the negative, even when criticizing someone.


Re: Apocalypse box sales:

If they were profitable, wouldnt they keep selling them?

That depends if they were profitable enough, I guess. And discounts the idea of diminishing returns. Look, the casual gamer isn't going to walk into a GW shop and walk out with a company of marines. At some point, the people who want a whole company have bought it. The key is to make just enough for the people who want them to buy them, and no more, because a full company of marines sitting on a shelf not being sold is of far less value than the equivalent stock broken down into unit packages that move every week or month.

I think this report will be very similar to last year's - slightly higher profit, falling unit sales, falling costs. They might make a big deal over Dark Eldar, Grey Knights and WH8, but WH8 overall seems to have turned many people away, whilst DE's success was cancelled in part by their lacklustre Christmas period.

It is easy to see why GW sales are declining:
1) High unit/startup/overall RRP for kits turns many newcomers and veterans away.
2) Slow release schedule, especially for WH8.
3) Using more profitable areas of the business to prop up the declining store model - and switching to one-man stores.
4) Lack of regard for competitors - many other mini's companies are approaching/surpassing GW's quality in both miniatures and rules, whilst being cheaper to boot.
5) Lack of respect for customer base - the Finecast, Southern Hemisphere Embargo, price hikes and preview debacles have generated ill will amongst their previously loyal customers.

Unfortunately, I don't think any of point 5 will reflect in the report: it was far too soon before the EOFY that they can probably have enormous claims like 'we're significantly reducing costs for next year, buy now!!' without relaying any of the customer reaction.

Redbeard wrote:

Having 'names', or 'labels' for people who don't agree with you is simply a way for you to marginalize any voice that doesn't agree with you so that you can ignore it. It's bad logic and bad conversation.

Says the man who has basically stuck his fingers in his ears, adn said "I cant hear you", yet keeps going on in the discussion. becuause that does wonders for conversation and logic.

You're right. I said YOU cannot convince me that GW lost sales units between 2008-2009. I'm not illiterate, I can, and have, read the annual report. Sure, there were some currency fluctuations mentioned. Of course, doesn't that mean that all UK companies should have benefited the same? But, even discounting that, their sales increased. Here's a quote from that document, "Our profits, year on year, have improved a lot; the underlying
growth in our core business is more modest. Nevertheless it is there." - Tom Kirby, Chaiman's Preamble.

Right. You wont believe anyone in the discussion, yet you'll believe the chairman's words, but without backing up with a single shread of actual numbers.

Post the numbers of unit sales from 2007-2008, then compare them to 2008-2009. Otherwise its just corporate speak, which we have heard before. It doesnt mean unit sales have grown, it can easily be said that its just more money at the bottome figure.

You want me to take your word, some random guy off the internet, who claims their sales didn't grow in that one specific year, over the chairman of the company, who is bound to be honest in his report? And you call me unreasonable. You cannot convince me despite facts to the contrary, because the facts are not to the contrary. GW may have lost sales volume four of the last five years, but not every year. That's the truth, that's the facts, and it's right there, in their annual statement.

You have no facts. NONE. You have some words from kirby, but you have no numbers to back them up. Your facts arent facts. Show me where the 5th year the volume of unit sales have grown.

You seem to have an ax to grind with GW. I don't. I believe that, in the interest of better discourse, you have to be willing to see the positive as well as the negative, even when criticizing someone.

It seems I was accurate with fanboy, as you seem to just want to stick with yoru opiniuon. I suggest, in the interest of better discourse, you actually learn what facts are. Because you have none at the moment.

That depends if they were profitable enough, I guess. And discounts the idea of diminishing returns. Look, the casual gamer isn't going to walk into a GW shop and walk out with a company of marines. At some point, the people who want a whole company have bought it. The key is to make just enough for the people who want them to buy them, and no more, because a full company of marines sitting on a shelf not being sold is of far less value than the equivalent stock broken down into unit packages that move every week or month.

No there is no depends. If tehy were profitable enough, they would continue. GW would LOVE for a casual gamer to walk into GW and walk out having bought a comapny of marines. They are all about the churn, not the long term gamer.

Kilkrazy wrote:

pixelpusher wrote:

Can't really compare Tamiya or Dragon kits to GW.

Why not?

They are polystyrene model kits for hobbyists.

The design and production method is the same.

Absolutely, and for anyone who has ever made a Hasagawa or Dragon kit, they will agree that the level of detail and workmanship involved in their production is far better than any of the tank plastic kits that GW has on the market right now. I would say that the Storm Raven looks more like Fisher Price by comparison.

If Mantic start producing tank kits that are a fraction of the price to GW, yet of similar standards, then we might finally see the latter pull their finger out of their bottoms and start producing product that is a of quality to match the price range.

carmachu wrote:
Right. You wont believe anyone in the discussion, yet you'll believe the chairman's words, but without backing up with a single shread of actual numbers.

Post the numbers of unit sales from 2007-2008, then compare them to 2008-2009. Otherwise its just corporate speak, which we have heard before. It doesnt mean unit sales have grown, it can easily be said that its just more money at the bottome figure.

I fail to understand why you believe the burden of proof is on me. You made a claim, without posting any numbers backing it up. I called you on it. You started the very responsible tactic of calling me names, and calling for me to post numbers that you know as well as I do aren't publicly available. But that's not how it works. You want to claim that they've lost unit-to-unit sales for five straight years, it's on you to prove it. Otherwise, no, they haven't. And, yes, I'll take the chairman of the company's word on this over yours. He states that there was moderate growth, and the numbers that we do have available (something like 3% sales growth in constant currency terms), in a year where they put out a very successful expansion, seem to back that up.

Anyway, you're not going to back up your claim with data, so we're done here.

Therefore, when an item goes up by 15-20% every year or so… it IS excessive

Some items went up by almost 40% this year, and were produced in a cheaper material.

Unfortunately, Redbeard, you also made a claim - that, despite what carmachu has been saying, you claimed that sales had increased this year.

Redbeard wrote:
But, even discounting that, their sales increased. Here's a quote from that document, "Our profits, year on year, have improved a lot; the underlying
growth in our core business is more modest. Nevertheless it is there." - Tom Kirby, Chaiman's Preamble.

I, too, have read the latest financial report, and it does say that their sales have decreased. From page 5 of the 2009-2010 full financial yearly report:

"Sales are down on last year on a constant currency basis despite strong growth from the new Games Workshop Webstore. We increased the number of
Hobby centres by 27 stores during the year, but the growth from these was not able to offset the decline in existing stores."

infinite_array wrote:Unfortunately, Redbeard, you also made a claim - that, despite what carmachu has been saying, you claimed that sales had increased this year.

Redbeard wrote:
But, even discounting that, their sales increased. Here's a quote from that document, "Our profits, year on year, have improved a lot; the underlying
growth in our core business is more modest. Nevertheless it is there." - Tom Kirby, Chaiman's Preamble.

I, too, have read the latest financial report, and it does say that their sales have decreased. From page 5 of the 2009-2010 full financial yearly report:

"Sales are down on last year on a constant currency basis despite strong growth from the new Games Workshop Webstore. We increased the number of
Hobby centres by 27 stores during the year, but the growth from these was not able to offset the decline in existing stores."

Wait, GW unit sales have decreased... how to fix this?

INCREASE PRICES!

infinite_array wrote:Unfortunately, Redbeard, you also made a claim - that, despite what carmachu has been saying, you claimed that sales had increased this year.

Redbeard wrote:
But, even discounting that, their sales increased. Here's a quote from that document, "Our profits, year on year, have improved a lot; the underlying
growth in our core business is more modest. Nevertheless it is there." - Tom Kirby, Chaiman's Preamble.

I, too, have read the latest financial report, and it does say that their sales have decreased. From page 5 of the 2009-2010 full financial yearly report:

"Sales are down on last year on a constant currency basis despite strong growth from the new Games Workshop Webstore. We increased the number of
Hobby centres by 27 stores during the year, but the growth from these was not able to offset the decline in existing stores."

Except Redbeard is talking about the 08-09 report, not the 09/10 report. Sales decreased in 09/10, but increased in 08/09. Everyone happy now?

More on the recession: http://news.yahoo.com/flat-jobs-data-signal-weakest-recovery-decades-211320802.html

U.S. based, interesting to note:

"Workers' hourly pay fell in June. They worked fewer hours. And 16.2 percent of those who wanted to work were either unemployed, forced to settle for part-time jobs or had given up looking for work. That figure was up from 15.8 percent in May."

"The tepid recovery is taking a toll on consumers, whose spending accounts for 70 percent of economic activity. The Conference Board business group said last week that its consumer confidence index fell to 58.5 in June. A healthy reading is 90. At this point after the previous three recessions, the index averaged 87."

I do not understand how people considering GW's bottom line can be ignoring, or understating the impact of the worldwide financial conditions to the extent that they are, or, for that matter, how GW's executives can claim that they're completely immune to such economic conditions.

The information you've quoted still does not put us into another recession.

For 1H2011, non-farm payrolls are up quite materially. Unemployment overall is lower, although not as low as it has been in 2011 when it was sub-9%. Even in the report you cited, the biggest drop was in government payrolls, most other industry sectors actually increased.

The S&P is up 20% YoY. The Dow is up 25% YoY.

Job creation and equity growth (especially to this extent) simply does not occur in recessions.

There's a lot that isn't good with the US and the world in general right now, but the simple fact is that it's still far, far better than 2009. We are not in a recession, regardless of how the media or your personal 'feel' for the economic situation interprets the facts.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Redbeard wrote:I do not understand how people considering GW's bottom line can be ignoring, or understating the impact of the worldwide financial conditions to the extent that they are...

If you truly believe the world is in a worst place today than it was 2-3 years ago, then I can understand how this doesn't make sense to you.

For a number of reasons, including accommodative monetary policy and therefore the weakness of the dollar relative to other currencies (which does not help UK-based GW as much, other than protecting more versus raw material inflation in GBP-denominations) corporate profitability (and therefore stock valuations) are higher.

Redbeard wrote:
I do not understand how people considering GW's bottom line can be ignoring, or understating the impact of the worldwide financial conditions to the extent that they are, or, for that matter, how GW's executives can claim that they're completely immune to such economic conditions.

when looking at a set of results one ALWAYS looks at the impact of outside environment Part of the outside environment is looking at the economy but a major part is looking at how competitors are doing because they are facing the same conditions. So, part of what is needed to look at is how have sales/ growth etc been for companies like PP, Reaper and the company that produces Malifaux.

Traditionally it has always been held that a recession doesn't overly impact the gaming industry and infact there is often a slight uptick in traditional boardgames as people don't go out as often to restaurents and bars etc. Don't have any figures to prove that - you would need to speak to someone who analyses the gaming industry. This is why both sides of the argument tend to ignore recession impacts. I do however agree with Sourclams that the recession is by and large over but I don't believe that Joe Public actually believes that and with the economy perception is often reality.

When I look at GW results I don't look at the bottom line first - no-one really does. It is how you get to the bottom line that is important. For this, I am looking at sales primarily. Constant sales growth once you strip out currency, price rises and any impact Black Library has is what I am looking for - it gives me a gut feel for unit sales. Constant sales isn't necessary bad (sometimes growth if uncontrolled is bad), obviously more is good and less is bad. Bearing in mind new players are an investment that produce future returns a downward blip may not necessarily be a one off and the impact can drag out.

Control over costs during a recession is extremely important. No-one can argue that GW hasn't addressed this. I would argue that the one man store is going to be a longer term failure - it is cutting cost but I believe it is cutting costs at the expense of growth and revenue. This fact was acknowledged in the report.

I actually ignore licences for GW. Yes it is great to have but it isn't the core of the business. Without the core the licences wouldn;t exist so to me licences are just icing on the cake.

When I read this years results I will be focusing on cashflows - I am still curious as to their dividend policy as I really didn;t think they would restart dividends so soon but I am willing to bet the pressure to do so is immense. But again, having an active in the business COB owning 6% (from memory) of such a small company worries me when he personally benefits for each decision he makes - especially as there is talk of him wanting to leave/ retire. Part of me last year when I read the results wondered if the comapny was being plumped up for sale.

We may not be in a recession, but we're not exactly booming in recovery either. And just because it's not as bad as two years ago, doesn't mean it still isn't bad. Corporate profitability is up. That's great, if you're a corporation, or if you sell to corporations, or even if you're lucky enough to own shares of corporations.

But as the jobs report shows, corporations aren't exactly using that profit to hire new people. Unemployment is still high, underemployment is higher, and companies like GW that sell non-vital goods to consumers aren't recovering nearly as well as companies that sell to governments or other corporations.

I'm not disagreeing with anything you said, I'm just not sure that the well-being of Caterpillar, IBM and Walmart can be applied to expectations for a luxury toy manufacturer.

Redbeard wrote:

I fail to understand why you believe the burden of proof is on me. You made a claim, without posting any numbers backing it up. I called you on it. You started the very responsible tactic of calling me names, and calling for me to post numbers that you know as well as I do aren't publicly available. But that's not how it works. You want to claim that they've lost unit-to-unit sales for five straight years, it's on you to prove it. Otherwise, no, they haven't. And, yes, I'll take the chairman of the company's word on this over yours. He states that there was moderate growth, and the numbers that we do have available (something like 3% sales growth in constant currency terms), in a year where they put out a very successful expansion, seem to back that up.

Anyway, you're not going to back up your claim with data, so we're done here.

You fail at alot of things here. You acknowlege the fact just a couple posts ago, that YES GW has had less unit sales BUT taht one year they didnt. And post up kirby's line. SO you already agreed, except for that one year. YOU claimed they went up. So you can back up your claim, not me.

In your view, are GW getting any real sales growth in terms of revenue and/or units?

I'd love a positive result. I am Manager Red Shirt at my Store. No. I don't force people to buy things. I am different to most stores.

If there is a person who I haven't meet I ask them a few questions, if they aren't new to the hobby, I ask what army do you play, ask them would they like a seat at the painting table, if they don't have anything. Make a few suggestions and walk off chilled.

If not, I am forced by GW to introduce them via one of three, starting games etc. After that I actually help them by showing e.g. of models other than Ultramarines if they play Space Marines.

I know, I know Games Workshop is not a Utopia for everyone I don't drive sales, I tell people about the costs etc. and I do care about the community. 8 years of being Manager.

Redbeard wrote:But as the jobs report shows, corporations aren't exactly using that profit to hire new people.

Actually to a modest extent they are. The 'big' job losses were mostly in gov't. Private sector overall was hiring.

Unemployment is still high, underemployment is higher, and companies like GW that sell non-vital goods to consumers aren't recovering nearly as well as companies that sell to governments or other corporations.

Can you cite some relevant facts to back this one up?

I just looked on a whim at stuff that I consider non-vital goods like Bed, Bath and Beyond (up 50% YoY), Apple (up 42% YoY, although admittedly stagnant through 2011), and Limited Brands (Victoria's Secret, higher-end women's retail, up about 50%).

More recent, but still relevant, according to the Privateer Press staff, their sales orders have roughly quadrupled (orders, for individual SKUs/product, not profitability/sales $/revenue) resulting in the recent shortfalls of production relative to demand. I would not necessarily believe this coming from PP if I hadn't experienced the pain of waiting three months to get two boxes of Kayazy Assassins with my Underboss still stuck in backorder limbo.

So I really do wonder where this giant macro sledgehammer hitting GW that you're citing is, because it simply isn't evident in the world of $300 bed sheets, iPhones, and women's intimate apparel. It also doesn't seem evident in US-based Miniatures Wargaming.

I'm not disagreeing with anything you said, I'm just not sure that the well-being of Caterpillar, IBM and Walmart can be applied to expectations for a luxury toy manufacturer.

How about Privateer Press?

Actually if you look back over six years, GW's revenue was down year on year from 2005 to 2008 when the economy was in supposedly good health.

It has grown slightly in the past couple of years post Lehman Brothers.

And that really is the more significant measure; versus the broader market, GW does very, very badly. 'Up' isn't necessarily good, if you're up 1% and everything else is up 10%+.

sourclams wrote:

Redbeard wrote:But as the jobs report shows, corporations aren't exactly using that profit to hire new people.

Actually to a modest extent they are. The 'big' job losses were mostly in gov't. Private sector overall was hiring.

Unemployment is still high, underemployment is higher, and companies like GW that sell non-vital goods to consumers aren't recovering nearly as well as companies that sell to governments or other corporations.

Can you cite some relevant facts to back this one up?

I just looked on a whim at stuff that I consider non-vital goods like Bed, Bath and Beyond (up 50% YoY), Apple (up 42% YoY, although admittedly stagnant through 2011), and Limited Brands (Victoria's Secret, higher-end women's retail, up about 50%).

More recent, but still relevant, according to the Privateer Press staff, their sales orders have roughly quadrupled (orders, for individual SKUs/product, not profitability/sales $/revenue) resulting in the recent shortfalls of production relative to demand. I would not necessarily believe this coming from PP if I hadn't experienced the pain of waiting three months to get two boxes of Kayazy Assassins with my Underboss still stuck in backorder limbo.

So I really do wonder where this giant macro sledgehammer hitting GW that you're citing is, because it simply isn't evident in the world of $300 bed sheets, iPhones, and women's intimate apparel. It also doesn't seem evident in US-based Miniatures Wargaming.

I'm not disagreeing with anything you said, I'm just not sure that the well-being of Caterpillar, IBM and Walmart can be applied to expectations for a luxury toy manufacturer.

How about Privateer Press?

Privateer Press is a small threat, they don't own Hobby Centers of what I know of and their Models are inferior in quality.

Ultramarinescout wrote:
Privateer Press is a small threat, they don't own Hobby Centers of what I know of and their Models are inferior in quality.

Implying that it is a given Hobby Centers are a good thing....and given the Finecast launch quality is certainly subjective.

Regardless, let's not turn this into a PP v. GW thread please....the discussion regarding GW's financials is pretty interesting and would be a shame to derail.

AgeOfEgos wrote:

Ultramarinescout wrote:
Privateer Press is a small threat, they don't own Hobby Centers of what I know of and their Models are inferior in quality.

Implying that it is a given Hobby Centers are a good thing....and given the Finecast launch quality is certainly subjective.

Regardless, let's not turn this into a PP v. GW thread please....the discussion regarding GW's financials is pretty interesting and would be a shame to derail.

I was not talking about Finecast, even the non-finecast Models are better detailed than Privateer Press. IMO Hobby Centres are great, it gives me a job and I help people develop skills in the hobby.

sourclams wrote:And that really is the more significant measure; versus the broader market, GW does very, very badly. 'Up' isn't necessarily good, if you're up 1% and everything else is up 10%+.

It's one of the few times I wish PP was traded....so we could accurately compare growth.

For the purposes of this discussion, I don't care in the least about the quality of PP versus GW models, game, hobby, whatever.

I am simply commenting on the incredible growth in sales that PP has been experiencing over the past 6 months relative to what is clearly a more stagnant trend for GW, and how the 'recession' that the US has been asserted to be in is hurting 'luxury toys/goods' sales, and how the data doesn't seem to back up that assertion.

And yes, having a much smaller market presence than GW makes it easy for relatively small absolute volumes to create big fractional increases when the denominator is tiny to begin with.

Ultramarinescout wrote:

sourclams wrote:

Redbeard wrote:But as the jobs report shows, corporations aren't exactly using that profit to hire new people.

Actually to a modest extent they are. The 'big' job losses were mostly in gov't. Private sector overall was hiring.

Unemployment is still high, underemployment is higher, and companies like GW that sell non-vital goods to consumers aren't recovering nearly as well as companies that sell to governments or other corporations.

Can you cite some relevant facts to back this one up?

I just looked on a whim at stuff that I consider non-vital goods like Bed, Bath and Beyond (up 50% YoY), Apple (up 42% YoY, although admittedly stagnant through 2011), and Limited Brands (Victoria's Secret, higher-end women's retail, up about 50%).

More recent, but still relevant, according to the Privateer Press staff, their sales orders have roughly quadrupled (orders, for individual SKUs/product, not profitability/sales $/revenue) resulting in the recent shortfalls of production relative to demand. I would not necessarily believe this coming from PP if I hadn't experienced the pain of waiting three months to get two boxes of Kayazy Assassins with my Underboss still stuck in backorder limbo.

So I really do wonder where this giant macro sledgehammer hitting GW that you're citing is, because it simply isn't evident in the world of $300 bed sheets, iPhones, and women's intimate apparel. It also doesn't seem evident in US-based Miniatures Wargaming.

I'm not disagreeing with anything you said, I'm just not sure that the well-being of Caterpillar, IBM and Walmart can be applied to expectations for a luxury toy manufacturer.

How about Privateer Press?

Privateer Press is a small threat, they don't own Hobby Centers of what I know of and their Models are inferior in quality.

I don't think the threat to GW is another company. It is the possibility that they price themselves out of the market.

I think sales will be up. A lot of my friends including myself did huge orders from Maelstrom before the ban came in.

None of has bought anything since then though.

Storms of Magic looks really good but sadly we won't be playing it.

The next report will be the really interesting one for me.

Glad I bought their models and not their shares.

@ Fullheadofhair - Thanks for posting always enjoy reading your posts, very informative

AgeOfEgos wrote:

Ultramarinescout wrote:
Privateer Press is a small threat, they don't own Hobby Centers of what I know of and their Models are inferior in quality.

Implying that it is a given Hobby Centers are a good thing....and given the Finecast launch quality is certainly subjective.

Regardless, let's not turn this into a PP v. GW thread please....the discussion regarding GW's financials is pretty interesting and would be a shame to derail.

PP is a small threat, true, but it isn't just PP now is it? There are multiple little companies taking a few dollars away from the money spent on GW - death by a thousand paper cuts? So there will be some impact to the financials. To say it doesn;t makes no sense - quantifying it on the hand would be very difficult as the I am 99.9999% positive that the analytics to hand for the gaming industry aren't the same as say the mobile phone industry.

Whilst I am one of the biggest screamers and whiners at how crap I think PP models are I actually par-took in the offer they did to capitalize on bad feeling to GW. Despite all my whining I now have $150 dollars worth of PP Everblight + a free rule book. If I can be persuaded to buy PP models then I would offer up the thought that maybe PP isn;t such a small threat and is going to be a larger one as time progresses.

From my perspective, if this report isn't good, or at least not bad, I really wonder how much of a bomb the January report could be?

fullheadofhair wrote:

AgeOfEgos wrote:

Ultramarinescout wrote:
Privateer Press is a small threat, they don't own Hobby Centers of what I know of and their Models are inferior in quality.

Implying that it is a given Hobby Centers are a good thing....and given the Finecast launch quality is certainly subjective.

Regardless, let's not turn this into a PP v. GW thread please....the discussion regarding GW's financials is pretty interesting and would be a shame to derail.

PP is a small threat, true, but it isn't just PP now is it? There are multiple little companies taking a few dollars away from the money spent on GW - death by a thousand paper cuts? So there will be some impact to the financials. To say it doesn;t makes no sense - quantifying it on the hand would be very difficult as the I am 99.9999% positive that the analytics to hand for the gaming industry aren't the same as say the mobile phone industry.

Whilst I am one of the biggest screamers and whiners at how crap I think PP models are I actually par-took in the offer they did to capitalize on bad feeling to GW. Despite all my whining I now have $150 dollars worth of PP Everblight + a free rule book. If I can be persuaded to buy PP models then I would offer up the thought that maybe PP isn;t such a small threat and is going to be a larger one as time progresses.

Meh. Flames of War is more likely a threat.

i see PP as a bigger threat to GW then flames of war or the other companies.


I rarely see much posted about flames of war or the others besides PP except by a few select people.


Its always.. PP this or GW that.

Ultramarinescout wrote:

fullheadofhair wrote:

PP is a small threat, true, but it isn't just PP now is it? There are multiple little companies taking a few dollars away from the money spent on GW - death by a thousand paper cuts? So there will be some impact to the financials. To say it doesn;t makes no sense - quantifying it on the hand would be very difficult as the I am 99.9999% positive that the analytics to hand for the gaming industry aren't the same as say the mobile phone industry.

Meh. Flames of War is more likely a threat.

Between the two of you, you both make the point- its not one or the other. Its the fact your picking something else besides GW. FoW, PP, Whatever.....

I kinda hope the sales are up. Then maybe we can see faster codex releases and new model output. Plus if they continue to go down then we may see a collapse after a few years of a down slope

Kilkrazy wrote:
I don't think the threat to GW is another company. It is the possibility that they price themselves out of the market.

It is the combination of the pricing themselves out of the market and there actually being viable alternatives that is going to make the next couple of years interesting.

That quickly put together offer by PP was a smart marketing move. I fell for it hook line and sinker. Spend $60-$70 get a free rule book - that was enough for me to get over the inertia of buying into PP. Having quick and nimble long term competitors who are viable businesses with a more global reach thanks to the development of the internet is something GW hasn't faced before.

sourclams wrote:
I just looked on a whim at stuff that I consider non-vital goods like Bed, Bath and Beyond (up 50% YoY), Apple (up 42% YoY, although admittedly stagnant through 2011), and Limited Brands (Victoria's Secret, higher-end women's retail, up about 50%).

Not to pick on you too much, but are you married? Bed Bath & Beyond and Victoria's Secret would not be considered non-vital in my house, and women have different priorities. Keeping a nice house and decent clothes certainly would take precedence over toy soldiers. What's more, they represent a small selection. What would happen if instead of Limited Brands, Bed, Bath&Beyond, and Apple, you had picked American Apparel, Linens & Things and Nokia? Bankrupt, Bankrupt, and Going Under.

Many of the companies that I'd consider to be in the same general realm as GW aren't publicly owned, and I don't know how to find their info. Things like Lionel Trains, or Gibson guitars - long-lasting toys with very limited non-luxury uses (unlike underwear or kitchen supplies). One that I did find was Harley Davidson, and yes, their sales have been down each of the last three years.

But that is all empirical. I do not question that GW has some issues facing them. But I don't believe that their issues are based on their prices - with the possible exception of the cost of the starter sets. I don't think their prices are out-of-line with the rest of their industry. I think they're more related to failing to make products (especially rulesets) that people are excited to buy, on a regular basis (yearly campaigns with model and rule support for each faction would do wonders here), and failure to have a good smaller-size game available as a lead-in to the full 2000+ point systems. I think this is why Malifaux and Warmachine are taking pieces of the market, because they do offer skirmish-size games. It's not because they're cheaper, because they're not. And it's not because they're offering higher quality miniatures either. Take those away, and it's a failing in the rules and product offerings. People say they're pricing themselves out - and I don't see that. I see a failure to create demand.

Redbeard wrote:

sourclams wrote:
I just looked on a whim at stuff that I consider non-vital goods like Bed, Bath and Beyond (up 50% YoY), Apple (up 42% YoY, although admittedly stagnant through 2011), and Limited Brands (Victoria's Secret, higher-end women's retail, up about 50%).

Not to pick on you too much, but are you married? Bed Bath & Beyond and Victoria's Secret would not be considered non-vital in my house, and women have different priorities. Keeping a nice house and decent clothes certainly would take precedence over toy soldiers. What's more, they represent a small selection. What would happen if instead of Limited Brands, Bed, Bath&Beyond, and Apple, you had picked American Apparel, Linens & Things and Nokia? Bankrupt, Bankrupt, and Going Under.

Without being rude in any shape or form but you are wrong with your logic and terminology and have been for many posts.

All the examples given by Sourclams are in the terms of the general economy are known as "non-vital". People may have different priorities but I am sure that when it comes to having to trim a household budget by some 20-30% because of longer term unemployment by one member of the household the first thing to go is trips to Victoria Secret. When I do debt counselling with people (I do it for free as my contribution to helping people learn what should be taught in school) I split spending between essential, needed and non vital. Where there is a deficit of income to expenditure guess which section gets cut first? The fact that elements of the economy that are non-vital are seeing some pick up is an indication that overall there is some form of recovery going one - what type, how strong and how sustainable it is is the million dollar question.

The examples you gave went under because they were badly run, had too much debt, had poor store placement and were relient on a good economy to make huge interest payments from over-leveragig and when the bad economy came they didn't have the reserves to cope with a severe blimp to their cashflow. Comparing Linenes and Things and BBB is like comparing Ford and Chrysaler - both car companies hit bad by a recession but only one needed bailing out before it died.

Individually GW models are only 25% to 400% more expensive than equivalent models from other companies.

It's the cost of rules and size of armies that makes GW so expensive.

Kilkrazy wrote:Individually GW models are only 25% to 400% more expensive than equivalent models from other companies.

It's the cost of rules and size of armies that makes GW so expensive.

For fantasy the costs to start are ridiculous. IoB + a $41.50 army book or if you don't want to do Skaven of Elf $80 rule book and a $41.50 army book. Outright stupidity. With the change in editions from 40k and fantasy I have gone from owning every army book/ codices and several armies in both systems to no 40k stuff at all, one fantasy rule book (gift), no new fantasy army books and only one fantasy army (orgres).

This change isn;t because of the economy - I am still a DINK with both of us working and no debt other than a mortgage and a high disposable income.

It isn't the cost of GW that has stopped me buying it is the cost to perceived value that has stopped me purchasing. I still fund my other hobbies quite happily - I have a bad military model habit.

fullheadofhair wrote:It isn't the cost of GW that has stopped me buying it is the cost to perceived value that has stopped me purchasing. I still fund my other hobbies quite happily - I have a bad military model habit.

I hope Redbeard reads this specifically (and I also in no way wish to present myself as being rude or picking on him) because his argument is primarily structured around relative perceived 'price' when GW's big problem when compared to other game systems is relative perceived 'worth'.

I agree with that though, Sourclams. I might not know the right terminology, and for that I apologize if I don't recognize a keyword here or there. But when I say that they're failing to create demand, it's that 'worth' factor that I'm referring to.

The games have lost appeal. In 40k, I don't know if that's because of the perceived dominance of spam armies, or the cookie-cutter-like codexes we've been handed lately, or something else.

Redbeard wrote:The games have lost appeal. In 40k, I don't know if that's because of the perceived dominance of spam armies, or the cookie-cutter-like codexes we've been handed lately, or something else.

I think that's a very interesting question that a lot of people on this board could probably chip in to answer.

For myself, in my area (where we have definitely experienced a shift away from GW in the gaming group) it seems to be a weird mesh of 'too competitive' and 'not competitive enough'.

The casual players don't like playing because they get beaten by internet lists featuring the aforementioned spam and special character hero-missiles like tricked out Twolf Lord and Mephiston.

The competitive players don't like playing because they get bogged down in interminable, inconsistent rules, FAQs, and 'just d6 it' disputes. For my group specifically, we also find Warmachine/Hordes to be a more rewarding game system (as opposed to lining up GW models and throwing buckets of dice at each other until someone "wins").

For the new player, though, I have to think that cost of entry into GW games is a hard pill to swallow. The recent price hike on codices seems absolute lunacy to me; GW should be giving this stuff away just to encourage potential newbies to pick up the game.

If they took the two-army starter sets, cut them in half and dropped $10 of the price of the half (so, $40 for your starter army), that'd go a long way, I think. Considering black reach, that's either a dread, 10 marines, 5 terminators and a captain, or 3 koptas, 20 orks, 5 nobs, and a warboss for $40. But they tie them together for $100 and that is a hard pill to swallow.

I don't think that making the starters more accessible in that way would cannibalize sales of other kits too much because of the limited poses and options in those sets, but it'd go a long way to making the entry point more accessible. Throw in some cardboard terrain with marginal cost and now you're competing against both WM and Malifaux for entry costs, with a lot more models to show for your starter set.

For that matter, why not do something similar for each main faction (marines, orks, eldar, guard, chaos), with starter boxes and single-pose models that can snap together and play quickly.

Maybe the next set of starters might see that. At the moment, they're tied together on the sprues though.

sourclams wrote:

For the new player, though, I have to think that cost of entry into GW games is a hard pill to swallow. The recent price hike on codices seems absolute lunacy to me; GW should be giving this stuff away just to encourage potential newbies to pick up the game.

Individual Army books are one of the things I think Privateer got right from the start. The Forces of Books are optional as all of the rules for units are contained on their cards. You really only need one for their theme force lists, or if you like the fluff. I also like their approach to offering both a hardcover and a softcover version of their books. Their core rulebooks are available readily for under $25.00 in softcover, and hardcover at around $10.00 more. Add on to that that even if you buy the Forces Of book, you're still spending less than you would just for a GW rulebook.

@Sourclams:

To me, the problem with the GW game is that there is an illusion of choice in the army books. Units that are obviously better get spammed. Sub par units don't even get sold. It is akin to a 100 item GOURMET buffet, where only 5 of the offered items are any good. While a lot of the food is passable (i.e. average) some of it is ineddible and they still charged you 100 item GOURMET prices. The defenders might say, well, fill up on the 5 good items then but they're missing the point. Not only was the product was advertised as a 100 item GOURMET buffet - but I didn't even get to choose which items were gourmet. The restaurant chose FOR ME. If I chose to eat something else, I'd be short-changing myself, as I'm being charged a premium. If I didn't want the choice, I'd have gone to a mere 20 or 30 item gourmet buffet. If I wasn't concerned about quality, I could have gone to McDonalds.

Hey were can i find the end year report

http://investor.games-workshop.com/

sourclams wrote:
For the new player, though, I have to think that cost of entry into GW games is a hard pill to swallow. The recent price hike on codices seems absolute lunacy to me; GW should be giving this stuff away just to encourage potential newbies to pick up the game.

They used to do this in GW Japan, at least, you could download Japanese versions of the codices for free. However, they've stopped this model now, as GW is attempting to "standardize" everything in order to cut costs. Even the Japanese website was drastically changed to fit the form of the NA/UK/EU website early this month.

keezus wrote:@Sourclams:

To me, the problem with the GW game is that there is an illusion of choice in the army books. Units that are obviously better get spammed. Sub par units don't even get sold. It is akin to a 100 item GOURMET buffet, where only 5 of the offered items are any good. While a lot of the food is passable (i.e. average) some of it is ineddible and they still charged you 100 item GOURMET prices. The defenders might say, well, fill up on the 5 good items then but they're missing the point. Not only was the product was advertised as a 100 item GOURMET buffet - but I didn't even get to choose which items were gourmet. The restaurant chose FOR ME. If I chose to eat something else, I'd be short-changing myself, as I'm being charged a premium. If I didn't want the choice, I'd have gone to a mere 20 or 30 item gourmet buffet. If I wasn't concerned about quality, I could have gone to McDonalds.

So why ARE you concerned about quality? Don't concern yourself with quality and you have very many more options.

Hi all.
GW plc has a MASSIVE problem with percived value for money.

Collectors will just buy the minatures that appeal to them.
So a minature company can sell low volume (white metal casting ) minatures to collectors, if the quality of the casting and the asthetic is high, compared to the retail price.(This is subjective BTW, what I think is AWSOME others might think is AWFUL. )

To sell more minatures you need to add more percived worth and purpose to the minatures.

A game to use the minatures in is a great idea!
This then appeals to gamer and collectors.

The higher vulomes allows the most popular minature ranges to be produced in plastic , which lends it self to the economies of scale, the more you sell the lower the overhead manufacturing/develpment cost , the more profit you make!

To keep people engaged with the gaming system and related products ,you HAVE to focus on long term game play.

However ,GW plc assumed it could just focus on short term marketing to the easiest to please.

Which is the easiest way to achive short term profits,at the cost of long term growth!

Over the last decade,(2000-2010) Gw plc has increased its turn over by 35%.This is apporximatley in line with inflation .
However prices have risen by 130%.
This means a fall in sales volumes of about 40%

GW plc NOW has the following problems...

New customers (11 to 16 yo boys,) that have had the rules written to appeal to them , very often (parents,) can not afford the start up cost.

And the customers that CAN afford the GW plc products, are often savy enough to compare them to other companies offerings, that have beter gameplay/support , and often at a cheaper price!

IF GW plc had focused more on game play and game support, (like they did 1995 -1998 when they doubled turn over!)
They would be in a much better position now.

Have you got the figures for 2000 to 2005?

The Investor Relations section of the GW site only has 2006 onwards.

Kouzuki wrote:So why ARE you concerned about quality? Don't concern yourself with quality and you have very many more options.

You're kidding right? They advertise on the basis of quality (i.e. BEST), and CHARGE you according to that basis. That's like going to a Porsche dealership, paying the Porsche MSRP and getting a rebadged Hyundai. Sure, Hyundai cars have come a long way and are actually pretty decent, but the fact of the matter is... it's not the Porsche you PAID FOR. If I wanted a Hyundai in the first place, I'd buy from Hyundai at Hyundai prices.

Ultramarinescout wrote:

sourclams wrote:

Redbeard wrote:But as the jobs report shows, corporations aren't exactly using that profit to hire new people.

Actually to a modest extent they are. The 'big' job losses were mostly in gov't. Private sector overall was hiring.

Unemployment is still high, underemployment is higher, and companies like GW that sell non-vital goods to consumers aren't recovering nearly as well as companies that sell to governments or other corporations.

Can you cite some relevant facts to back this one up?

I just looked on a whim at stuff that I consider non-vital goods like Bed, Bath and Beyond (up 50% YoY), Apple (up 42% YoY, although admittedly stagnant through 2011), and Limited Brands (Victoria's Secret, higher-end women's retail, up about 50%).

More recent, but still relevant, according to the Privateer Press staff, their sales orders have roughly quadrupled (orders, for individual SKUs/product, not profitability/sales $/revenue) resulting in the recent shortfalls of production relative to demand. I would not necessarily believe this coming from PP if I hadn't experienced the pain of waiting three months to get two boxes of Kayazy Assassins with my Underboss still stuck in backorder limbo.

So I really do wonder where this giant macro sledgehammer hitting GW that you're citing is, because it simply isn't evident in the world of $300 bed sheets, iPhones, and women's intimate apparel. It also doesn't seem evident in US-based Miniatures Wargaming.

I'm not disagreeing with anything you said, I'm just not sure that the well-being of Caterpillar, IBM and Walmart can be applied to expectations for a luxury toy manufacturer.

How about Privateer Press?

Privateer Press is a small threat, they don't own Hobby Centers of what I know of and their Models are inferior in quality.

??? Where did this opinion come out of left field?

Privateer Press is only the tip of the iceburge. GW is losing ground. Losing ground in terms of sales, in terms of quality themselves, and in terms of product quality.

They are not "High end" anymore. anymore then Target is a high end store. They are living off of the termination of employees, stores, product, and thier overall self inflated ego.

The "Recession" talk is more then I wish to get into here in this thread, but in the short comment on it,- It isn't just the product, it is the overall price in things people don't usually take into consideration, and then in turn have the direct effect on end product prices. ( I/E transportation costs, fuel, food, raw materials, fees government interaction, etc. all the way down to the cost of your salery.)

As an aded thought, those "Stores.. er "Hobby Centers" or whater they want to call them that you allude to are part in parcel to the issue.

I can honestly say that if they really wanted to profit, they would close these stores beacuse of the drains on end bottom line results.

Privateer DOESN'T NEED them, and uses the Internet, interaction, and uses consumer relations 110% in proportion to thier profits.

They don't need the store. They have the game speak for itself. As to those "Inferior" materials, I'm sorry, but your going to have to provide examples on that claim.

Make no mistake. I'm not drinking the kool aid on the issue, and I find several points of contention with PP's game and design process, but in terms of customer relations, GW is clearly the ones lacking in commitment and found with the " inferior product".

I think with the huge emergence of all these other games systems GW will HAVE to start picking their game up.

I've got two full armies in 40k (I know, a drop in the ocean compared to some) and been playing solidly the past 4 years and before that I was on and off. I am hardly a veteran but already I have started forces in FoW, Malifaux and soon Infinity. I won't start Warmahordes as it just doesn't appeal to me.

However - GW have lost out on my FoW money (roughly £100/150), Malifaux starter set (£17.50) and I looking to spend about £70 on a 300 point Infinity army.

If these games didn't exist or were so popular then GW would be that much better off. I am sure this is the same with many gamers. There are only so many Spearhead Annihilation missions I can take!

It seems the other games companies (Mantic aside) seem to be focusing on smaller games that are almost RPG like. They are cheap to start up, they have massive immersion and most have awesome rules.

Hi Killkrazy.
Here are the figures for the start and end of the LoTR bubble...

(Official record began...1995 turn over 30M,by 1998 turn over 60M!)

2000 turn over 78M operating profit 10M
2001 turn over 92.6M operating profit 9.4M

2004 turn over 151.8M operating proft 19.9 M
2005 turn over 136.6 M operating profit 13.9 M

Am I being cynical , or would the 2004-2005 figures make the current reports look a bit lack luster...

TTFN

05 is interesting.

What happened there? Did costs simply balloon?

sourclams wrote:05 is interesting.

What happened there? Did costs simply balloon?

Its not so much 2005 ballon costs or such, but rather 2004 was an anomoly year for profits. GW was steadily going down, 2001-2003, then 2004 spiked up for some reason which 7 years later alludes me.

Tail end of the LoTR boom perhaps. Didn't the final film come out in 2003?

Do people have the figures for 2002 and 2003?

I am trying to build a complete set of data for the last decade, adjusted for inflation.

Personally, i played fantasy for something like 7 years. Then i switched my main gaming over to kings of war (mantics ruleset).

For alot of that time I bought what i liked, and did not work on building a concrete army. Finally in those last two years i built up an undead (TK army)

Now in my (th year of wargaming, I cannot see the point of shelling out three times the price for models which are arguably comparable in quality to mantic's offerings. For me, the "worth factor" is not there.

At GW, i can spend $354 USD to buy the equivalent of Helkiaths undead horde army deal made by mantic which is priced at $125

The Gw models are over 200% more in price, and To me there is the same artistic and gaming value as the Mantic ones.

Hi Killkrazy.

Here are the figures for 2002-2003.(Mid LoTR boom.)

2002 turn over 108.6M oprerating profit 13.5 M

2003 turn over 129.1 M operating profit 17.5M.

Please post up your inflation adjusted figures.(Can you include price rise adjustments as well, just for fun ?)

I'll incorporate the figures for the past 10 years and post a chart.

I don't what GW price increase rate has been so I would have to guess and model it (5% a year kind of thing).

Hi Killkrazy.
As reguards price rises.
5% per year is a bit low...It averages out about 10 % to 12% per year think.
(Can you get prices of items out of WD over the past few years to get a more accurate acessment?Eg codex-army book prices, and other standard items.)

Someone who had a back catalogue of WD could do that.

The last WD I bought was in 2006.


Automatically Appended Next Post:


OK, a bit of explanation is needed.

The image shows a spreadsheet I made of GW's revenues over the past 11 years.

The Year column at left shows the year (duh) and the Adj. Rev. M£ column shows the Revenue result posted by GW in their annual report, adjusted for constant currency by them. (Constant Currency adjustment is a way of removing the swings caused by international exchange rate changes.)

Across the top I have the year again and below that the inflation rate for the year, taken from UK Consumer Price Index. 100.00 indicates inflation of 0%. 102.3675 indicates inflation of 2.3675 % compared to the previous year.

Using this data I have "inflated" each year's revenue by the following year's inflation to bring all revenue figures up to 2010 values. This allows us to compare the revenue performance on the same baseline.

In other words, the column of real interest is the 2010 column as this shows the revenues in 2010 prices.

This shows us GW ending the 90s in good shape and turning over more than £100M in modern prices. LoTR hits in 2001 and earnings show a five year bubble before suddenly collapsing in 2006 to 2007. Revenues have been pretty static for the past four years, though clearly they are significantly higher in the late 90s.

Of course this is not the complete picture. This does not show us profit, or sales (in terms of boxes shifted).

Blegh. IIRC: *edit - going from memory - Canadian MSRP for battleforces starting in 3rd Edition were:

$75 - 3rd Edition Begins (not entirely sure, but somewhere in my mind I believe that the battleforces STARTED at this price).
$90 - Heyday of 3rd Edition
$100 - 3rd Edition is winding down
$105 - End of 3rd Edition
$120 - 4th Edition
$130 - Height of 4th Edition (US MSRP on battleforces were $90 during this period.)
$108 - Somewhere in 5th Edition (GW North America Restructure - American battleforce prices did not change IIRC.)
$130 - Current price.

What is also somewhat interesting is tracking battleforce contents alongside the cost.

Battleforce MK1 (3rd Ed)
Tactical Squad
Landspeeder
Tactical Terminators
3 Bikes
Gothic Ruin Sprue

Battleforce MK2 (4th Ed) <- Actually, this one pissed me off a LOT, considering that they were charging Canadians $130 for this drek.
Tactical Squad
Combat Squad
Command Squad
Razorback transport

Modern Battleforce (5th Ed)
Tactical Squad
Combat Squad
Rhino
Assault Marines
Scouts

Ultramarinescout wrote:
Privateer Press is a small threat, they don't own Hobby Centers of what I know of and their Models are inferior in quality.

1. Privateer Press doesn't use Hobby Centers because they support local stores(something I miss GW doing from the past). That's why you'll see them do their exclusives that require buying things to require a receipt from a B&M store and will not accept equivalent from online stores. IMO, this is something they do better than GW, as I have found Hobby Centers inferior to FLGS in every instance I've been to one.

2. They're inferior in your opinion. I own a lot of models from both companies(spanning their various lines) and find they tend to be equal in quality when taken across both lines(some are worse and better on both sides). I understand you're a GWHC manager, but don't mouthpiece the company lines as facts when the evidence proves you wrong in something that is down to personal tastes to begin with, excepting on the technical side, which ALSO proves you wrong as the quality of sculpts from a technical stand point are just as good.

If we want to derive GW's annual price increases from past prices we need to look at items which haven't changed over time, such as standard box sets.

Tau would be a pretty good pick for this. The Devilfish, Hammerhead, Crisis Suit, Fire Warrior and Kroot box sets are exactly the same contents now as when launched in 2001. We can get 10 years of price inflation from those.

Bezerker boxes, too, KK. They haven't changed other than having different covers over the years.

They debuted at $25 USD(IIRC) and are now up to $37.25 USD.

Between which years?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
We have to take into account that GW do not impose a standard price increase each year. This year prices were increased between 4% and 25% depending on the item. Therefore we have to find as many examples as possible in order to get a good average.

Kilkrazy wrote:Between which years?

That's what I'm looking for now. Unfortunately, I no longer own the WD they debuted in, so it's a bit harder.

I want to say '99 or 2000, as I remember is being released between the 3rd and 3.5 Chaos Codexes, but closer to the original 3rd codex.

You forgot a third option: an acounting audit reveals that Jervis IS using space marines as a drug front after all and GW is shut down as a result, lol.

Even without exact figures we can see that sales volumes are probably* declining because revenue is broadly static at £120m.

*Potentially they might not be if there has been a significant shift away from GW RRP (GW own stores and Direct) to independents, but my understanding is that GW RRP still accounts for over 50% of sales, so I find that difficult to believe.

I thought I had once seen a piece of work, possibly over at Warseer, that suggested price increases were equivalent to 12% a year.

Actually the picture is far worse than KillKrazy has started to highlight. One thing that needs to be stripped out of those sales figures is Black Library. Why? Because over the last 10 years BL has grown substantially and will skew any indication of core game unit volume you are trying to derive from revenue.I think back in 06 or 06 there was a comment as to how well BL was growing and it was at a time when revenue in total was diminishing.

We can't split Black Library sales out so there is no point in trying to account for them. We may as well assume they are not significant.

Off the top of my head, old 40k items that are still being sold - while it amazes me how much some of the ranges have evolved, it's equally shocking how many 2nd edition models are still being sold.

Eldar Avatar - 2nd Edition
Wraithguard - 2nd Edition
Warp Spiders - 2nd Edition
Warlocks* - Some date from 2nd Edition
Eldar Jetbikes - 2nd Edition
Shining Spears - 3rd Edition
Eldar Falcon* Arguable - repacked since 3rd Edition (received weapon sprue)
Eldar Vyper* Arguable - repacked since 3rd Edition (received weapon sprue)
Ork Warbuggy - 3rd Edition
Ork Skorcha - 3rd Edition
Catachans* Arguable - repacked since 3rd Edition
Cadians* Arguable - repacked since 3rd Edition
Sentinel - 3rd Edition
Rough Riders* - 2nd Edition
Rhino (and Razorback) - 3rd Edition
Land Raider - 3rd Edition
Tyranid Warriors - 3rd Edition
Necron - entire 2nd range - ??? Edition(?) *Wagering it's 3rd*
Sisters of Battle - 2nd Edition
Sisters of Battle Seraphim - 2nd Edition
Imperial Assassins - 2nd Edition
*Space Marine Tac Squad left off here because the sprue got recut.
Chaplain on Bike - 2nd Edition
Space Marine Bike / Squadron - 2nd Edition

Eldrad Ulthran - 2nd Edition
Pheonix Lords - 2nd Edition
Lord Dante - 2nd Edition
Captain Tycho - 2nd Edition
Commander Azrael - 2nd Edition
Chief Librarian Ezekiel - 2nd Edition
Lord Mephiston - 2nd Edition
Ragnar Blackmane - 2nd Edition
Logan Grimnar - 3rd Edition
Ghazgkhul Thraka - 3rd Edition
Comissar Yarrik - 3rd Edition
Abaddon the Despoiler - 2nd Edition (3rd?)
Kharn the Betrayer - 2nd Edition (3rd?)

Alright, I'll take up the challenge.

January 2000:
Imperial Guard Stormtroopers: £5.00 (3 models per blister)
Stormtrooper Sergeant: £3.00
Catachan Jungle Fighters: £12.00 (plastic, 20) - £0.6 each.

May 2002:
Tanith Ghosts: £6.00 (3 models per blister)
Catachan Jungle Fighters: £15.00 (plastic, 20) - £0.75 each.

October 2003:
Imperial Guard Kasrkin: £6.00 (3 models per blister)
Imperial Guard Kasrkin Sergeant: £4.00
Cadian Shock Troops: £15.00 (plastic, 20) - £0.75 each.

<<<Can't find my white dwarfs in the middle>>>>

April 2009: (Ish)
Cadian Shock Troops: £18.00 (plastic, 20) - £0.9 each.

May 2009:
Cadian Shock Troops: £12.00 (plastic, 10) - £1.2 each.
Imperial Guard Stormtrooper Sergeant: £6.00
Imperial Guard Stormtroopers: £10.00 (4 models per blister)

June 2010: (ish)
Cadian Shock Troops: £15.00 (plastic, 10) - £1.5 each.

July 2011:
Cadian Shock Troops: £18.00 (plastic, 10) - £1.8 each.
Imperial Guard Stormtrooper Sergeant: £7.50 (or £7.70)
Imperial Guard Stormtroopers: £10.75 (4 models per blister)

Nice work Compel!
This will be a good basis to work out RRP increases over time.
(Basic platic infantry prices, and non character metals.)

Looking at what you posted, this IS indicative of massive losses in sales volumes,especialy over the last few years.

(Belive the cost of 20 plastic minatures increased from £15 to £18 a box shortly after the release of 4th ed , end 2004-beginning 2005.Can somre one confirm this ?)

It could also be indicative of a move towards boxsets that have all options and command figures. Combine this with a reduction in associated blister packs for special weapons/command troops.

So for example, IG cadian box set in 2006 gives you troops for 2 or 3 squads, you will then need 1 or 2 blisters of specialist weapons troopers and maybe a command blister as well plus any Heavy weapons and Command squads you might want to add. All of this can now be purchased together as a single boxset.

Additionally bitz have been effectively dropped. This could have contributed many unit sales (not sure of GWs definition) that out stripped the actual revenue generated.

Actually... They arn't.

Except for being half the numbers and 3 times the price, the sets I've mentioned are exactly the same as they were the day they were released.

*Nothing* has changed with those models.

The point is that if GW sell 100M of stuff in year one, and 105M of stuff in year two, and they raised their prices 10% between year one and two, they sold less stuff in year two regardless of the number of boxes or contents of them.

The purpose of gathering the data about the composition and price of box sets is to be able to derive the GW price increase rate over time.

The Tau items are a very good baseline for measurement since they offer a range that covers most of an army and individually haven't changed at all for nearly 10 years.

All I need to know is the price of Tau boxes at release in 2001. Even the price in 2005 would be useful. (I don't trust my memory for it.)

White Dwarf 262 October 2001:

Tau Ethereal: £4.00
Kroot Carnivore Squad £15.00 (16 models)
Kroot Hounds: £4.00 (2 models)
Devilfish Troop Carrier: £18.00
Pathfinder Team Leader and shield drone: £5.00
Tail Pathfinders: £5.00 (3 models)
Tau Firewarrior Team: £15.00 (12 models + 2 shield drones)

Tau Battleforce: £50 (12 Fire Warriors, 12 Kroot, 3 Crisis Suits, 10 Drones, 1 set of jungle trees.



The prices in 2005 are around where my gap in my white dwarfs are..

Hi folks.
Can we not just use the figures Compel posted for the IG prices and apply them?
(As the Tau-Kroot pricing is at a similar level to the IG at 2001 Price point.)

Plastic minature (troop)
2000 60p.
2002 75P(+25%)
2005 90p((+50%)
2009 120p(+100%)
2010 150p(+150%)
2011 180P(+200%)

Single metal minature (Non-character.)
2000 £3
2001 £4(+34%)
2005 £5(+67%)
2009 £6(+100%)
2011 £7.5(+150)

As these are representative of the prices for collecting and playing an army.Is averaging these price increases, and applying them ok with you Killkrazy?

I'll put them in. I would still like a larger sample though.

Some SM stuff would be very useful.

From the 2002 catalog:

Space marine Dreadnought: £20
Space marine Whirlwind tank: £18
Space marine predator tank: £18
Space marine bike squadron (3 models): £18
Space marine scout bike squadron (3 models): £18
Space marine Predator annihilator tank: £18
Space marine attack bike: £10
Blood angels Furioso Dreadnought: £25
Space wolves Venerable Dreadnought: £25
Space marine bike: £5
Space marine Rhino: £12
Space marine Devastator squad: £18
Blood angels Death company (5 models): £10
Blood angels Baal predator: £18
Blood angels honor guard: £15
Space marine vindicator: £18
Space marine Land speeder tornado: £18
Dark angels Ravenwing command bike squad (3 models): £18
Master of the Ravenwing: £18
Space marine razorback: £18
Space marine Typhoon: £18
Space marine battleforce: £50
Space marine tactical squad (10 models): £15
Space marine land speeder: £15
Space marine combat squad (5 models): £6
Space marine assault squad (5 models): £12
Space wolf Grey hunters: £15
Space wolf battle force: £50
Space marine Land raider: £30
Space wolf Blood claws: £15
Space marine terminators (5 models): £15
Space marine scouts (5 models): £10
Space marine Command squad (5 models): £18
Space marine Chaplain on bike: £10
Space wolf Long fangs (5 models): £18
Space marine Land raider crusader: £35
Space marine Mega force: £75

Space marine Veteran sergeants (1 model): £4
Space marine with assault weapon: £3
Space marine scouts (2 models): £4
Space marine scout sergeant: £4
Space marine scout with heavy bolter: £4
Space marine scouts with sniper rifle (2 models): £4
Space marine scouts with shotgun (2 models): £4
Space marine scouts with boltguns: £4
Deathwing terminator with heavy flamer: £6
Deathwing terminator with assault cannon: £6
Deathwing terminator sergeant: £5
Deathwing terminator: £5
Deathwing terminator with Cyclone missile launcher: £6
Wolf guard terminator sergeant: £5
Wolf guard terminator with assault cannon: £6
Wolf guard terminator with heavy flamer: £6
Wolf guard terminator Rune priest: £6
Wolf gaurd terminator: £5
Wolf guard terminator with cyclone missile launcher: £6
Ragnar Blackmane, Wolf lord: £8
Ulrik the Slayer, Wolf priest: £6
Magneus Calgar, Master of the Ultramarines: £8
Tigurius, Chief librarian of the Ultramarines: £8
Commander Azrael, Supreme Grand master of the Dark Angels, with helmet bearer (2 models): £8
Asmodia, Dark angels interrogator chaplain: £6
Space marine devastator: £4
Space marine chaplain: £4
Techmarine: £4
Apothecary: £4
Space marine standard bearer: £4
Space marine Dark angels: £4
Librarian: £4
Iron priest: £4
Wolf guard: £4
Blood angels Death company (2 models): £4
Dark angels marines (2 models): £4
Space wolves scouts (2 models): £4
Terminator captain: £6
Terminator librarian: £6
Terminator with cyclone missile launcher: £6
Terminator with assault cannon: £6
Terminator: £5
Terminator with heavy flamer: £6
Terminator with lightning claws: £5
Terminator with thunder hammer: £5
Terminator sergeant: £5
Terminator chaplain: £6
Ezekiel, Dark angels grand master of librarians: £8
Apothecary Corbulo, Sanguinary priest: £6
Blood angels Chief librarian Mephiston: £8
Commander Dante, Lord of the Blood angels: £8
Brother captain Tycho: £8
Chaplain Lemartes: £6
Veteran scout sergeant Naaman: £5
Logan Grimnar: £8
Salamander chaplain Xavier: £6
Blood angels Death company chaplain: £4
Space wolves scout with assault weapons: £4
Space wolves standard bearer: £4
Blood angels space marines (2 models): £4
Space marine assault sergeant: £4




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also from the 2002 catalog:

Tau hammerhead gunship: £20
Tau Devilfish troop carrier: £18
Tau XV-88 Broadside battlesuit: £15
Tau XV-8 Crisis battlesuit: £10
Tau commander Farsight: £15
Tau Fire warrior team (14 models): £15
Kroot carnivore squad (16 models): £15
Tau battleforce (37 models): £50

Tau Ethereal caste: £4
Aun'shi, Tau Ethereal: £6
Tau Pathfinders (2 models): £5
Tau Pahtfinder Shas'ui (2 models): £5
Tau XV15 Stealth team: £5
TauXV15 Stealth team Shas'ui: £5
Kroot hounds: £4
Kroot Shaper: £4
Krootox: £8

Here are some rough findings.

Tau prices increased an average of 43.45% between 2002 and 2011. The kits looked at were; Devilfish, Hammerhead, Kroot, Fire Warriors, Crisis Suit, Ethereal, Broadside.

The increase varied depending on the model – Devilfish only went up 11.5% while the Hammerhead and Crisis suit went up 52% and the Ethereal doubled. (New Ethereal models were produced in 2006, and a previously “limited edition model” was put into volume production.)


Space Marines went up an average 67% between 2020 and 2011.

This is based on the following products; Rhino, Predator, Land Raider, LR Crusader, Combat Squad, Tactical Squad, Terminator Squad, Assault Squad, Dreadnought. The Crusader went up only 17% while the Combat Squad went up 158%.

Bear in mind this is not the whole range for either army.

Also understand that I don’t have the UK inflation figure for 2011 yet, or the GW annual report for 2011. Thus, I can only compare the price inflation of 2002 to 2011 with the average of UK price inflation from 2001 to 2010. This was 29%.

Kilkrazy wrote:Space Marines went up an average 67% between 2020 and 2011.

Cool...So invest now in Space Marines and sell in 2020?

Only if you have a silver machine that flies sideways through time.

So assuming that each dollar earned in 2002 represents a sale, and using an extrapolated 55% increase in price - that would mean that after adjustment, 2010 represents only 78.58M sales vs 119.2M at the start of the LOTR boom (using Killrazy's inflation adjusted numbers).

This suggests an overall decrease in volume of 34% between 2002 and 2010. However, as GW has been implementing "efficiencies" in order to raise the yields per unit sale, I fear that the decrease in unit sales is probably slightly bigger than that. (edit +/- 2%).

It's difficult to compare 2002 with 2010 because of the LoTR boom effect. After the bubble burst, though, revenues have been pretty flat since 2006, though they are showing signs of growth in 2009 and 2010.

As there have been price increases since 2005-6, the implication is that GW have used higher prices per unit to maintain revenue in the face of falling unit sales.

I haven't got any figures to calculate the amount of price increase between 2005-2006 and today.

WD300 Dec 2004
Chief librarian Tigurius £8
Space marine whirlwind £20
Space marine veterans (2 models) £6

WD304 April 2005
Marneus Calgar and honour guard (5 models) £25
Space marine terminator squad (5 models) £20

WD307 July 2005
Tyranid Carnifex £20
Tyranid broodlord £9
Tyranid lictor £12
Tyranid Zoanthrope £9
Space marine Tyranid hunters (2 models) £6
Tyranid hive tyrant £20
Genestealers (8 models) £15
Tyranid battleforce £50
Tyranid Tyrant guard £10
Space marine combat squad (5 models) £9

WD311 Nov 2005
Black templars space marine crusader squad (10 models) £20
Black templars Space marine assault squad (5 models) £18
Black templars space marines command squad (5 models) £20
Space marine chaplain £6
Space marine terminator close combat squad (5 models) £20

WD312 Dec 2005
Space marine scouts (5 models) £10
Black templars Rhino £18
Black templars High marshal Helbrecht £9
Chaplain Grimaldus £15
Terminator Chaplain £7
Black templars sword brethren squad £15
Battle for Macragge £40
Tau battleforce £50

You can actually try and get all the data you need from the waybackmachine: http://web.archive.org/web/20041011032700/http://uk.games-workshop.com/storefront/store.uk?do=List_Models&code=300866&orignav=10

keezus wrote:

This suggests an overall decrease in volume of 34% between 2002 and 2010. However, as GW has been implementing "efficiencies" in order to raise the yields per unit sale, I fear that the decrease in unit sales is probably slightly bigger than that. (edit +/- 2%).

Wow! I mean... wow! That's quite a decrease.

@infinite array: It only takes a compound decrease of 5.7% each year from 2002-2010 to get to an overall 33% decrease.

Extrapolating a bit however - as I am too lazy to do any real number crunching at the moment - assuming that the price increase trend accelerated post 2005 (which is my recollection), when the LOTR bubble burst... We'll use an arbitrary value assuming of 2/3 of the increases happened post 2005, roughly 36% increase in price. Using the same methodology before (someone correct me if I'm making a fundamental mistake here...) resulting in adjusted 89.56M units vs. 128.9M units. That's a decrease of 30.52% - over 5 years. Based on the above - assuming a linear decrease for simplicity's sake, compounding losses of just 13.25% a year would result in 30.25% overall decrease from 2005.

Purely speculation of course.

Good stuff guys, thanks for the number crunching.

Investor Relations | Games Workshop
investor.games-workshop.com/ - Cached
On 26 July 2011 Games Workshop announced its full year results for the year ended 29 May 2011. The complete annual report can be downloaded here: XXX ...

The blurb off of Google seems to suggest that the new report hits the streets tomorrow, though the site doesn't show it yet. This should be interesting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
N/M... it is tomorrow. c/o http://investor.games-workshop.com/financial-calendar/

Financial calendar
Upcoming events

26 July 2011 – Announcment of final results

Finally:
http://investor.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/2011-Full-Year-Report-and-Accounts-full-25-July.pdf

Revenue £123.1m (2010: £126.5m)
Revenue at constant currency* £122.8m

Sales

Reported sales decreased by 2.7% to £123.1 million for the year. However, on a constant currency basis, sales were down by 2.9% from
£126.5 million to £122.8 million; progress was achieved in Emerging Markets and Japan (+2.1%) and in the Other business units (+7%) while
sales in Continental Europe (+0.6%) were flat. UK (-6.3%), North America (-4.8%) and Australia (-11.8%) were in decline.

Dividend

During the year we followed our principle of returning truly surplus cash to shareholders and paid dividends of 25 pence per share in
October 2010 and 20 pence per share in May 2011. The board now recommends a further dividend of 18 pence per share which, subject to
shareholder approval, will be paid in October 2011.

CHAIRMAN’S PREAMBLE

We like to think of ourselves as a young company, eagerly entering the world of commerce bristling with ideas and ambition. Our staff
bring the energy and optimism of youth to every problem we face, don't they? It is a salutary reminder for me to remember we will be
making 30-year-service awards at our veteran's night dinner again this year. It won't be long before I get mine. Danielle Gaudry, who
founded and ran our French business for many years and is surely the definition of that youthful vigour, retires this year. Retires.
We are no longer so young, either as a business or the people who run it. Two things flow from this.

Firstly, we now know (more by trial and error than sophisticated analysis - 'the wisdom of years') how this business works. We know what it
takes to run a good Hobby centre, we know how to run a good trade sales department, we know how to recruit people who have great
attitudes, we know how to make the best miniatures in the world and how to surprise and delight our customers over and over again. (Go
take a quick look at Citadel Finecast - awesome!) What we are now learning is how to spread that knowledge around the far flung world of
Games Workshop. We are also learning that we are not doing it fast enough or thoroughly enough.

Secondly, the generation which built Games Workshop is beginning to wonder what a 'pension' is. We wake up in the morning with the
same aches we had yesterday. We wear glasses. We have learned patience (is that always a good thing and does it come from wisdom or
exhaustion?). Some of us have a Senior Railcard. Nonetheless, we remain passionate about the potential for the Hobby and the Group.
So, in addition to the normal running of the business, we will also be turning our gaze upon the problems of succession. We will be rolling
out a programme aimed at getting everyone at Games Workshop to understand how we do business.

The challenges are as real as ever and our full responsibility is as well. Despite the exigencies of the 'real' world our destiny is still in our
own hands. We have to ensure that the best practices we know about are followed everywhere within the Group. We have done much to
improve our profitability and the return on your capital but we still have work to do on re-establishing growth, particularly in our Hobby
centres.

Dividends have returned. I am as pleased as you are. Does this herald in a new era of progressive dividends on an assured yield? Hardly. We
return truly surplus cash to shareholders. 'Truly surplus' means the cash we can not use because we have already spent all we need for the
growth of the business. It would sit in a bank account if we didn't return it. Working this way means the payment of dividends will be fairly
happenstance; I can see us having surplus cash in the future and when we have (assuming it is a sensible sum) it will be returned, not
according to a schedule, but right then and there.

Tom Kirby
Chairman
25 July 2011

My first comment: Sales down again, even with Dark Eldar release and the new Warhammer edition (where everyone has to buy new things in principle). To celebrate this: More dividends. Sales declining in UK, USA and Australia, mission accomplished. Sales slightly up in Japan so we close 5 of 7 stores. Sales up in emerging markets, so we boykott mail order to them, that should teach them.


Okay, News thread with discussion already here: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/385538.page

Went for positive sales, much growth yadda yadda bull**it bull**it blah......

Because it won't cover the recent PR cock up and the seeming unending slew of 'failcost', ummmm, failures.
They will be still trying to gloss over the fall in sales right up to the bitter end. Just to avoid spooking the shareholders.
Speaking of which did anyone see that 'Mr' Wells dropped another £600,000 pay packet in his own lap? When his company is spewing losses internationally??
He is merely feathering his retirement nest until the situation reaches critical mass. At which point he will sell for a quite ridiculous price and sod off to Switzerland or A N Other tax haven.
Idiot.

They really are good at glossing over pertinent information like, yeah sure sales are down but look over here! This lady is retireing, isn't that sweet. I wish someone would slap some sense into them. I'm trying with my wallet but I am only one man, and my wallet isn't very heavy.

The Foot wrote:They really are good at glossing over pertinent information like, yeah sure sales are down but look over here! This lady is retireing, isn't that sweet. I wish someone would slap some sense into them. I'm trying with my wallet but I am only one man, and my wallet isn't very heavy.

Sales are up for pretty much every other miniatures market. Privateer Press is becoming a pretty large company (with both Warmachine and Hordes individually outselling WFB, but trailing to 40k). Malifaux sales are trailing right behind Warhammer Fantasy Battle right now.


And Infinity and Helldorado recently got distribution through Alliance, and that's a huge step of growth.

Altogether, we're living in an age where quitting GW games doesn't mean you have to quit the hobby. And that's a big deal.

Honestly it is a good thing too. If GW would realise that things are beggining to go south then they can shake up their buisness practices and probably bring a lot of growth back to their own company. As it stands, I think they have simply gone stagnant. They didn't really see the other guys until they hit them in the back of the head, drug them in an alley, and stole their pants.

odinsgrandson wrote: Privateer Press is becoming a pretty large company (with both Warmachine and Hordes individually outselling WFB, but trailing to 40k). Malifaux sales are trailing right behind Warhammer Fantasy Battle right now.

I agree that PP is doing exceedingly well---however where are you getting your numbers?

The Foot wrote:Honestly it is a good thing too. If GW would realise that things are beggining to go south then they can shake up their buisness practices and probably bring a lot of growth back to their own company. As it stands, I think they have simply gone stagnant. They didn't really see the other guys until they hit them in the back of the head, drug them in an alley, and stole their pants.

As far as I can tell, GW has been stagnant - (on the rules front) for 4-5 years now. The models make great strides, but any new excitement produced by new releases is more than countered by the uneven way they release them, combined with high prices and the resentment over neglect heaped upon the armies NOT receiving regular updates.

Their models are (overall) very good. They also have an intersting background for WHFB and 40k, but yes I would agree that it is mostly rules wise that they are lacking severly. Unfourtunatly, I would like good and balanced rules for the game that I put money into, as well as good models.

Yes, I have to agree with that.

As primarily a Tyranids and Tau player, I don't care how many awesome SM or Deldar models are produced. It's great news for the players who are interested in those armies but useless for me.

Kilkrazy wrote:Yes, I have to agree with that.

As primarily a Tyranids and Tau player, I don't care how many awesome SM or Deldar models are produced. It's great news for the players who are interested in those armies but useless for me.

And if tyranid and tau models were produced, players who are interested in SM and Deldar would not be interested in those either.

Don't be so selfish.

----------

Just doing a quick look at the financial reports:
1.) Yes sales are down, about 2.7% from 2010. Operating profit is only down 1.5% though. This is good.
2.) Operating profit pre-royalties receivable is only about 10% of revenue for both 2010 and 2011. This goes to show that the price increases were a NECESSARY step, not just to increase profits.
3.) Royalties receivable is down about 0.5M. A HUGE straight 16.6% drop in royalties receivable in one year. First of all what does this consist of -.-?

---------
pt.2

1.) Looking at the historical sales graph on page 7, it seems sales and operating profits were on an up-trend from 2007-2010, basically showing how the financial crisis+credit crunch+whatever is NOT the cause of a drop in sales. Profits however, have also grown, from a mere 2.5ish% in 2007 to >15% in 2010.


meh. Will look at in further detail when I get home from work.

Kouzuki wrote:2.) Operating profit pre-royalties receivable is only about 10% of revenue for both 2010 and 2011. This goes to show that the price increases were a NECESSARY step, not just to increase profits.

Well, no... it shows that something needed to be done to improve their margin. Increasing prices is the easy answer, but not the only one.

3.) Royalties receivable is down about 0.5M. A HUGE straight 16.6% drop in royalties receivable in one year. First of all what does this consist of -.-?

Royalties would presumably include whatever they are entitled to from sales of FFG's licenced games, computer games and the Ultramarines movie.

Kouzuki wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Yes, I have to agree with that.

As primarily a Tyranids and Tau player, I don't care how many awesome SM or Deldar models are produced. It's great news for the players who are interested in those armies but useless for me.

And if tyranid and tau models were produced, players who are interested in SM and Deldar would not be interested in those either.

Don't be so selfish.

It's not selfish to want models and books for your armies.

AgeOfEgos wrote:

odinsgrandson wrote: Privateer Press is becoming a pretty large company (with both Warmachine and Hordes individually outselling WFB, but trailing to 40k). Malifaux sales are trailing right behind Warhammer Fantasy Battle right now.

I agree that PP is doing exceedingly well---however where are you getting your numbers?

The ICV2 Website often ranks sales of the larger miniatures companies. Also, PP had to double their production.

Is that unit sales or actual cash figures that they use?

odinsgrandson wrote:

AgeOfEgos wrote:

odinsgrandson wrote: Privateer Press is becoming a pretty large company (with both Warmachine and Hordes individually outselling WFB, but trailing to 40k). Malifaux sales are trailing right behind Warhammer Fantasy Battle right now.

I agree that PP is doing exceedingly well---however where are you getting your numbers?

The ICV2 Website often ranks sales of the larger miniatures companies. Also, PP had to double their production.

Hey that's a terrific website, thanks for that!

Interesting---looks like WM is outselling Fantasy (according to their formula).

odinsgrandson wrote: Also, PP had to double their production.

And GW in their "continuous growth so big that they can't put more money into it", had to reduce production by about a third since 2005. So everyone has his problems

I like that GW is spreading their IP around to DVD's and big budget video games.

What I don't like the most? Price hikes like everyone else. I would've purchased many more starter sets for example as that was one of the few remaining good deals they had until a few months ago.

GW needs to stop raising prices and add more bang for our bucks or they'll slowly bleed to death. Oh yea and more Imperial Guard plastics please.