Here is the statement from Darkpshere regards their changes. I find it very muddy whether they're changing the total discount by a flat amount or if they're changing the discounted price by a 6% (one is 19%, the other 20.5% off rrp):

GW Price Rise


Games Workshop have informed us that they are raising their trade prices (the price that we pay for their items) and as such
we will need to reduce the discount that we offer.

The Recommended Retail Price (RRP) of Games Workshop items will remain unchanged but we will need to reduce our discount by 5-6%.
The deadline for placing an order with us at our current discount on Games Workshop prices is 10pm Sunday 11th December.

If an item is out of stock the price will be honoured even if Games Workshop Trade doesn't currently have it in stock
(if Games Workshop discontinues that particular box,changes the RRP of the box or moves it to Games Workshop Direct/Webstore exclusive then this will not apply).

https://www.darksphere.co.uk/gwprice22.php

So, GW aren't putting the price up till the 19th. Looks like Darksphere are trying to grab a bit more money from their customers before the change.

 Rolsheen wrote:
So, GW aren't putting the price up till the 19th. Looks like Darksphere are trying to grab a bit more money from their customers before the change.

Wild that a shop wants to sell things. And FOMO being used to sell wargaming stuff? It’ll never catch on.

Stores will do what they think they should do... and so do we as clients

 Rolsheen wrote:
So, GW aren't putting the price up till the 19th. Looks like Darksphere are trying to grab a bit more money from their customers before the change.

By the way it reads they'll also make more margin per item after than before, rather than keeping margin the same.

Dudeface wrote:
Here is the statement from Darkpshere regards their changes. I find it very muddy whether they're changing the total discount by a flat amount or if they're changing the discounted price by a 6% (one is 19%, the other 20.5% off rrp):

Currently Dark Sphere don't offer any free shipping, but do a 25% discount instead. For larger orders you can still get a better overall price that other stores who offer 15-20% with free shipping. I've used them a lot in recent years.

So if I have this right:
For a £100 RRP item prior to these changes, Dark Sphere paid £53.85 and sold it for £75. That's a gross profit of £21.15.
With trade prices increasing by 5.9%(?), the same item will now cost them £57.02. That gives Dark Sphere a profit of either ~£22.50 or ~£24 depending which discount level is used.

I hope they're also going to revise their shipping terms alongside this, or other retailers are going to be a much better choice.

 Rolsheen wrote:
So, GW aren't putting the price up till the 19th. Looks like Darksphere are trying to grab a bit more money from their customers before the change.

Or they have inventory to manage and it takes time to process orders.

Nicking these off B&C, but here is another stores response:


Which again, to my maths says they're making more at 15% off still.

Wonder what Chaos Card will do. They’re just around the corner from me, but as their discount isn’t as deep as say, Element, I’ve only bought odds and sods there.

But, if Chaos Cards don’t reduce their discount, and Element do, their prices will reach parity, give or take. Certainly enough that I’ll just get my toys round the corner.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Wonder what Chaos Card will do. They’re just around the corner from me, but as their discount isn’t as deep as say, Element, I’ve only bought odds and sods there.

But, if Chaos Cards don’t reduce their discount, and Element do, their prices will reach parity, give or take. Certainly enough that I’ll just get my toys round the corner.

Some haven't issued a statement and I dare say will be waiting to look out for feedback/backlash like as has been seen online already. If they can afford to maintain the same margins, or better yet take a slight loss, there'll be a lot of people looking for a new favourite seller.

There's a chance some are waiting for the annual rrp adjustment in April to make a call as a guess too.

True, true.

Though currently ploughing through my pile of Yet To Built Heresy stuff, so shouldn’t really be buying any more for a while.

Will that stop me?

The hell it will!

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
shouldn’t really be buying any more for a while.

Will that stop me?

The hell it will!

Wargaming in a nutshell, unfortunately

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 Rolsheen wrote:
So, GW aren't putting the price up till the 19th. Looks like Darksphere are trying to grab a bit more money from their customers before the change.

Wild that a shop wants to sell things. And FOMO being used to sell wargaming stuff? It’ll never catch on.

My flgs already sell with no discount at all (California) so this is just going to suck for them, not like they can reduce a discount they don't have. Good thing MTG still exists to subsidize game stores.

Dudeface wrote:
Nicking these off B&C, but here is another stores response:

Spoiler:

Which again, to my maths says they're making more at 15% off still.

Care to share your workings with the class?

The store here states that to keep their margin the same with the increased price, they'd need to drop discount from 20% to 13%, yet their holding it at 15% - if they're telling the truth, then they're taking a hit to maintain that level of discount.

You're claiming this isn't the case, implying that they're lying - so, please, show your working out.

Dysartes wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Nicking these off B&C, but here is another stores response:

Spoiler:

Which again, to my maths says they're making more at 15% off still.

Care to share your workings with the class?

The store here states that to keep their margin the same with the increased price, they'd need to drop discount from 20% to 13%, yet their holding it at 15% - if they're telling the truth, then they're taking a hit to maintain that level of discount.

You're claiming this isn't the case, implying that they're lying - so, please, show your working out.

I don't need to as xttz already laid the basis out:

xttz wrote:
So if I have this right:
For a £100 RRP item prior to these changes, Dark Sphere paid £53.85 and sold it for £75. That's a gross profit of £21.15.
With trade prices increasing by 5.9%(?), the same item will now cost them £57.02. That gives Dark Sphere a profit of either ~£22.50 or ~£24 depending which discount level is used.

I hope they're also going to revise their shipping terms alongside this, or other retailers are going to be a much better choice.

If we assume a 6% for sakes of maths increase on trade prices,

The £53.85 (no idea personally if that's correct but I know it's around 50%) trade price on a £100 item goes to £57.08.

At current day prices they net a (80 - 53.85 =) 26.15 profit.

Post increase they would net, at 15% (85 - 57.08 =) 27.92 profit.

At 13% it goes to 29.92 profit.

The foil in that is if their trade prices are already higher and/or if the trade price went up by ~6 percentage points, rather than percentage. But all communication from all parties so far is percentage.

Dudeface wrote:

The £53.85 (no idea personally if that's correct but I know it's around 50%) trade price on a £100 item...

I took that figure from the official trade price list available here

https://trade.games-workshop.com/resources/

 xttz wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

The £53.85 (no idea personally if that's correct but I know it's around 50%) trade price on a £100 item...

I took that figure from the official trade price list available here

https://trade.games-workshop.com/resources/

That makes it very cut and dry then. Either the stores aren't representing the change correctly via incorrect language or it's dishonesty. I hope it's the former but fear it's the latter and they're trying to cash in on sympathy votes by deflecting the issue as "look at nasty GW" and hoping most people can't/don't do the maths.

Seems to me the disconnect stems from some people interpreting the hike as 5% of retail and some as 5% of trade price.

Well its been a few years since i worked at a FLGS, but the discount trade partners gets from GW isn't a flat rate. It started off at 50% of rrp but got better as the store ordered more stuff regularly, along with a budget of perks each year, which provided entire tables worth of scenery etc to help promote the games.
So not all retailers will be taking the same hit as others. Its also why the larger online stores can afford to offer a bigger discount, as they pat less for the stock.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Seems to me the disconnect stems from some people interpreting the hike as 5% of retail and some as 5% of trade price.

The original context made it sound like it was off MSRP and not off the trade price.

 Dysartes wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Nicking these off B&C, but here is another stores response:

Spoiler:

Which again, to my maths says they're making more at 15% off still.

Care to share your workings with the class?

The store here states that to keep their margin the same with the increased price, they'd need to drop discount from 20% to 13%, yet their holding it at 15% - if they're telling the truth, then they're taking a hit to maintain that level of discount.

You're claiming this isn't the case, implying that they're lying - so, please, show your working out.

Claims 2% is 10% off their end, meaning their current margin is 20, is how I read it anyway. (this would be after other overheads, profit isn't income minus stock expense).

If memory and hearsay serve, I think GW’s wholesale is normally 60% of retail?

I think that’s been confirmed on occasion, debunked on others?

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Seems to me the disconnect stems from some people interpreting the hike as 5% of retail and some as 5% of trade price.

The original context made it sound like it was off MSRP and not off the trade price.

The GW message sent our literally says trade price and that it WON'T affect the RRP.

 Platuan4th wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Seems to me the disconnect stems from some people interpreting the hike as 5% of retail and some as 5% of trade price.

The original context made it sound like it was off MSRP and not off the trade price.

The GW message sent our literally says trade price and that it WON'T affect the RRP.

Thanks for clarifying without understanding the question tho.

Since we usually think of trade price, discounts and margins as a function of RRP it's easy to assume the change references RRP - in effect percentage points rather than percentage.

So an Item costs 100€ retail and 60€ at trade and trade cost is going up by 5%. It's easy to get tripped up and think the new trade price is 65€, rather than 63.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Seems to me the disconnect stems from some people interpreting the hike as 5% of retail and some as 5% of trade price.

The original context made it sound like it was off MSRP and not off the trade price.

The GW message sent our literally says trade price and that it WON'T affect the RRP.

Thanks for clarifying without understanding the question tho.

Since we usually think of trade price, discounts and margins as a function of RRP it's easy to assume the change references RRP - in effect percentage points rather than percentage.

So an Item costs 100€ retail and 60€ at trade and trade cost is going up by 5%. It's easy to get tripped up and think the new trade price is 65€, rather than 63.

I think people are confusing these, but in the event of the flgs I've pointed out in here, they're behaving like it's percentage points rather than a percentage, when the language used by gw and the flgs own communications are the latter.

[
The maths being used is faulty.

The VAT on a £100 item is in fact £16.67, as you add it to the ex VAT price, you don't remove it from the RRP. So the ex-VAT price on a £100 RRP item is £83.33.

To sell the same product at 20% discount (£80) you'd need the ex VAT price to be £66.67. If it costs £53.85 then the gross margin is £12.82.

After the increase, that same product costs £57.02, which means in order to maintain the same retail price, the seller needs to accept a margin of 9.65. Or a fall in gross margin of approx 25%.

If the discount is reduced to 15% then the £85 discounted price is an ex vat price of £70.83. Less the increased price of 57.02, the revised gross margin is £13.81.

So, technically, yes, they're making a small amount more, but honestly that's as much an artefact of keeping the discount figures rounded as it is making more money, and sustaining a 25% drop in income from each sale wouldn't be viable.

So +6% trade translates to around 3.5% rrp (though since most buyers try to pay below retail, real cost will be slightly more than this), and cost to any retailer choosing to absorb it, as a percentage of their profit will depend on operating costs as a whole. Regardless, no one needs worry about being gouged by third party sellers, the market will presumably adjust and result will at worst be a 3% price increase (?)

I wouldn't be surprised if it settled out at 5% purely because people like round numbers.

But fundamentally yes, GW have temporarily closed the gap between their own prices and those available through discounted third parties, but thanks to their ongoing price increase policy, it'll likely be reinstated within 12 months or so.

Looking for that one online store who doesn’t change their prices.
They will get increased trade compared to all the others changing, as people head to the better deal in quantity.
So I guess they need to work out what the potential loss of profit per item sold is, but add in the potential gain for number of items sold.

Have Wayland Games said anything yet?

Soo will this apply to UK companies only as I heard or are EU, US and AUS shops affected as well ?

pleasestopit wrote:
Soo will this apply to UK companies only as I heard or are EU, US and AUS shops affected as well ?

Not sure but the three places I buy from in Australia haven't said anything

JWBS wrote:
So +6% trade translates to around 3.5% rrp (though since most buyers try to pay below retail, real cost will be slightly more than this), and cost to any retailer choosing to absorb it, as a percentage of their profit will depend on operating costs as a whole. Regardless, no one needs worry about being gouged by third party sellers, the market will presumably adjust and result will at worst be a 3% price increase (?)

The two examples so far are a 5% and 6%, it's not enough to call it gouging I don't think, but it's the lack of honesty about why or how they got to those numbers. It's the sort of slightly shady, crappy practice people would blame GW for doing.

Where's the lack of honesty?
We know (because everyone is reporting it) that GW are charging them 5-6% more (on average - it will vary from item to item) but not increasing the RRP.
Therefore they need to reduce the discount they offer to the RRP.

Maybe this will result in them making a few percent more (i.e. costs from GW rise 4.2% in RRP terms, but their discount is down 5-6%) - but then these shops have to eat too. Their staff presumably want some sort of rise in a world of 10%+ inflation.

Agreed.

And thanks to Azreal13 for adding VAT into the calculations for even more accuracy.

 Rolsheen wrote:
Not sure but the three places I buy from in Australia haven't said anything

One of the things said very early on with this news that it was, in-part, due to the dismal performance of the Australian market*, so I hardly think that (further) fething over retailers in Oz would be in their best interests.



*Whoda thunk that charging us** 40% more than most other countries would backfire...
**This likely includes the Kiwis as well.

Tyel wrote:
<snip> ...but then these shops have to eat too. Their staff presumably want some sort of rise in a world of 10%+ inflation.

Yeah, I think this is a crap move from GW. Maybe an increase in RRP would have made more customers cry, but instead they're trying to keep customers buying the same amount and/or shift sales from independents to their own sales channels by taking their increase in cost and palming it off to independents. Instead of just raising the RRP by a couple of percent, they're cutting quite a lot more into the margins of independents, who supposedly also have increased costs currently.

but if you don't sell enough you need to increase the profit from the sales that remain

also this is just adapting the inflation, GW is not more expensive, but everything got more expensive
and if you would have bought more GW would not have needed to increase the prices to maintain their profit

it is all on you not GW, they have done everything they could

/s

 kodos wrote:
but if you don't sell enough you need to increase the profit from the sales that remain

also this is just adapting the inflation, GW is not more expensive, but everything got more expensive
and if you would have bought more GW would not have needed to increase the prices to maintain their profit

it is all on you not GW, they have done everything they could

/s

GW is more expensive, though, because they are continually raising prices with each new release ^^.

If you keep only buying stuff that still has Warhammer Fantasy packaging it's actually quite affordable

 lord_blackfang wrote:
If you keep only buying stuff that still has Warhammer Fantasy packaging it's actually quite affordable

Unless it’s Tomb Kings.

pleasestopit wrote:
Soo will this apply to UK companies only as I heard or are EU, US and AUS shops affected as well ?

This is only for Uk companies, according to my GW account manager.

Tyel wrote:
Where's the lack of honesty?
We know (because everyone is reporting it) that GW are charging them 5-6% more (on average - it will vary from item to item) but not increasing the RRP.
Therefore they need to reduce the discount they offer to the RRP.

Maybe this will result in them making a few percent more (i.e. costs from GW rise 4.2% in RRP terms, but their discount is down 5-6%) - but then these shops have to eat too. Their staff presumably want some sort of rise in a world of 10%+ inflation.

Which is all good and well but tell people that's what you're doing and why. If you're getting more profit per sale than before to cover additional operating costs, most customers with any sense of loyalty will respect that and continue to shop there. Instead throwing it at the feet of "nasty GW making us earn more off your sales", which honestly is a dangerous move anyway, just outline it, give examples so dumbasses like me aren't running numbers on forums.

It is an interesting move. Hopefully GW will be able to track if this reduces the number independent sellers and if that decreases the customer base and gives a window of opportunity to other ranges.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Rolsheen wrote:
Not sure but the three places I buy from in Australia haven't said anything

One of the things said very early on with this news that it was, in-part, due to the dismal performance of the Australian market*, so I hardly think that (further) fething over retailers in Oz would be in their best interests.

*Whoda thunk that charging us** 40% more than most other countries would backfire...
**This likely includes the Kiwis as well.

PS: I read the source for the low performance of Australia some time ago, it was within the GW report and stating that Australia because of Covid restriction and Lockdowns there, being the only region with decline in sales in the last year

so no, it has nothing to do with the different prices, but may I ask why your lockdowns were so different to the rest of the world that sales declined while others increased?

I mentioned this earlier in the thread but probably the reason for this being UK only is to cover some of the increased warehouse costs imposed by the incompetent Tory Government....

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/nov/17/uk-warehouse-operators-criticise-business-rates-tax-rise

 kodos wrote:
but if you don't sell enough you need to increase the profit from the sales that remain

also this is just adapting the inflation, GW is not more expensive, but everything got more expensive
and if you would have bought more GW would not have needed to increase the prices to maintain their profit

it is all on you not GW, they have done everything they could

/s

I kinda of laughed, since i've seen people straight up excuse GW's price increase exactly like this without the sarcasm. I mean their profit margin is insane and the only reasons we saw increases is because they want to keep those margins. Just look at the Hachette releases, some of them are giving away models for "free" almost. It's their choice of course to keep going with the trickle price increases since there are people who will excuse this type of behavior. I wouldn't really be bothered if all of the price increases from GW resulted in salary increases for employs (at least to a small degree).

But each price increase has an excuse, covid, supply chain problems, brexit, my shoelace untied yesterday while walking... it's kinda funny but sad at the same time. Not to mention during those times, it would of been a golden opportunity to sell codex/rules/campaign expansions as digital copies citing both those problems and being more environmentally friendly. Still sell the physical stuff but offer the option for digital purchases, 5-10 euros and they would sell like hotcakes and encourage even more plastic crack spending since you bought that "Imperium pack which includes codex for all imperium factions" and you should buy some sisters, some admec etc etc. , this would result in keeping their profit margin and maybe increasing it... I mean people are scanning and posting those things online anyway but for 5-10 euros from the main source would entice people into purchase... I would be one of their clients in this regard.

It's the world we live in, corporations be raising prices, telling workers they can't afford to raise wages and in the same breath bragging about literally all time record profits in all of history.

Dudeface wrote:

Tyel wrote:
Where's the lack of honesty?
We know (because everyone is reporting it) that GW are charging them 5-6% more (on average - it will vary from item to item) but not increasing the RRP.
Therefore they need to reduce the discount they offer to the RRP.

Maybe this will result in them making a few percent more (i.e. costs from GW rise 4.2% in RRP terms, but their discount is down 5-6%) - but then these shops have to eat too. Their staff presumably want some sort of rise in a world of 10%+ inflation.

Which is all good and well but tell people that's what you're doing and why. If you're getting more profit per sale than before to cover additional operating costs, most customers with any sense of loyalty will respect that and continue to shop there. Instead throwing it at the feet of "nasty GW making us earn more off your sales", which honestly is a dangerous move anyway, just outline it, give examples so dumbasses like me aren't running numbers on forums.

...people like you should probably stop using terms they don't understand in an inaccurate way so as to make small businesses look bad.

 Dysartes wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Tyel wrote:
Where's the lack of honesty?
We know (because everyone is reporting it) that GW are charging them 5-6% more (on average - it will vary from item to item) but not increasing the RRP.
Therefore they need to reduce the discount they offer to the RRP.

Maybe this will result in them making a few percent more (i.e. costs from GW rise 4.2% in RRP terms, but their discount is down 5-6%) - but then these shops have to eat too. Their staff presumably want some sort of rise in a world of 10%+ inflation.

Which is all good and well but tell people that's what you're doing and why. If you're getting more profit per sale than before to cover additional operating costs, most customers with any sense of loyalty will respect that and continue to shop there. Instead throwing it at the feet of "nasty GW making us earn more off your sales", which honestly is a dangerous move anyway, just outline it, give examples so dumbasses like me aren't running numbers on forums.

...people like you should probably stop using terms they don't understand in an inaccurate way so as to make small businesses look bad.

Well educate in that case please.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Some UK retailers have put up prices over the weekend seemingly, possibly without any external messaging (not somewhere I order from with any frequency so might have been a newsletter to customers).

Please note as a clarification I'm not a businessman, I aren't 100% on the process or pricing structure, I'm not trying to make anyone look bad outside the context of my current understanding. If my understanding is wrong or incomplete then I only wish to better understand.

Contrary to the last thread, there's a lot of people who utilise these discounts and the reductions to afford some projects the otherwise can't, likewise we all want to support the little guy. All I ask is if they need to earn more off the top, please be honest about that and don't misdirect due to a trade increase and instead explain things clearly. If they're not then maybe a little clarification might be needed.

to put it simple, as long as the retailer prices are lower than MSRP, it is all on GW
you cannot blame people who still be cheaper than the source

hence we are (rightfully) mad at scalpers because they sell above MSRP


that GW already priced people out of the hobby is nothing new, it happens with each price increase

some people justified GWs prices as "not that bad" because they would get 25" off at retailers and therefore hated those that said the prices are too much are now in trouble because they need to pay MSRP
my sympathy is limited

the only thing now left is the free rules because if those are gone (either because the Russian Archive will disappear, or GW finding a way with the next Edition for everyone to pay) there will be a massive hit in costs for those that just play too

Dudeface wrote:
Well educate in that case please.

Well, you keep talking about "profit" to refer to the difference between the wholesale price and the seller's retail price (in this case, discounted from GW's RRP).

For that reference, you really need to be talking about "gross profit" - I'd generally prefer to use "margin" here, so as to avoid the potential confusion between gross and net profit, as I find different terms to be cleaner in that regard. The thing about "gross profit" is that it doesn't reflect what people will intuitively think of as "profit", which would actually be the "net profit", or the profits after costs are taken into account.

When you start going on about a small retailer making "more profit" by reducing the discount, a casual reader is just going to think that the owners are making more bank, full stop. Given the general economic situation over the last year, having a margin that may be £1-2 higher on a £100 RRP item is almost certainly not sufficient to offset the overall increased costs (see next paragraph).

Your statements have generally not acknowledged that there have been ridiculous hikes on utility prices, than commercial rents are up (or they were last I checked), that internet retailers may fall afoul of the increased warehouse tax that StraightSilver brought up - not sure on my opinion on that yet, though I can see it as a way to try to level the Amazon playing field for actual shops; not sure how it'll play out yet - and that general inflation means that staff are going to need higher wages/salary to end up with similar take home pay in real terms. Instead, you come across as demonising these small businesses for not taking the hit from GW squarely on the chin.

You keep going on about wanting "honesty" from these companies, and yet at no point have I seen you demanding that GW clarify why trade prices need to go up, but general RRP doesn't. You've taken a very weird position on all this.

We struggled to reach a consensus about what a simple calculation with essentially one variable might mean so we can't hope to solve a calculation with many unknown variables that probably wasn't even communicated precisely. Need to just wait and then make our best choice with all info available, as always.

 kodos wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Rolsheen wrote:
Not sure but the three places I buy from in Australia haven't said anything

One of the things said very early on with this news that it was, in-part, due to the dismal performance of the Australian market*, so I hardly think that (further) fething over retailers in Oz would be in their best interests.

*Whoda thunk that charging us** 40% more than most other countries would backfire...
**This likely includes the Kiwis as well.

PS: I read the source for the low performance of Australia some time ago, it was within the GW report and stating that Australia because of Covid restriction and Lockdowns there, being the only region with decline in sales in the last year

so no, it has nothing to do with the different prices, but may I ask why your lockdowns were so different to the rest of the world that sales declined while others increased?

We had bad and extremely long lockdowns but I'm not sure why it'd negatively affect sales here when I believe everywhere else it improved sales.

Sounds like a weak excuse to me. Maybe people were more worried about their incomes not covering essentials so they went into saving mode... but I don't think that was true in other industries or elsewhere in the world (I seem to recall electronics shops that sell TV's, computers, audio equipment, video games, etc saw really good sales over the period).

 Dysartes wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Well educate in that case please.

Well, you keep talking about "profit" to refer to the difference between the wholesale price and the seller's retail price (in this case, discounted from GW's RRP).

For that reference, you really need to be talking about "gross profit" - I'd generally prefer to use "margin" here, so as to avoid the potential confusion between gross and net profit, as I find different terms to be cleaner in that regard. The thing about "gross profit" is that it doesn't reflect what people will intuitively think of as "profit", which would actually be the "net profit", or the profits after costs are taken into account.

When you start going on about a small retailer making "more profit" by reducing the discount, a casual reader is just going to think that the owners are making more bank, full stop. Given the general economic situation over the last year, having a margin that may be £1-2 higher on a £100 RRP item is almost certainly not sufficient to offset the overall increased costs (see next paragraph).

Your statements have generally not acknowledged that there have been ridiculous hikes on utility prices, than commercial rents are up (or they were last I checked), that internet retailers may fall afoul of the increased warehouse tax that StraightSilver brought up - not sure on my opinion on that yet, though I can see it as a way to try to level the Amazon playing field for actual shops; not sure how it'll play out yet - and that general inflation means that staff are going to need higher wages/salary to end up with similar take home pay in real terms. Instead, you come across as demonising these small businesses for not taking the hit from GW squarely on the chin.

You keep going on about wanting "honesty" from these companies, and yet at no point have I seen you demanding that GW clarify why trade prices need to go up, but general RRP doesn't. You've taken a very weird position on all this.

I'm willing to hope/assume the move by GW is to avoid a generic price hike on the RRP to cover their own increased operating costs. They've chosen to take an action to limit impact to the end customers as a whole by squeezing the middle men, frankly I don't see why they would need to explain it to you or I at this stage as an end product consumer as the change is in their trade network and from their perspective shouldn't impact us at all directly, whereas an RRP increase would. The consumers are being impacted because the trade retailers are increasing their prices, so the onus is on them to explain why if they feel the need to at all.

Regards the rest of the post I don't disagree, but again why is it so hard for a shop to say "We've had the trade terms adjusted and as we're all finding life hard at this point we need to reduce discounts a little further to cover this and our increased operating costs", which is all I asked for regards the honesty point.

Honestly at this point it's in the eyes of the customers to do as they please, I will continue to seek a bargain where possible but my preferred online retailer might change when it otherwise wouldn't have done if the message had been relayed clearer.

Dudeface wrote:
I'm willing to hope/assume the move by GW is to avoid a generic price hike on the RRP to cover their own increased operating costs.

For now, maybe. But I would bet that retail prices (RRP) are going to increase in 6 months time.
GW price changes always happen at the end of their fiscal year (end of May). In some years fewer products go up in price, some years more.
I think that in 2023 we'll see one of the largest increases in retail prices.

By announcing it a few weeks before the end of the month (May 2023) they can capitalise on FOMO and boost yearly revenue figures.
Only for the financial performance of the following fiscal year to be carried by the launch of 10th ed.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 kodos wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Rolsheen wrote:
Not sure but the three places I buy from in Australia haven't said anything

One of the things said very early on with this news that it was, in-part, due to the dismal performance of the Australian market*, so I hardly think that (further) fething over retailers in Oz would be in their best interests.

*Whoda thunk that charging us** 40% more than most other countries would backfire...
**This likely includes the Kiwis as well.

PS: I read the source for the low performance of Australia some time ago, it was within the GW report and stating that Australia because of Covid restriction and Lockdowns there, being the only region with decline in sales in the last year

so no, it has nothing to do with the different prices, but may I ask why your lockdowns were so different to the rest of the world that sales declined while others increased?

We had bad and extremely long lockdowns but I'm not sure why it'd negatively affect sales here when I believe everywhere else it improved sales.

Sounds like a weak excuse to me. Maybe people were more worried about their incomes not covering essentials so they went into saving mode... but I don't think that was true in other industries or elsewhere in the world (I seem to recall electronics shops that sell TV's, computers, audio equipment, video games, etc saw really good sales over the period).

Every wargamer I know started a new Infinity army, definitely COVID!
But really, all gaming was up for us. But 40k is such a small part now, and we haven’t had big restrictions at all.

good to know that this is just corporate speak for "we messed up"
for a moment I thought your really had China like restrictions down there (not that I would have believed it, but wired things happened around the world last year)

but this was also means 40k sales in the south won't recover post covid like GW told their shareholders

Dudeface wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Well educate in that case please.

Well, you keep talking about "profit" to refer to the difference between the wholesale price and the seller's retail price (in this case, discounted from GW's RRP).

For that reference, you really need to be talking about "gross profit" - I'd generally prefer to use "margin" here, so as to avoid the potential confusion between gross and net profit, as I find different terms to be cleaner in that regard. The thing about "gross profit" is that it doesn't reflect what people will intuitively think of as "profit", which would actually be the "net profit", or the profits after costs are taken into account.

When you start going on about a small retailer making "more profit" by reducing the discount, a casual reader is just going to think that the owners are making more bank, full stop. Given the general economic situation over the last year, having a margin that may be £1-2 higher on a £100 RRP item is almost certainly not sufficient to offset the overall increased costs (see next paragraph).

Your statements have generally not acknowledged that there have been ridiculous hikes on utility prices, than commercial rents are up (or they were last I checked), that internet retailers may fall afoul of the increased warehouse tax that StraightSilver brought up - not sure on my opinion on that yet, though I can see it as a way to try to level the Amazon playing field for actual shops; not sure how it'll play out yet - and that general inflation means that staff are going to need higher wages/salary to end up with similar take home pay in real terms. Instead, you come across as demonising these small businesses for not taking the hit from GW squarely on the chin.

You keep going on about wanting "honesty" from these companies, and yet at no point have I seen you demanding that GW clarify why trade prices need to go up, but general RRP doesn't. You've taken a very weird position on all this.

I'm willing to hope/assume the move by GW is to avoid a generic price hike on the RRP to cover their own increased operating costs. They've chosen to take an action to limit impact to the end customers as a whole by squeezing the middle men, frankly I don't see why they would need to explain it to you or I at this stage as an end product consumer as the change is in their trade network and from their perspective shouldn't impact us at all directly, whereas an RRP increase would. The consumers are being impacted because the trade retailers are increasing their prices, so the onus is on them to explain why if they feel the need to at all.

Regards the rest of the post I don't disagree, but again why is it so hard for a shop to say "We've had the trade terms adjusted and as we're all finding life hard at this point we need to reduce discounts a little further to cover this and our increased operating costs", which is all I asked for regards the honesty point.

Honestly at this point it's in the eyes of the customers to do as they please, I will continue to seek a bargain where possible but my preferred online retailer might change when it otherwise wouldn't have done if the message had been relayed clearer.

I don’t think they’re just/specifically targeting the middleman; a 5-6% price increase is only about half of current UK inflation rate, most of which is coming from high energy prices and a weak £, both of which will directly impact GW production. So even with the trade price increase, I think GW are probably taking about a 50% hit on margin per sale, whether trade or direct (because direct has to cover their own retail operation costs).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
GW appear to have decided their best way through this is to eat as much of the increasing costs as they can afford to and try to keep sales as high as possible by fixing RRP (for the time being).

Note that this just my interpretation of the facts and not an endorsement, agreement or defence of that choice.

 Dysartes wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Well educate in that case please.

Well, you keep talking about "profit" to refer to the difference between the wholesale price and the seller's retail price (in this case, discounted from GW's RRP).

For that reference, you really need to be talking about "gross profit" - I'd generally prefer to use "margin" here, so as to avoid the potential confusion between gross and net profit, as I find different terms to be cleaner in that regard. The thing about "gross profit" is that it doesn't reflect what people will intuitively think of as "profit", which would actually be the "net profit", or the profits after costs are taken into account.

When you start going on about a small retailer making "more profit" by reducing the discount, a casual reader is just going to think that the owners are making more bank, full stop. Given the general economic situation over the last year, having a margin that may be £1-2 higher on a £100 RRP item is almost certainly not sufficient to offset the overall increased costs (see next paragraph).

Your statements have generally not acknowledged that there have been ridiculous hikes on utility prices, than commercial rents are up (or they were last I checked), that internet retailers may fall afoul of the increased warehouse tax that StraightSilver brought up - not sure on my opinion on that yet, though I can see it as a way to try to level the Amazon playing field for actual shops; not sure how it'll play out yet - and that general inflation means that staff are going to need higher wages/salary to end up with similar take home pay in real terms. Instead, you come across as demonising these small businesses for not taking the hit from GW squarely on the chin.

You keep going on about wanting "honesty" from these companies, and yet at no point have I seen you demanding that GW clarify why trade prices need to go up, but general RRP doesn't. You've taken a very weird position on all this.

This is totally true but is also the point being made: the price hikes aren't entirely due to GW, there are many other factors acting on small businesses at the moment. So for a retailer to claim that any price hike is solely due to GW increasing prices is probably disingenuous.

That's an interesting take, given the price increase is in direct reaction to a change made by GW, and that the change more or less precisely mirrors the difference in wholesale cost that GW have implemented.

 Azreal13 wrote:
That's an interesting take, given the price increase is in direct reaction to a change made by GW, and that the change more or less precisely mirrors the difference in wholesale cost that GW have implemented.

Except it doesn't precisely mirror it, that's the point.

It's within a pound on a £100 purchase, which, like I've said already, is more than likely an artefact of keeping to round figures for discount rather than offering 16.4% off or something equally bizarre in order to precisely maintain the same margin to avoid accusations of chicanery from no-norts on the internet.

The independents could have swelled this increase if it weren’t the squeeze on all their other costs so in reality these factors play into them having to increase their prices. Nothing is ever as simple as it seems.

I assume you mean swallowed the increase? If so that's an awfully big assumption based on little cited evidence.

The increase in energy costs etc have, of course, been significant for everyone, especially as businesses don't benefit from a cost cap like domestic customers, but you cannot realistically make an assessment on the impact of those costs on a per sale basis, which will be massively impacted by the number of units a given retailer is moving.

I'd be quite happy to accept that the big online presence sites are shifting enough that the energy costs are a dramatically smaller amount per unit sold than 6% direct increase in wholesale cost.

The people I feel bad for is mostly the stores that didn't have a large discount to begin with. They don't really have anywhere to go in terms of increasing prices to pass the cost along to customers.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
The people I feel bad for is mostly the stores that didn't have a large discount to begin with. They don't really have anywhere to go in terms of increasing prices to pass the cost along to customers.

Which means less sales, which converts to less reason to stock the product. GW is shearing whatever foot they had left, again.

 McDougall Designs wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
The people I feel bad for is mostly the stores that didn't have a large discount to begin with. They don't really have anywhere to go in terms of increasing prices to pass the cost along to customers.

Which means less sales, which converts to less reason to stock the product. GW is shearing whatever foot they had left, again.

I wonder if GW is hoping that since the squeezed out independent has already hooked in the customers, any closures will drive them to GW direct?

As discussed in a prior thread, that could have an impact on GW negatively.


Factor in that they ship for free over £40, that's another overhead that gets added into the mix on fairly smallish orders if they are around that £40 mark.

Effectively, it could mean they make less profit via taking relatively smaller orders direct than via selling bulk orders to third parties, especially if that leads to having to hire more staff to cover the orders, as it's quicker and cheaper (shipping cost wise) to pack and ship 100 items in one order (to a FLGS) than it is to pack and ship 100 separate orders.

Then there's the impact of it being your sale, so you have to provide the customer service aspect etc...

Obviously, hard data would be needed to confirm if that were the case, and it probably isn't the case in all likelihood to be honest, but just a thought.

They are making 100% retail on direct sales and that’s grossly overpriced for what they put into their stuff. If shipping costs eat too much, boop! and suddenly the free shipping price point increases on their site.

Warlord, for instance, has an excessively high free shipping point if you’re US ($80); so way more market owning GW can either absorb the shipping at X or just raise it to Warlord level and more for free shipping.

I'm sure GW would rather sell direct to each individual customer if they could do so without losing sales volume.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I'm sure GW would rather sell direct to each individual customer if they could do so without losing sales volume.

That's the goal of ANY company.

Sure they get paid no matter where you buy, but it's much better for them if they don't have to sell to a distributor for 40%-50% of what it's listed for.

Everything you buy is, on average, 40%-50% more than what the guy selling it to you paid.

If GW asks for 50% of the MSRP, then what you pay at full price is not 50% more than the seller paid, it’s 100% more.

 TalonZahn wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I'm sure GW would rather sell direct to each individual customer if they could do so without losing sales volume.

That's the goal of ANY company.

Actually, a manufacturer also being a retailer and a wholesaler is a relatively unusual state of affairs and generates a unique tension within their business.

Selling directly to the public is in reality on the agenda of very few manufacturing companies.

 Azreal13 wrote:

 TalonZahn wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I'm sure GW would rather sell direct to each individual customer if they could do so without losing sales volume.

That's the goal of ANY company.

Actually, a manufacturer also being a retailer and a wholesaler is a relatively unusual state of affairs and generates a unique tension within their business.

Selling directly to the public is in reality on the agenda of very few manufacturing companies.

In the U.S. many manufacturers sell direct unless it is legislated otherwise, as in the case of cars.

Relative to the number of companies, the number of manufacturers actively running their own retail business I'd imagine is still quite small.

For clarification, I don't mean just whacking their products up on a website at full RRP and skimming a few sales, or maintaining a handful of stores in flagship locations, I mean actively engaged in a full blown retail operation. Apple would be a relatively good example, but you're not going to see "Bobs copper piping and valves" opening their own chain of shops all that often.

 Azreal13 wrote:
Relative to the number of companies, the number of manufacturers actively running their own retail business I'd imagine is still quite small.

For clarification, I don't mean just whacking their products up on a website at full RRP and skimming a few sales, or maintaining a handful of stores in flagship locations, I mean actively engaged in a full blown retail operation. Apple would be a relatively good example, but you're not going to see "Bobs copper piping and valves" opening their own chain of shops all that often.

Now you're pushing into the area of splitting hairs.

A copper pipe is an end product, but it's not, because copper pipes are in all kinds of other things manufactured. There are absolutely stores, mom & pop and chain stores, selling copper pipes, as well as direct from manufacturers.

GW doesn't sell mid-range/mid-step items. We're talking finished product.

Walmart doesn't make corn or cans, but they sure sell Walmart Corn in a can. They sell other types of corn in the can, but they make more and want you to buy theirs more.

GW is a major brand in their industry and in turn; Apple, Tesla, Walmart, Target, Krogers, Shell, BP, Costco, etc. etc....

They all have stores with their branded items that they manufacture and make more money on selling direct because they own the majority of the production chain.

Branded =\= manufactured.

Games Workshop is vertically integrated, it owns the means of production, the distribution and the retail elements of it's business. Where the tension arises it also supplies its own competitors.

 Azreal13 wrote:
Branded =\= manufactured.

Games Workshop is vertically integrated, it owns the means of production, the distribution and the retail elements of it's business. Where the tension arises it also supplies its own competitors.

You'll have to dig deeper. Walmart, Target, most of Kroger, Shell, etc... are vertically integrated as well.

[Edit] And yes, you can find their products at competitors; other gas stations, dollar stores, etc.

Most large firms are vertical to some degree, it makes economic sense.

Once they've paid the white label firm to make their USB cable or whatever, the they're free to do what they want to it, but they overwhelmingly frequently don't own the factory, and therefore aren't a manufacturer.

There are even some instances where they'll be a company's only customer, but that still doesn't make them a manufacturer.

GW doesn't own their shipping chain in the U.S so does that mean they aren't truly integrated?

The point still remains that a manufacturer that has the ability to sell to you direct over going through a retailer will do so eagerly.

No. They. Won't.

Some might

Most manufacturers are enormous faceless buildings on industrial estates miles from anywhere in provinces in China or India merrily churning out whatever it is they make to fulfil orders in the thousands to millions of units and they have absolutely zero interest in selling one to you directly. Many of those won't even be making things that are ever sold to a consumer directly and will in fact be making bits of other things that then go on to another factory to be incorporated into something else.

We don't have GW delivery vans in Europe/UK either, I'm not sure what the point is you're trying to make, that companies don't "count" as vertically integrated unless they're literally pulling raw materials out of the dirt? Feels like things are getting a little straw clutchy.

You're the one that's been moving the goalposts, not me.

You said GW owned the distribution, and they clearly don't. They don't own the distributors and they don't own the shipping.

So now you're leaning on manufacturing and retail.

I pointed out that several manufacturers do own both. Even more own the manufacturing, like GW.

It's not "some", that meet your criteria that you set out for GW, it's many more than you are either aware of or are willing to admit.

Logistics=\= distribution.

But the only reason you think you have an argument is because you obviously have very little knowledge of the subject, it's not my job to educate you, we're done here.

 Azreal13 wrote:
Logistics=\= distribution.

But the only reason you think you have an argument is because you obviously have very little knowledge of the subject, it's not my job to educate you, we're done here.

You're wrong as I've noted on your points, I've given examples, and you "quit" so, whatever.

I'm "wrong" in the sense that your definition of "right" isn't itself correct. But you don't realise this because you don't know enough about the subject.

I'm suddenly reminded of something I said in the locked previous thread:

"We just need Azreal13 to come back into the thread for the coup de grace."

Ha!

Of all the people to pick a fight with on matters of business.

Oh look, HBMC is here to pile on.

You can cry all you want Az, but there are MANY MANY Manufacturers that would, and do, sell straight to their customers.

And gladly do so, or would do so, to cut out all middlemen.

That is the reality, period.

Such a "coup de grace delivered by Az......

[Edit] And Az came after me, not the other way around, as I've noted before with you HBMC, reading comprehension.

 Azreal13 wrote:
Branded =\= manufactured.

Games Workshop is vertically integrated, it owns the means of production, the distribution and the retail elements of it's business. Where the tension arises it also supplies its own competitors.

I don't think this is in any way controversial. GW makes minis and has its own retail outlets. No, it doesn't own transit companies but even the conglomerates of old didn't own the railroads and trucks that carried parts to their factories.

In GW's perfect world, everyone buys from them. Alas, this isn't practical as the GW Store model doesn't work for lots of places, so GW tolerates retailers in areas where it is not feasible to establish a store.

As is well-known, at one point GW tried to use their knowledge of sales to "bump off" long-time retailers by siting GW Stores in their area. It didn't work.

In any event, I find the discussion of "profit" above a bit weird because all items should be sold at a profit. If you break even (that is, the retailer makes nothing on the transaction), the shop goes out of business.

 TalonZahn wrote:
Oh look, HBMC is here to pile on.

You can cry all you want Az, but there are MANY MANY Manufacturers that would, and do, sell straight to their customers.

And gladly do so, or would do so, to cut out all middlemen.

That is the reality, period.

Such a "coup de grace delivered by Az......

But I've never disputed that?

My assertion has been that in the scope of the huge number of manufacturing companies in the world, manufacturers that sell direct to the consumer are a comparative minority. Those that do it, act as wholesale distributors and also own a significant retail presence are even rarer.

You just seem to think a few thousand, globally speaking, is significant when there's hundreds of thousands, probably millions, of manufacturers out there who aren't looking to sell direct to retail, wouldn't know how and don't make anything that anyone would want to buy in the state they output it.

[Edit] And Az came after me, not the other way around, as I've noted before with you HBMC, reading comprehension.

Correcting someone for making an inaccurate statement and then standing by one's argument when they dispute it isn't "coming after" anyone. Stop watching gangster films.

 TalonZahn wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I'm sure GW would rather sell direct to each individual customer if they could do so without losing sales volume.

That's the goal of ANY company.

This is what you disputed.

I guess it was MY fault for saying ANY instead of narrowing it to.... any company that can feasibly manage doing so. Which is far more than you seem to think.

Perhaps I should have said something like....

"Every manufacturer than can feasibly sell direct to consumer at MSRP and eliminate all middleman losses incurred through their inability to be 100% vertically integrated, would make it their main goal as to maximize profit on every sale."

Like say...Sherwin-Williams paint. They make their paint, you can buy it from them online, they have stores, and own their distribution/shipping.

However, they also sell their paint at Lowe's, who is a competitor.

I bet SW would rather sell you paint from their stores than Lowe's.


[Edit] Now now Az, stop making petty attacks.

 TalonZahn wrote:


Like say...Sherwin-Williams paint. They make their paint, you can buy it from them online, they have stores, and own their distribution/shipping.

However, they also sell their paint at Lowe's, who is a competitor.

I bet SW would rather sell you paint from their stores than Lowe's.

Isn't their slogan to "cover the world," complete with a somewhat creepy image of blood red paint drowning the globe?

Very Chaos.

Cover the Earth.

Very metal for a company that has a globe drowning in red paint..... in a time when people claim to hate all fossil fuels.

I bet SW would rather sell you paint from their stores than Lowe's.

Even that's not a gimme. Stores are expensive to run, for the longest time GW's stores barely broke even most years (they might still, I've just not cared enough to look recently.)

GW rationalised it as an advertising/recruitment tool rather than a money making enterprise. Even if you could flick a switch and channel every sale through a local GW store tomorrow, ilthe lost sales from areas where they have no presence might mean it wasn't a net gain.

Send everything to the webstore and their visibility disappears, and they would likely need to start investing far more heavily in traditional advertising to acquire new customers, and that could get very expensive.

The idea that they want everyone to buy straight from them is logically sound, but the reality is so much more complicated. The more pragmatic approach is to get product in as many places as possible for a price that makes you a profit, which is by and large what they do.

Were it GW Day 1 and they could start from scratch, they might build differently, but as with any ongoing concern they have to contend with the legacy of decisions made historically.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I'm suddenly reminded of something I said in the locked previous thread:

"We just need Azreal13 to come back into the thread for the coup de grace."

Ha!

Of all the people to pick a fight with on matters of business.

In fairness, the thread started with people not calculating sales tax properly and not understand the difference between gross and net or profit and margin, so that we've moved on to debate over vertical integration and the truncation of supply chains is a significant step up.

And that, in a roundabout way, leads back to the original statement.

If a manufacturer could sell directly to each of their customers, and not lose volume of sales, they would do so.

Eliminating all costs of land, rent, employees, etc. etc... and getting 100% MSRP every sale is the easy choice.

I would argue though that GW stores don't gain as many newcomers as the other mediums they are pushing into; video games, comics, animation, CCG's, etc..

[Edit] If you want, I can change the conversation back to something less engaging.

If a manufacturer could sell directly to each of their customers, and not lose volume of sales, they would do so.

It's moot though, because unless a business sets itself up day 1 to sell a product it makes direct to consumer, it's effectively impossible to pivot into that. GW predates the wide adoption of the internet by decades, therefore the best if can do is try and stack the deck in its favour, which is probably why this topic exists.

Eliminating all costs of land, rent, employees, etc. etc... and getting 100% MSRP every sale is the easy choice.

Still need people etc. In GW's they'd still need warehousing, production, admin, HR, telesales, web support, etc etc anf somewhere to put it all. They'd be able to make the account managers for the third party sales redundant and that's about it, and they'd likely need to recruit more heavily into their stores and warehousing/dispatch to accommodate the increase in orders (and far more small ones.)

As I said, it's logically sound to say they'd do it, but it's logical to say that I'd choose to gain superpowers if I was offered, but the odds of it successfully happening are essentially nil.

 Azreal13 wrote:

I bet SW would rather sell you paint from their stores than Lowe's.

Even that's not a gimme. Stores are expensive to run, for the longest time GW's stores barely broke even most years (they might still, I've just not cared enough to look recently.)

This is true, but they're in a better situation than regular FLGS (to which the above applies exactly the same), as they don't have as big a margin as GW when selling GW stuff, which is the topic of the thread: that margin, that was already (and obviously) lower, is getting reduced by GW at a point in time when the situation of those stores is already dire, due to... <waves around vaguely>

 Albertorius wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

I bet SW would rather sell you paint from their stores than Lowe's.

Even that's not a gimme. Stores are expensive to run, for the longest time GW's stores barely broke even most years (they might still, I've just not cared enough to look recently.)

This is true, but they're in a better situation than regular FLGS (to which the above applies exactly the same), as they don't have as big a margin as GW when selling GW stuff, which is the topic of the thread: that margin, that was already (and obviously) lower, is getting reduced by GW at a point in time when the situation of those stores is already dire, due to... <waves around vaguely>

I don't know if this was just a one off accident or actually something more. But I have been part of the Votann outofstock waiting list since Preorder in October at an independent, some specific items have been Out of stock since ever but almost 2 weeks ago they are back at the GW online store.... yet the Independent claims GW will only ship those after 5 January... What's the relevance of this?
I hope that GW doesn't start playing the out of stock game with other stores while selling the items only on their own stores first. In this example Votann will miss the Christmas shopping sprees.

tricky, but the last time I had this happen to me the explanation from GW themself I got after asking was that orders are resolved differently as orders on release day are done first and pre-orders backwards (GW before FLGS last order first) and that my best option is to cancel my pre-order and go into a GW store to buy it there

 NAVARRO wrote:

 Albertorius wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

I bet SW would rather sell you paint from their stores than Lowe's.

Even that's not a gimme. Stores are expensive to run, for the longest time GW's stores barely broke even most years (they might still, I've just not cared enough to look recently.)

This is true, but they're in a better situation than regular FLGS (to which the above applies exactly the same), as they don't have as big a margin as GW when selling GW stuff, which is the topic of the thread: that margin, that was already (and obviously) lower, is getting reduced by GW at a point in time when the situation of those stores is already dire, due to... <waves around vaguely>

I don't know if this was just a one off accident or actually something more. But I have been part of the Votann outofstock waiting list since Preorder in October at an independent, some specific items have been Out of stock since ever but almost 2 weeks ago they are back at the GW online store.... yet the Independent claims GW will only ship those after 5 January... What's the relevance of this?
I hope that GW doesn't start playing the out of stock game with other stores while selling the items only on their own stores first. In this example Votann will miss the Christmas shopping sprees.

As we have now entered the "can't guarantee it for Christmas' phase of the festive period, the store in question may simply be playing safe. My GW sales rep has informed me that while they will take trade orders next week, and the week after - their arrival time is not certain. As for Leagues of Votann, restocks have been sporadic, and FLGS may have to trust to luck that certain items are available as when their order gets processed. I think I'm one of the lucky ones to get a Land Fortress this week. GW's web store (and any mail order based trader) while be quite happy to take your money as soon as you click 'pay now'. What time it arrives at it's destination is somebody else's problem.

MarkNorfolk wrote:

As we have now entered the "can't guarantee it for Christmas' phase of the festive period, the store in question may simply be playing safe. My GW sales rep has informed me that while they will take trade orders next week, and the week after - their arrival time is not certain. As for Leagues of Votann, restocks have been sporadic, and FLGS may have to trust to luck that certain items are available as when their order gets processed. I think I'm one of the lucky ones to get a Land Fortress this week. GW's web store (and any mail order based trader) while be quite happy to take your money as soon as you click 'pay now'. What time it arrives at it's destination is somebody else's problem.

To be fair, it may actually be someone elses fault. For example, in Germany, we have huge huge problems along the whole distribution chain for stuff even as basic as standard mail, mostly due to a lack in postal workers and absolutely insane rates of absence due to illness at the moment. Standard letters, which usually operate under a legaly mandated policy of 2 working days turnaround between posting and delivery for at least 90% of the total and 3 days for 95% can be delayed for weeks, and packages take even longer. Even super-expensive services like guaranteed next-day delivery in a determined timeslot that cost several hundred percent more than standard mail do regularly fail at the moment, and stuff like inhouse pickup for firms is totally cancelled in many service areas. It's a problem that made the news on several occasions because stuff like important official mail with non-negotiable deadlines for reply is also affected by this. That's not really something GW can influence or account for, if any step of your supply chain depends on that at all you'll just be randomly hit by delays with no warning and no recourse.

Their risk is doing this, as opposed to a price rise, might crimp their visibility. GW stuff can be marginal for some shops (selling online is a different beast), if this pushes their turn rate down and there is no indication it is a temporary measure, the temptation is to drop the lines. Being a small stockist doesn't seem to work for many, it is carry considerable stock or give up. Of course if GW can fix their distribution as a compromise that would change things, but if those problems continue and the margin is cut, I would see their physical visibility dropping.

And to the above - whilst many companies sell direct in some way (even if it is just a bad website), it is expensive and tricky and often doesn't make them as much after costs as wholesale sales. Why doesn't everyone do everything? Because it is hard, retailers tend to be better at retail, manufacturers better at making things, and so on. Maybe machine learning will provide a better base of ability and make expertise more of a marginal gain? Who knows.

 Albertorius wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

I bet SW would rather sell you paint from their stores than Lowe's.

Even that's not a gimme. Stores are expensive to run, for the longest time GW's stores barely broke even most years (they might still, I've just not cared enough to look recently.)

This is true, but they're in a better situation than regular FLGS (to which the above applies exactly the same), as they don't have as big a margin as GW when selling GW stuff, which is the topic of the thread: that margin, that was already (and obviously) lower, is getting reduced by GW at a point in time when the situation of those stores is already dire, due to... <waves around vaguely>

What were the estimated margins the last time anyone saw figures for GW Online vs. GW Store vs. average independent?

I can see a GW Online sale probably having a higher margin than an independent, but it might not be the case for the GW Store, assuming the costs for each channel aren't averaged between the two.

Well margin or profit? GW stores aren't franchises, they aren't buying in branded product. It is shipped to them to sell and they ship the proceeds back. The company is deliberately opaque about the profit from that channel. But they clearly despite various efforts over the years still make money and need the non-GW stores.

The_Real_Chris wrote:
Well margin or profit? GW stores aren't franchises, they aren't buying in branded product. It is shipped to them to sell and they ship the proceeds back. The company is deliberately opaque about the profit from that channel. But they clearly despite various efforts over the years still make money and need the non-GW stores.

In retailer logic, it's a choice between two distinct cost profiles: sell it yourself at retail price, but assume all the risk and costs that entails, especially the cost of bound capital and of warehousing and store operation, or sell at discount, but get all the cash right now and shift most the operating risks to the independt retailers. In a world that was ideal for them, GW would like to have all the risk-free options like pre-orders, made-to-order and such in their own hand to collect the highest possible rents, while leaving the risky business of keeping stuff sitting around for random walk-ins to the independents. Of course, it's not entirely that simple, but that's the general principle.