Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

LunaHound wrote:Mr Mystery, your theory doesnt work because there are 2 obvious types of customers.

The newbie that just got into warhammer,

and the veterans they are expanding their armies.

There's at least five:

The vet who doesn't expand and only buys books to remain able to play.

The person who collects without caring about armies or collects to play Apoc.

The person who buys to paint.

Platuan4th wrote:

LunaHound wrote:Mr Mystery, your theory doesnt work because there are 2 obvious types of customers.

The newbie that just got into warhammer,

and the veterans they are expanding their armies.

There's at least three:

The vet who doesn't expand and only buys books to remain able to play.

i think in GW's eyes, they dont even consider the 3rd type as even a customer anymore.

Thats why everything GW do now, agitates the vets to no end, agreed?

Basically:

They cater 90% to the newbies that starts warhammer
They cater the 10% to vets that have existing army, but either by nerfing their existing army list to be replaced by newly released toys for the list to be effective.

If GW isn't here to please everyone who are they here to please????

Shareholders.

Not that they are doing a good job their either.

Anyone else wondering where the Dakka Meme guys are with their BLAME THE VICTIM?

Knowing them they would label GW the victim too.

LunaHound wrote:

Platuan4th wrote:

LunaHound wrote:Mr Mystery, your theory doesnt work because there are 2 obvious types of customers.

The newbie that just got into warhammer,

and the veterans they are expanding their armies.

There's at least three:

The vet who doesn't expand and only buys books to remain able to play.

i think in GW's eyes, they dont even consider the 3rd type as even a customer anymore.

Thats why everything GW do now, agitates the vets to no end, agreed?

Basically:

They cater 90% to the newbies that starts warhammer
They cater the 10% to vets that have existing army, but either by nerfing their existing army list to be replaced by newly released toys for the list to be effective.

As with anything else, all the time you are buying (or have an ongoing product, something GW do not have) you are a customer. I see many posts by people criticising GW who claim to have quite years ago. Seriously, why would they be of any import, when they have freely stated they no longer care for the product?

Or am I the only one with even the dimmest grasp on sales and that?

But the problem is, the vets are not saying they dont want to purchase GW stuff.

They are saying they dont want to purchase the stuff that are made to cater to the newbie starters.

One good example for GW improving the situation is the summer monster release for warhammer.

Its a good start for vets with existing armies to add some reinforcement to their forces.

Dogs of war WOULD be a good idea, however the only reason GW wont bring that back would be, then it would be too easy
for many different armies to share same DoW units, which cuts down to the models needed to be bought.

As with anything else, all the time you are buying (or have an ongoing product, something GW do not have) you are a customer. I see many posts by people criticising GW who claim to have quite years ago. Seriously, why would they be of any import, when they have freely stated they no longer care for the product?

Or am I the only one with even the dimmest grasp on sales and that?

Because losing customers is bad maybe? Because catering to your demographic can bring back those customers?

Define their demographic.

Beleive it or not, it is far, FAR easier to recruit, than it is to retain, for the very reasons presented in my original post.

So tell me, what makes more economic sense? Seek to recruit, or seek to retain? Which is the more cost intensive? Which has the bigger investment/taking ratio?

Mr Mystery wrote:Define their demographic.

Beleive it or not, it is far, FAR easier to recruit, than it is to retain, for the very reasons presented in my original post.

So tell me, what makes more economic sense? Seek to recruit, or seek to retain? Which is the more cost intensive? Which has the bigger investment/taking ratio?

The most economics sense ( ATM ) is what GW is doing now, recruiting newbies while throwing left overs to vets.
everything you mentioned , recruiting , retaining , investment , cost intensive points towards its in GW's best interest to focus on recruiting newbies.
So ya i agree with you some what.

However, that move is like saying GW will never exhaust their supply of newbies.
Before it exhaust that option, GW will need to make the game easier to target / grab the younger customers.

Then, Warhammer will turn into a really bad game.

Someone said earlier this was going to end badly, I feel they were right. Lots of agression as usual but some very very interesting points raised. Not as black and white as some are trying to make it but interesting views none the less

So tell me, what makes more economic sense? Seek to recruit, or seek to retain? Which is the more cost intensive? Which has the bigger investment/taking ratio?

Are the two aspects really mutually exclusive or is that yet more evidence of GW's inability to operate like a rational company?

They certainly seem to only favour the short term money grab off new players.

In lots of forms of business its considered FAR better to KEEP a customer than to try and go get a NEW one. GW are not in that field, the like the big investments from customers on new ranges of models.

You make it sound like "getting new customers" and "keeping existing customers" are mutually exclusive. That's horse-gak. Even Grotsnik knows that.

GW are all about short-term cash grabs with no grasp of long-term business growth. And if what they were doing was working they wouldn't see year-on-year falls in sales, would they?

LunaHound wrote:

Mr Mystery wrote:Define their demographic.

Beleive it or not, it is far, FAR easier to recruit, than it is to retain, for the very reasons presented in my original post.

So tell me, what makes more economic sense? Seek to recruit, or seek to retain? Which is the more cost intensive? Which has the bigger investment/taking ratio?

The most economics sense ( ATM ) is what GW is doing now, recruiting newbies while throwing left overs to vets.
everything you mentioned , recruiting , retaining , investment , cost intensive points towards its in GW's best interest to focus on recruiting newbies.
So ya i agree with you some what.

However, that move is like saying GW will never exhaust their supply of newbies.
Before it exhaust that option, GW will need to make the game easier to target / grab the younger customers.

Then, Warhammer will turn into a really bad game.

I disagree. GW appeals to a certain set of people, and having had the training, I know they know this. There is a demographic (I won't post up it here, because I'm not sure if t's cool or not, but feel free to PM me) for them, and they aim for that, just like every other company/ Those complaining about the price, but sorry, how many other companies give a rats ass whether you can't afford it? They're interested in those that can. To use the earlier analogy of car companies, I can probably go out tomorrow and buy a decent, second hand Ford, but a Ferrari is ever out my each. Do Ferrari care? Do they feth. I'm not their demograph, so as far as they're concerned, I can just go feth myself. And I accept that. It's not poor customer service, as never having purchased their producy, guess what? I'M NOT THEIR CUSTOMER!. Now whilst this particular analogy is flawed given the techical differences between the two products, GW are more like Ford, and PP etc more akin to Skoda, Kia and Daewoo. All produce roughly the same product. All trade on their names. But, one has deeper market penetration, and a superior reputation backed up by a solid product, than the others. That would be Ford (or GW for this analogy) whilst they'd like you to buy their product, if the other company offer a gimmick, or deal, or perhaps just some kind of function, that they don't, not to worry, they offer more of what more people want than the others individually, therefore their market share is protected.

I hope you're following this. I've had 6 bottles of Newcastle Brown, and I make guarantees about coherency.

So do you see what I'm saying. Aggrieved as the individuals might be, that is all they are, the individual. Even the most intense of GW hate groups will have different reasons for signing up to it. Like*any* business, it's a numbers game, and GW are winning for the time being.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Are the two aspects really mutually exclusive or is that yet more evidence of GW's inability to operate like a rational company?

They certainly seem to only favour the short term money grab off new players.

Because its easier to target newbies that dont know better.

Start with cheap core game set, get awed by so many Space Marine varients to be added to the AoBR , etc etc.

If GW need to cater to the none Marine forces, then they need to tailor the codex to PUSH the units they want to sell.
Or else they are risking investing too much into producing units that people might not even touch.

So the options for GW really breaks down to this:

a) Focus on selling to newbies , because SM are so common, everything they produce in that army have a high chance to be picked up.

b) Focus on existing armies ( none SM ), produce ( and risk wasting production money ) to make units available to keep us happy.
Then to prevent profit loss from sustaining this option, GW needs to
(i) Make a unit extremely favorable to us, that we are certain to purchase it. Hence making the production cost not a waste.
(ii) Decrease the choice of units available, or make army synergies narrower. Forcing us to purchase certain units, which makes us angry with "nerfs" or "change"

H.B.M.C. wrote:You make it sound like "getting new customers" and "keeping existing customers" are mutually exclusive. That's horse-gak. Even Grotsnik knows that.

GW are all about short-term cash grabs with no grasp of long-term business growth. And if what they were doing was working they wouldn't see year-on-year falls in sales, would they?

not sure if that was directed at what I said, if it was, that's what I was trying to say

thank you

H.B.M.C. wrote:You make it sound like "getting new customers" and "keeping existing customers" are mutually exclusive. That's horse-gak. Even Grotsnik knows that.

GW are all about short-term cash grabs with no grasp of long-term business growth. And if what they were doing was working they wouldn't see year-on-year falls in sales, would they?

I'm not saying they are, but from a costings point of view, new customers are a lot more efficient than existing ones, simply because *everything* is new. And believe it or not, the training I received a Blue/Semi Black gak (third time around...stuffed up the managers course something rotten, not helped by pissing off Forgeworld) is about ensuring that the NooB spends their money as wisely as possible.

Business wise, GW have their head screwed on far more than people give them credit for. Not looking to call anyone a liar, just less informer than myself. And even then, I'll freely admit to not being particularly well informed these days. But I've heard the corporate line, and I've the training. I understand the whos, the whys, there wheres, and the whens. And trust me, that's a forum all to itself!

Read my previous post! it makes tons of sense and certainly reflects what GW have been doing,

I gotta say, for a hamfisted attempt to pick a pick a fight, this is particularly hamfisted.

If nothing else, it ignores the fact that clearly a lot of people are pretty happy in the only way that matters: further sales.

Second, Mr. Mystery and HBMC don't represent poles of the GW fanbase, because neither are actually people, but characters that are, while well done, basically two dimensional shticks. Yes, I'm sure there are actual people posting behind those personas, but you might as well analyze Borat and Larry the Cable guy as perspective consumers as well.

I'm not sure what your point is, even after clarification. That GW cannot please multiple aspects of their fanbase? Have they even tried?

I'll agree that GW has retrenched, and now focuses on it's core games, leaving lots of markets open to competition. But those are different games, I still think that there's no real reason they couldn't satisfy those that want to play 40k or WFB in several different ways. One way we know that is that there are some efforts. The same company runs Ard Boys, and publishes Battle Missions.

What i think is a valid concern, is that people want them to continually improve their product, you know, like every other company does. Now they have, obviously. Compare a model today to one from 10 years ago. Compare rules now to rules even five years ago.

But... look around the market. Look at the competition compared to 10 years ago. In 1998, nobody made models as good, top to bottom, as GW. Now there are several ranges that compete. Nobody had tight, well developed rules and worlds. Now several games do.

When you see Game X do something well, it's not out of line to wonder why GW can't do that. Things like overhauling the rules to include keywords and reduce ambiguity: that doesn't hurt anybody. Or creating actual content for the magazine.

Finally, there is the matter of price. When prices go up, so do expectations. its' that simple. If GW stuff is twice as expensive as 10 years ago, it's not that it should just be twice as good. It should twice as good as 10 years of natural evolution would have made it.

Now, I'll agree that there are too many people that seem fixated on the negative. The problem isnt' as simple as blaming them, though. GW relies on emotional attachment, to armies, to settings, to the simple need to collect. They're not just offering a product, they want us to buy in, creatively. When you start trading in emotion, you have to take the good with the bad.

At the same time, GW shows little if any interest in it's fanbase. When the problem with a company is perception more than reality, even if it's somewhat correct to blame those perceiving, I think the wise executive realizes that it's a public relations problem. You can't change people, but you can change how you talk to them.

And maybe, just maybe, that's the real problem.

I've been posting on the Internet for a long time, but this is perhaps the first time I've seen the "You're not a real person, therefore your opinion is invalid" argument.

Nice to know that I can be so easily and casually dismissed.

I think I'm done with this thread, lest I say something that stirs the ire of the mods...

Mr Mystery wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:You make it sound like "getting new customers" and "keeping existing customers" are mutually exclusive. That's horse-gak. Even Grotsnik knows that.

GW are all about short-term cash grabs with no grasp of long-term business growth. And if what they were doing was working they wouldn't see year-on-year falls in sales, would they?

I'm not saying they are, but from a costings point of view, new customers are a lot more efficient than existing ones, simply because *everything* is new. And believe it or not, the training I received a Blue/Semi Black gak (third time around...stuffed up the managers course something rotten, not helped by pissing off Forgeworld) is about ensuring that the NooB spends their money as wisely as possible.

Business wise, GW have their head screwed on far more than people give them credit for. Not looking to call anyone a liar, just less informer than myself. And even then, I'll freely admit to not being particularly well informed these days. But I've heard the corporate line, and I've the training. I understand the whos, the whys, there wheres, and the whens. And trust me, that's a forum all to itself!

It's basic business 101 that it is far cheaper and much more beneficial to keep current customers than to get new ones. People have given you many examples of this. The cost of all those stores is just to get new customers. It's very expensive. Think about this I have many armies for many GW systems. I used to buy all kinds of stuff I didn't need, just because they were cool. Now, I don't buy anything. My miniatures are outdated, but they still function. If GW was to price them affordability I might replace them, but not now.

They were smart to make the games bigger so that people need to buy more volume. But to price them out of the casual gamers budget, does not makes sense! Yeah other companies charge as much...NOW! GW lead the price rise charge and everybody else just followed. It's not just the minis either, it's glue, paint, scenery, WD, every thing that GW touches you can find elsewhere much cheaper, with better customer interaction.

Those complaining about the price, but sorry, how many other companies give a rats ass whether you can't afford it?

And in a nutshell the arrogance that induces vomitting in those of us of a more delicate disposition.

Can only conclude that GW products must only be for spoilt brats who know the value of nothing

H.B.M.C. wrote:I've been posting on the Internet for a long time, but this is perhaps the first time I've seen the "You're not a real person, therefore your opinion is invalid" argument.

Nice to know that I can be so easily and casually dismissed.

I think I'm done with this thread, lest I say something that stirs the ire of the mods...

I think you misinterpreted my point, which is that even taken at face value, you're opinion (and Mr. Mystery's) is so far afield that it's not representative of any sizable cohort.

Secondly, it assumes that his perception of your online persona is actually a tangible customer. Which is simply silly.

H.B.M.C. wrote:I've been posting on the Internet for a long time, but this is perhaps the first time I've seen the "You're not a real person, therefore your opinion is invalid" argument.

Nice to know that I can be so easily and casually dismissed.

I think I'm done with this thread, lest I say something that stirs the ire of the mods...

Are you a real person or a ghost in the WWW

Andrew1975 wrote:
It's basic business 101 that it is far cheaper and much more beneficial to keep current customers than to get new ones. People have given you many examples of this. The cost of all those stores is just to get new customers. It's very expensive. Think about this I have many armies for many GW systems. I used to buy all kinds of stuff I didn't need, just because they were cool. Now, I don't buy anything. My miniatures are outdated, but they still function. If GW was to price them affordability I might replace them, but not now.

Most good also require replacement. As you pointed out, once bought, a GW army requires a new BGB every 4-5 years, a new codex every 4-10 years, and a few new units every couple of years.

Assuming a $50 book every 4 years, a new $30 codex every 5 years, and a new battleforce every single year, GW is bringing in 12.50 + 6 + 90 = $108 a year. A single newbie building an army from scratch is worth roughly three veterans.

I think GW is betting heavily on the concept that the guys that will buy three giant armies will do so nearly regardless of what they do.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:
Can only conclude that GW products must only be for spoilt brats who know the value of nothing

This is the customer base they are aiming for.

I have been involved with the GW Hobby since 1999. I have collected 11 armies for 40k and fantasy, two large forces for LOTR, Picked up the core of a fleet for BFG and a team for Bloodbowl. I have applied and been interviewed (under the old system of actual hobby involved people as staffers). But the direction of aiming for young people who's parents will pay at £500 (because the rules changed unfairly for the three "Core" games) for their kids to have an army, is there main customer base, surely that cannot be a good thing.

In 11 years I have spent a lot of my own income with GW. Just looking at my Space Marines army that was largely purchased over 3 months I spent close to £300.

The customers who have the funds to make large purchases are not the ones they are pulling into the hobby. They are the ones they are driving away.

Is that really the best business sense or direction?

Ha! This thread really is terrible...

Polonious: I often agree with HBMC, and will admit that his posts are indeed characterful, his logic, reason and conclusions on here to not betray the 'person' on the inside (and do represent most of our gaming group).

HBMC: Ha!

Mr Mystery: Wow... if they ever could figure out a system to track who actually bought stuff (rather than guessing as they do now) we would be better at agreeing or disagreeing. At the moment, people ranting on Dakka is the best we have (and most of them from what I can see do not agree with you on the 'business' and 'economic' side. The fluff and fun side, that's up for arguement (because by definition it is subjective).

I think GW's chief problem is that they are run by this guy:



Games Workshop is clearly resistant to change. Corporate may feel that their well-established habits provide both comfort and security; much like a baby with a "blankie", or thumb-sucking. Also, I think what changes they do make are managed poorly, characterized by a lack of proper planning and communication.

I find it particularly interesting that Mystery is firmly entrenched in the view we here at Dakka are a bunch of whiny idiots who don't know what the feth that we're talking about. As such, out of pity for us poor deluded fools, he's taken it upon himself to educate the unwashed masses in the error of our ways.

Just like how GW is there to dictate their followers on how we should participate in the hobby, how AND when we should build our armies, and what models we should buy.

IMHO, If there's anything wrong with GW, it is their overwhelming arrogance in thinking that they can exert that kind of control in the hobby market...

But hey, what do I know... I'm just an ignorant voice in the masses.

-edit- In before lock.

Polonius wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:
It's basic business 101 that it is far cheaper and much more beneficial to keep current customers than to get new ones. People have given you many examples of this. The cost of all those stores is just to get new customers. It's very expensive. Think about this I have many armies for many GW systems. I used to buy all kinds of stuff I didn't need, just because they were cool. Now, I don't buy anything. My miniatures are outdated, but they still function. If GW was to price them affordability I might replace them, but not now.

Most good also require replacement. As you pointed out, once bought, a GW army requires a new BGB every 4-5 years, a new codex every 4-10 years, and a few new units every couple of years.

Assuming a $50 book every 4 years, a new $30 codex every 5 years, and a new battleforce every single year, GW is bringing in 12.50 + 6 + 90 = $108 a year. A single newbie building an army from scratch is worth roughly three veterans.

I think GW is betting heavily on the concept that the guys that will buy three giant armies will do so nearly regardless of what they do.

But there are always new miniatures and new games to buy. If you look at what the average hard core vet spends it must be far more than a newbi. When you consider I would have refitted, 1 SM army, 1 IG army, 1 eldar army, 1 chaos 40k army, 1 Dark elves army, 1 skaven army, and 1 empire army. That's a lot, plus books. Then consider I might have started at least one more of the new armies probably dark eldar. Not to mention epic, bloodbowl and necromunda.
l
You also have to consider how many customers don't even start because of the cost and lack of customer appreciation. That is a huge loss of capital!

I started back in the day because it was cheaper than buying a computer and games. Remember computers used to cost 4-5K. There is so much more competition for those entertainment dollars now that pricing people out and treating them poorly in general are real sins. One might fly, but to ask for more money, and treat me worse, well that's too much.

I will say that GW customer service has gotten much better as far a return and replacement go. But when I see companies like manitc going out of their way to please customers, I have to ask why the "leader" in the field is fumbling. Mantic switched to resin, and it's cheaper than their metal! They are constantly on BOW interacting with customers, they offer customers some real interaction. Yeah their minis are not the hottest, but they are not bad for a 1st run, especially for the price.

The way GW treats it's customers is nothing new and there have been complaints for years, with no real attempts by GW to address the issues.

Andrew1975 THANK YOU! Your eloquent statements is exactly what I was going to post.

I've owned several businesses over the years. Have a few renters paying for my modeling addiction so to speak

It is always less expensive to keep your customer base than to recruit. I've have had loyal customers for +20 plus years because of quality service. You must know your market. You must always try to expand while keeping your customer base intact. But above all you must keep your customer base happy. They must feel that they are important, that they are real people, with an opinion (whether right or wrong) instead of a bar code of data.

That is IMHO GW's problem. To them we are bar codes of data, a temporary resource of income to be used and then tossed aside.

Presently IMHO, GW is attempting to be a closed propriety ecosystem. In this way they will be able to control information, product and distribution channels. Something similar to what Apple Inc is doing, but in IMHO they are doing this all wrong as stated in this current and in previous postings by myself and others on this site.