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.

GW's descisions are so often inscutable, asking for insight into why something is the way it is often pointless. That said, can anyone explain the choice of model selection on the first screen of GW's homepage? I mean first impressions count to varying degrees, but isn't it always worthwhile to look your best? The models they chose look as though the descision was randomized. The effect is akin to a guy, beer gut hanging out, fuzzy teeth glinting, saying "Hi, I'm John. I'm unemployed with a history of violent outbursts. I'd like to date your daughter. " Who makes descisions like this?

Also, while I enjoyed the recent Dark Eldar video shoot, the choice of Adam Troke as the Interviewer was horrible. That guy has no interview skills whatsoever. He seemed as though he was only half listening and was about as engaging as a bobblehead.

Is there a chicken pecking at a list possible descisions at the HQ?

Sorry for the negative tone but i'm in a line of work where quality of descision making is evaluated frequently, call this my pet peeve.

The thing about GW is that they don't really do any marketing as such.

They own their own shops, magazine, and they sell only to people who already want to buy their products.

They have no reason to try and market themselves as an attractive proposition to the wider population.

Kilkrazy wrote:They have no reason to try and market themselves as an attractive proposition to the wider population.

... except for making more profit and recruiting new customers that is

Since they find their customers within a narrow market segment, they have no reason to market themselves outside that segment.

They only sell to people who are already interested in buying their products.

This means they don't need to try very hard.

I hear what you're saying, but what about the idea that people form an opinion about someone or something in a very brief timespan, say one minute. Now put yourself behind a pair of fresh eyes, googling GW for the first time. After you click that homepage it's all downhill. It is not designed to impress anyone (maybe I'm the one who is off?). Some mediocre models, some plain paintjobs. Nothing that causes a "wow, show me more" reaction. I get that marketing may not be a high priority, but really it's not as much a question of marketing as it is of common sense: an impressive display is better than a lackluster display, assuming the work involved is equal. Surely, anyone knowing the ranges and having 4 minutes to think about it could have selected a better group of models. Personally, I find this haphazardness too common. It's a kind of obtuseness that gets under my skin.

Aesedai- You're 100% right from the perspective of a buyer and what most companies try to accomplish with their websites. The problem is that GW doesn't seem to care if you like it or not. They're counting on the fact that people who are already familiar with their product will use the site.

AesSedai wrote:I hear what you're saying, but what about the idea that people form an opinion about someone or something in a very brief timespan, say one minute. Now put yourself behind a pair of fresh eyes, googling GW for the first time. After you click that homepage it's all downhill. It is not designed to impress anyone (maybe I'm the one who is off?). Some mediocre models, some plain paintjobs. Nothing that causes a "wow, show me more" reaction. I get that marketing may not be a high priority, but really it's not as much a question of marketing as it is of common sense: an impressive display is better than a lackluster display, assuming the work involved is equal. Surely, anyone knowing the ranges and having 4 minutes to think about it could have selected a better group of models. Personally, I find this haphazardness too common. It's a kind of obtuseness that gets under my skin.

GW's site is like the vast majority of corporate shopping sites.

I would also imagine that if you happen across the site its no biggie, if you are specifically entering the web address or searchingor GW minis then you know pretty much, what you are looking for. It displays minis painted to GW's eavy metal standard.

I think you are looking too hard into it.

"Mediocrity requires aloofness to preserve its dignity." 
- Charles G. Dawes

So what if the majority of shopping sites are bland and indistinct--does that mean it's okay to set the bar really low?

"Games Workshop make the best model soldiers in the world" boasts their tag line. Underneath you have a dwarf slayer, Aragorn, and a necron. Define "best" because it's its not 1998 anymore.

You're telling me there is no value in displaying your best goods up front? Yikes, bro. I don't think I'm looking into it too hard. I think it's sloppy descision making. May not make enough of a difference to break a sweat but you know, I think a good impression beats no impression (or a bad impression) ten out of ten times.

AesSedai wrote:Also, while I enjoyed the recent Dark Eldar video shoot, the choice of Adam Troke as the Interviewer was horrible. That guy has no interview skills whatsoever. He seemed as though he was only half listening and was about as engaging as a bobblehead.

I though that was deliberate, to stretch out the tiny amount of information they gave out over four videos.

Could be. You know the interviewer is bad when you'd rather have the two designers just chat about the project. His constant glances a what I assume was a clock or the camera were distracting. I wonder if he is like that during a game.

AesSedai wrote:"Mediocrity requires aloofness to preserve its dignity." 
- Charles G. Dawes

So what if the majority of shopping sites are bland and indistinct--does that mean it's okay to set the bar really low?

"Games Workshop make the best model soldiers in the world" boasts their tag line. Underneath you have a dwarf slayer, Aragorn, and a necron. Define "best" because it's its not 1998 anymore.

You're telling me there is no value in displaying your best goods up front? Yikes, bro. I don't think I'm looking into it too hard. I think it's sloppy descision making. May not make enough of a difference to break a sweat but you know, I think a good impression beats no impression (or a bad impression) ten out of ten times.

GW do not care, or seem to care, or want to care. The site is navigated without much issue, and that's all I really care about with GW's web shop, getting the info I want.

Besides, define the given value of 'best'.

Should they update these pages more often? Then, with what.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AesSedai wrote:Could be. You know the interviewer is bad when you'd rather have the two designers just chat about the project. His constant glances a what I assume was a clock or the camera were distracting. I wonder if he is like that during a game.

Maybe GW should hike their prices some more, so as to enable their staff can have some 'screen tests' or they can hire actors?

Kilkrazy wrote:Since they find their customers within a narrow market segment, they have no reason to market themselves outside that segment.
They only sell to people who are already interested in buying their products.
This means they don't need to try very hard.

This is putting the causality upside down.
1.) GW doesn't find customers. It demands the customers to find them without any help. They call it saving money, others call it arrogance and economic stupidity. And even if customers found GW, they are not always treated well (veterans, specialist gamers,...).
2.) Globally it is a narrow market segment. Why? Because GW management doesn't believe in marketing and advertising. So most potential customers don't know about this product and consequently don't buy it. And year after year, GW loses more customers than it gains. Total sales revenue is at best constant, most of the time declining, even with 10% price increases every year. So the "niche" is getting smaller and smaller.
3.) Is it necessarily a narrow niche? No. The UK market shows that there is a lot potential within the toy market, with almost as many GW shops as other toy stores and enough customers to support that. Globally, the marketing campaigns by MB for Space Crusade (popular Space Hulk version) and Heroquest have shown how to recruit masses of new gamers, using standard methods like advertising in TV and print media and distributing their product in normal toy stores. So there is proof that standard marketing works.

So GW management HAS reasons to do at least an average level of marketing and advertising. Saying that noone will buy their products anyway is no excuse for a bad management.

@ Mr. Burning: I can understand your point of view. You seem to favor a bare bones type approach. Certainly, ease of use is important, but what does that have to do with choice of images on your "door"? It's not like choosing some different images will compromise your ability to access the site, right?

As far as defining the value of "best", I wouldn't even try to use that term. Obviously, it's subjective. Unfortunately, GW has the requisite arrogance to associate "best" (their words) with, among other things, a necron immortal. Now, my point was that little to no thought seems to go into decision making, so how about this off the top of my head--rather than best try iconic, an Ultramarine landraider or dread to represent 40k, a HE dragon to represent fantasy. Done. Less is more. No need to update either.

As far as jacking the prices to be able to afford actors. Well..lol. Are you telling me that that you, if you worked at GW, couldn't find someone with both the attention span of a grown man and some genuine interest in the topic? You know, unless they hire by lottery, maybe someone in HR has actually given a couple interviews before. Meh, I would rather have watched the two designers interview each other. And all this at no cost to you No offense if you are Adam Troke.

Now, I have to agree with Kroothawk on the subject of GW's approach to marketing. Here is a telling example: A few days ago I was on coolmini. I happened to see an advertisement for a company called Avatars of War showing a rather well sculpted dwarf. Not only did I marvel at the sculpt, but I went in search of what else they were offering. Guess what? They have lots of nice stuff and will almost certainly be getting some of my money. Behold the power of marketing! The ability to inform and sell! Those dollars are going directly to GW's competition. To my knowledge, I have never come across a similar ad for GW. To say that all potential customers already know GW, as an excuse for avoiding dipping a toe into untested water? I'm not saying a global marketing blitz is advisable, but some creativity in terms of marketing could go a long way. GW was once a company of innovators wasn't it? Barring that, they should at least steal some ideas from the competition.

It's nice that you have an opinion about GW's website and how it should be better and all, but ... doesn't complaining on a fan website about the GW website rank slightly below opening your window and shouting on the effectiveness scale if you're trying to do anything useful about it?

Solkan-who said I was trying to do something about their website? Now that would be pointless. I am pointing out that there doesn't seem to be any discernable thought process given to areas where there should be some consideration. I'd love to hear your opinion, now that you are aware of the topic.