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.

 warboss wrote:

I certainly am not trained in finance beyond an intro course in high school and college but my amateur reading is that they pretty much treading water. Indicators like sales and profits are down but when you remove factors largely beyond their control (like their favorite "constant currency" conversion) it isn't as bad on paper (but the "constant currency" conversion doesn't help them in practice as the money is still gone). They had this mediocre year AFTER pulling several emergency parachute cords though. Most popular line Space Marine codex rehash? Pulled. Knight model and codex rehash? Pulled. Entirely new flagship game line launch? Pulled. Horus Heresy marines in plastics? Pulled. Continued rehash of 1-2 year life cycle books? Pulled. And all that barely kept them in the same spot. And their new flagship line didn't have a SINGLE model in their OWN top 28 most popular list by whatever metrics they chose to use.

Well, people have said this every year - that they have pulled all the stops and can't possibly have anything left to release next time. I'm pretty sure they can come up with some big releases this year too.

Overall, the report is like 3-4 previous ones: ok but not spectacular. They're not declining (or at least not very quickly) but are not growing either. Maybe most noteworthy thing is that their present level to which they dropped few years ago, and was supposed to be just a temporary glitch, has become a new normal and the big turnaround is nowhere to be seen.

Backfire wrote:


Overall, the report is like 3-4 previous ones: ok but not spectacular. They're not declining (or at least not very quickly) but are not growing either.

Well, their revenue declined. slower than last report, but decline is still decline.
I wouldn't call this report "Good," but more like "Not bad."
As for the success or failure of AOS, it's too early to tell.

Edit:
And (just my opinion) relaunching the game that started the company and have no noticeable rise in revenue is what I'd call a moral failure.

IMHO, going on a new player drive as they are with the new bundles is the right direction. The prices on the newest bundles are low enough that even the most jaded GW haters are giving them a second look. They may not be buying, since many of them have moved on to other games with rules that actually work... but they definitely took notice. If the Specialist Games relaunch results in some usable small scale game with tight rules, and the price point is at the same level as these new bundles... they will probably come back in some fashion.

I feel that GW is a Porsche being sold at Ferrari prices but then they put under the hood a 4 cylinder econobox engine. Selling at Porsche prices is a start, fixing the engine problem is the next hurdle.

 keezus wrote:
The prices on the newest bundles are low enough that even the most jaded GW haters are giving them a second look.

Yeah but today they put up a box of 10 monopose Dwarfs for AUD$100, so we can pretty much forget about GW changing their ways.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Yeah but today they put up a box of 10 monopose Dwarfs for AUD$100, so we can pretty much forget about GW changing their ways.

Does it count as monopose if there are multiple weapon options and the ability to mix and match beards and loin cloths? I was under the impression monopose meant that they could only be built one way, not that you could build it many different ways, but that the elbows were always in the same position.

I assume HBMC means the Berserkers, since he said 10 models for AUD$100. I actually thought they were pretty varied in WD#102, and since all of the pieces are interchangeable (different weapon poses & configurations with different bodies) I'd definitely call it posable multipart. Like, some of the bodies are running, while others are advancing or guarding; some of the weapons are raised, others slashing, and some at the ready. It's also good use of plastic, as the "trailing bits" off the axes don't really work in any other medium, if you game with them at all (they'll just break off).

On the other hand the 5 model Hearthguard for AUD $70 looks a lot more "monopose-ish". By that, I mean that although they're technically multipart, multipose, at least in the photography they look very repetitive. Of the 5 models they showcase, two have the left foot forward instead of the right, and the weapons are very subtly differently posed (little different angle, flame effects, etc.), but extremely similar. Hard to tell without seeing the sprue, though. It could be, they just picked 5 combinations that happen to look same-y.

I take is point though -- even excluding the Australian luxury pricing, those models aren't cheap. $60 for the berserkers and $40 for the hearthguard puts them at $6 and $8 respectively for ppm for "small" models. In comparison, Blood Angels Tacticals are only $4.30 per model and the harlequin troupe are $6.70 per model.

 Sqorgar wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Yeah but today they put up a box of 10 monopose Dwarfs for AUD$100, so we can pretty much forget about GW changing their ways.

Does it count as monopose if there are multiple weapon options and the ability to mix and match beards and loin cloths? I was under the impression monopose meant that they could only be built one way, not that you could build it many different ways, but that the elbows were always in the same position.

When I say "monopose" I mean they can only be posed one way. These Dwarfs are monopose because the feet, legs, torso and arms up to the wrists are a single piece, so they can only have 1 pose, but with multiple weapon options. The same as I'd consider the Savage Orc models as being monopose (even though they can be equipped in various ways, the actual pose is fixed).

I'm not opposed to monopose models.... but I don't like the poses of the new stunties, the musculature is terrible and the price is a bit insane for a something that is monopose.

They are grotesque minis. They're the new plastic Minotaurs. And the Savage Orcs cost less than half what these Dwarves cost.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
They are grotesque minis. They're the new plastic Minotaurs. And the Savage Orcs cost less than half what these Dwarves cost.

Crap. I hadn't seen these yet. Do they have the special rule AND THEY SHALL KNOW NO CLOTHES?

On the upside, the older dwarf models (ahem Duardin) might end up in a discount (ahem clearance) box set... Maybe 1x Runelord, 1x Gyrocopter, 1x Dwarf Warriors, 1x Thunderers

 keezus wrote:
On the upside, the older dwarf models (ahem Duardin) might end up in a discount (ahem clearance) box set... Maybe 1x Runelord, 1x Gyrocopter, 1x Dwarf Warriors, 1x Thunderers

This is very true. I have a shelf-full of old fantasy Chaos models now, because they were so stupidly discounted that I couldn't help myself. I think it was like 50% off, but the prices were really old stickers, so it was more like 70% off of the current price.

Backfire wrote:

Overall, the report is like 3-4 previous ones: ok but not spectacular. They're not declining (or at least not very quickly) but are not growing either. Maybe most noteworthy thing is that their present level to which they dropped few years ago, and was supposed to be just a temporary glitch, has become a new normal and the big turnaround is nowhere to be seen.

True, but that new normal seems very similar to the pre-2011/2012 normal, but more profitable. Not terribly bad, in the long-term, even though the they surely would've preferred the 2011/2012 spike to be the new normal.

I live in a small town in the frozen NE of the uk it is by many metrics one of the poorest areas in the uk.

We have a GW and 2 flgs a total of around 137ish calth sets were sold in the first weekend. They outsold AoS starters in there opening weekend by about 9 to 1.

A couple of my frends blew there gaming budgets for both Nov and Dec buying multiple calth sets.

Anecdotal I know but I am pretty certain Calth pulled gw's ass out of the fire, at the cost of esential cannibalizing there december sales.

I am curious what the next 6 months Calth is going to be, could be a number of boxes like the new starters which actually provide some value, might be bloodbowl or.another boxed game we live in interesting times.

The good news for GW is that the GBP has gone down from about $1.55 to about $1.45 USD, so if that exchange rate keeps up, they can expect a 2% increase in sales revenue due to exchange rates, everything else being equal.

Of course, the Euro could spoil this, or improve things for GW.

This doesn't solve the problem of how to get more customers and get customers spending more money.

GW made it to yesterdays Guardian.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I'm not opposed to monopose models.... but I don't like the poses of the new stunties

This. I think the effect wouldn't be so bad if some of those monoposes were something other than jumping jack stances.

H.B.M.C. wrote:They are grotesque minis. They're the new plastic Minotaurs.

Ouch.

SeanDrake wrote:

We have a GW and 2 flgs a total of around 137ish calth sets were sold in the first weekend. They outsold AoS starters in there opening weekend by about 9 to 1.

A couple of my frends blew there gaming budgets for both Nov and Dec buying multiple calth sets.

Anecdotal I know but I am pretty certain Calth pulled gw's ass out of the fire, at the cost of esential cannibalizing there december sales.

Blimey.

I think 2016 is definitely a plastic Thunderhawk year. Or... given GW's tendency to go Heresy and pull out old ideas lately, a plastic Mk1 Land Raider year.

I like this piece from the linked article:

It has appointed a recruitment expert to ensure a constant supply of store managers.

It sounds like they have hired a commissar to keep sending in the next wave into the meat grinder

I know around here GW staff turnover has always been high going back to the 90's but this sounds particularly grim...and dark...

I don't think it's ever been much fun being a store manager and these days it is a lot harder than it was 10 years ago:

Demanding sales targets. Competition from your own company's website. Not enough news about forthcoming releases. Not many assistant staff. Out of the way locations. Etc.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I don't think it's ever been much fun being a store manager and these days it is a lot harder than it was 10 years ago:

Demanding sales targets. Competition from your own company's website. Not enough news about forthcoming releases. Not many assistant staff. Out of the way locations. Etc.

And from what anecdotal evidence has been saying in past dakka discussions - they have been robbed of the traditional salesman's tool of giving discounts on purchases or offering free goodies if a customer spends a lot.

Years ago, I remember maxing out on an undead army at a GW store, and I asked the manager if he could throw in a paintbrush and some pots paint for free. Within reason of course.

No problem whatsoever.

Do they still do this? Can they still do this?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I don't think it's ever been much fun being a store manager and these days it is a lot harder than it was 10 years ago:

Demanding sales targets. Competition from your own company's website. Not enough news about forthcoming releases. Not many assistant staff. Out of the way locations. Etc.

And from what anecdotal evidence has been saying in past dakka discussions - they have been robbed of the traditional salesman's tool of giving discounts on purchases or offering free goodies if a customer spends a lot.

Years ago, I remember maxing out on an undead army at a GW store, and I asked the manager if he could throw in a paintbrush and some pots paint for free. Within reason of course.

No problem whatsoever.

Do they still do this? Can they still do this?

No, if they did do it and HQ found out they would probably consider it theft and terminate the manager for gross misconduct.

Working for GW is akin to living in Stalin's Russa. If you have opinons of your own it is best to keep them to yourself. If you fail to meet the.ridiculous targets your gone. If your beating your target's you are under suspicon of fiddling. Your best chance of survival is to cow tow to a superior and drink the kool aid. Also GW managers just disappear to be replaced by another I find it best not to get attached to them.

As ":heretical" can this question sound, do they really need the stores? the rest of the world has shown they are quite useless, they never promoted the hobby in countries they never existed, or were one store ever existed and the hobby grew quite well.

For over a decade they seem to me to be a dead weight dragging company expenses were the money could have been invested in marketing and other products to make them more competitive.

Also other companies manage to do well without them and I am not sure they need stores to grow to a bigger size.

My personal opinion is yes, they do need them.

I don't believe they should have them, I think that a worldwide network of indie retailers is the better way to have done things, and I believe the ridiculous level of control they've apparently determined to exercise over the "GW brand" is inappropriate for this industry.

However, I think the decision to be both retailer and manufacturer, however many years ago that started, has ultimately painted them into a corner where to actually now remove them would do more harm than good. I think nowadays the quality of their product doesn't stack up well enough to modern competition to sell well enough in a open ecosystem to support GW, and they need to recruit people into a closed ecosystem and make the higher margin direct sales generate in order to keep on.

Plus the rollout of more and more one man stores has been oft trumpeted in recent reports as the key to the future, to do a u-turn now would both be embarrassing and damaging for them.

I think nowadays the quality of their product doesn't stack up well enough to modern competition to sell well enough in a open ecosystem to support GW, and they need to recruit people into a closed ecosystem and make the higher margin direct sales generate in order to keep on.

Heh, I think thats probably why I didn't get the GW store assistant job I applied for. I talked in my covering letter about how I'm getting more active at my club, joined the committee, helping to run games, doing demo games of the SBG and SAGA using my LOTR SBG minis, I'm running D&D games using LOTR minis. Trying to spin it and make a positive out of using their models to play other games - if they're telling the truth when they say "We're a model company", they shouldn't have a problem with that.

I wouldn't have had much else to talk about otherwise.

"Hey, I've never played Warhammer Fantasy or Age of Sigmar, I haven't played Warhammer 40K since 2012 and my favourite GW game is the system and miniature range that is the least profitable for you and which you no longer support, the SBG. Give me a job!"

Guess I didn't come across as enough of a fanboy. I'm by no means part of that "closed ecosystem".

Not the fanboy will get the job as a red shirt but the applicant with attitude.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I don't think it's ever been much fun being a store manager and these days it is a lot harder than it was 10 years ago:

Demanding sales targets. Competition from your own company's website. Not enough news about forthcoming releases. Not many assistant staff. Out of the way locations. Etc.

On the other hand, this can be said of almost any retail manager position. It isn't a lot of fun being a store manager at a clothing store, radio shack ("the source"), best buy, or McDonald's, either. Generally, they're positions that require a ton of work and responsibility and pay not nearly as much as many office jobs with similar workload/responsibility.

Competing with your own website is something that lots of people have to do now. At least, however, they don't have the GW problem of, "why is your product cheaper at [fill in the name of indie store 10 minutes away]"?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
For over a decade they seem to me to be a dead weight dragging company expenses were the money could have been invested in marketing and other products to make them more competitive.

Also other companies manage to do well without them and I am not sure they need stores to grow to a bigger size.

They're not really exclusionary: it's not as if gw is running retail, so there isn't enough money to invest in mew games or marketing. Almost every year, gw has illions of dollars left over, and they turn around and just give it back to their shareholders. If they had an intelligent plan for reinvesting it (growth), I'm pretty sure shareholders would be on board. I'm personally surprised that GW doesn't release other games/spinoffs, as that's usually good money. And who knows, some games turn out to be surprising blockbusters.

Doing well is a pretty relative term. We have no idea, really, how big FFG or PP are, or how big they'd be if they had hundreds of retail stores across the world. There are examples of manufacturers that do retail really well, like Apple, and ones that did it pretty poorly, like Nokia.

Personally, I don't see GW stores as a blight upon the universe. I don't shop there, because all of the prices are higher, but for people who find them convenient and like their gaming facilities, I'm sure they are a positive. Plus, like I've said, I'm sure some hobby dollars would go to other companies if GW stores closed up. GW stores give GW the ability, in a market where there aren't a lot of stores to start with, and where at least some of their customers cant travel far, the ability to display their version of the hobby with absolute control and without competition.

So the kid whose parents are at the mall anyways will see the GW store, go in, and maybe get interested in a GW product, whereas an indie might have gotten the kid interested in any number of other products... or maybe nothing at all, as there aren't a ton of Indies in high profile locations (expensive rent), and most generic toy stores and shopping center game stores don't sell miniature warfare materials and hobby supplies anymore.

I think GW desperately needs the shops because they have very few marketing channels and wargames are so experiential that this is a very important one. However, I'm not convinced the current policy of moving shops to small, under-staffed locations with low footfall is a good strategy in this respect, and I also believe that rather than being purely experiential marketing locations, the shops could actually sell a wider variety of wargame stuff if GW produced it.

I would agree that the huge territories to be covered make it unrealistic for GW to do everything with their own branded shops, so they need to harness the opportunity of independents. This is something they seem to have been good at in the past, and to have got bad it in the last 10 years, like a lot of things.

@kk - I also agree that small stores in obscure locations make no sense. Slightly off the beaten track is okay, if it gets enough traffic, but those mall locations are where you catch people who will spend more than they need to, and where independents generally can't afford to be.

Spend a fraction of the cost for retail stores marketing and advertising and they'd be on TV and in trade mags around the world. As a shareholder, I don't feel that the stores are good value and I've shared as much with GW (little good it will do me). There are more efficient ways to recruit new customers.

Edit:
You have to know the location or be actively looking for the only GW in my entire state to actually find it. If the other stores are in similar locations, it's little wonder they're losing money.

If the company is going to have a loss-leader, I'd rather it be a gateway/intro product than an anachronistic dependence on a failed business model.

I think GW should take the store mentality of having a big presence in the retail space to the media world and get more stuff like Duncan, but for battle reports and whatnot. They could become a top battle report channel overnight with their resources and could portray their games exactly how they want to.

coldgaming wrote:
I think GW should take the store mentality of having a big presence in the retail space to the media world and get more stuff like Duncan, but for battle reports and whatnot. They could become a top battle report channel overnight with their resources and could portray their games exactly how they want to.

It's just a question of what they want to do, versus what they don't. The cost of having a battle report channel at the same quality as Duncan's guides on WarhammerTV isn't even a rounding error compared to the cost of operating one nice store. If GW wanted to, they could have fabulous gaming resources and gaming community outreach. It wouldn't be expensive. But GW seems to go out of its way to have nothing to do with the scene.

I mean, forget about a 40k batrep... when was the last time you saw a photo in White Dwarf (or Visions) that looked anything like a actual gaming table? In the next 10,000 pictures you'll see new releases, dioramas, painting contest entries, painting guides, modelling subassemblies, and all that kind of thing, and never one actual *game* of 40k or AoS. The only thing that I've seen in years that resembles a game I'd play are the boardgames, where they lay out models in a way consistent to how it's played that game -- like execution force, space hulk, or Calth.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Comparing reaction on DakkaDakka to the two games, Battle of Cattle and 30K generally seemed to get a very enthusiastic reaction from a relatively small number of users. AoS seemed to get an enthusiastic reaction from a larger number of users but this was balanced by about equal numbers of users deriding it and switching from WHFB to KoW.

So on that basis my guess is that AoS sold a lot better during the six months than BofC did during the two weeks.

As I mentioned above - this coming quarter will also see the returns of unsold AoS - for some stores this is going to be a majority of their initial orders of the game. (Two stores are each returning sixteen out of twenty boxes in my local area. A third store only stocked two, hasn't sold any, but the owner doesn't care - he plans to buy them himself if they don't sell soon, and turn them into 40K figures.)

So, the initial wholesale purchases were strong, but, again, on a local level, consumer response has been poor.

I am pretty sure that at least half of the boxes that were sold are destined for 40K armies. (Which has no bearing on the sale - a purchase is a purchase - but does not speak well for the survival of the game itself.)

One of the other details that makes the webstore preferable from GW's standpoint - sales direct to the consumer are not likely to be returned at the end of the quarter.

Which may also explain some of GW's attitude towards FLGS - they cannot be certain of the money until the allotted time for returns is past.

The Auld Grump