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.

Mid-08, they released two army updates, Blood Angels and Dark Eldar. Take your pick...

Obsidian Raven wrote:I do realize I'm an alarmist, i tend to be, and i admit its a fault. But i didn't really expect to be flamed. anyway


I very very rarely browse this forum, so i didn't really see the other thread discussing this.

Im young. I dont understand business. Hell, i never even passed business studies. But honestly, to me, GW seem to be making more and more bad decisions and i fear it may lead to a failure.

Well the point is this: GW isnt making bad decisions. They have a huge cash reserve, and made around 20 Million in profit last year. The decisions might not be popular with us, but they are more profitable because they have made them. Raising prices during a recession, probably not the most logical move for most business, but they know they are almost a singular commodity, and they can raise prices and still make a profit. in short, because they really are one of the few (and some would argue only) people that really do what they do, they get to set the price. if its a good enough product, then it will make them money. and based on sales numbers, its obvioulsy makes more money.

candy.man wrote:I reckon gamesworkshop at the moment is being kept afloat by their hard core fan base however just because the company is making money it does not mean the organisation is healthy. I can see GW’s core issues being attributed to 2 things:

1. Confusion over target demographic. GW solely targets school kids with non disposable income yet core demographic are adults with a job (i.e. people who can actually afford the hobby outside of Christmas and birthdays). GW is also under the opinion that the core demographic will always be around to keep them afloat therefore enabling them to solely target potential future customers…at the expense of the core demographic.
2. Underestimating price elasticity of product. GW has always been able to charge whatever price for their product and people will pay for it however soon it will reach the point where the price is not worth the product versus other entertainment.

Considering this thread is focuses on GW’s ultimate fate I see either the IP being sold off (probably by piecemeal in an attempt to keep the company standing) or some sort of drastic change that turns the company around. Personally I’m putting my money on the piecemeal prediction.

i am going to say a few things that you will find offensive, and i apologize up front, such is not the intent.

ok, lets clarify a few things. the average middle school kid has more disposable income than the average DINC (double income no kids) household. Middle school kids get mom and dads disposable income (which tends to be greater in households with children) they are always the target of gifts during gift giving season, and are easier to get interested into the game. as a result, kids actually DO spend more money. Sorry if that bruises anyone ego's out there, but the truth is the truth. look it up, any decent business site targeting a gaming or opportunity cost model will explain this. please try to remember, for every one of us hard corps 30+ year olds out there playing the game, they are 20 kids. they income adds up to more than ours do.

companies that make close to 20m in profit are not "keeping afloat". I don't know why anyone thinks this. thats profit. not gross sales. profit is what you make after all costs have been broken out and removed from the money you have earned, just to clarify. are they too big to fail? absolutely not, but will they be in dire needs to sell off portions of their business, of course not. they are more than profitable as they stand.

as far as elasticity of product pricing goes, please remember that in business, you cannot sell a product for more than your opposition does. think of this, store a sells widgets for 100.00 dollars. store B sells them for 75.00. What happens?

does store A mark their price down? wouldn't that be common sense?

if you answered yes, you were dead wrong.

Store B increases their price. yup, thats right. If store A can sell widgets at 100.00 a price, and i am only selling them at 75.00, i am missing out on 25.00 per widget, and unless the item is a super hot new item, i am probably going to see enough of them at 100.00 to make up for the few i wont sell once i raise my price.

the reality is that, if you are the one setting the price, because you get to decide, because the next closest thing to competition is a 500,000k dollar a year profit company, like privateer (and im not sure they even did that well last year) you can set the price and people will buy it. price elasticity only matters when two things happen: your customers sell the product for more than you, or you dramatically over-inflate the price so high that people are "priced" out of the game.

GW has been very smart about not over pricing "core units" too much in the price hikes, but, instead taking the vindicator from 35.00 to 50.00 in about five years, same with the land raider from 55.00 to 70.00 ish. GW isn't stupid. they have built in product sales that run on a 5 year cycle. they have enough product lines that they can market to that they can move from subject to subject and capture a piece of the market in each subject.

and really, maybe that's the point, GW isn't stupid.

think of it this way. Hobbies cost money. If you look at it like a game, then yes, its a very expensive game. look at it like a hobby and hobby's are inherently costly. most of the most fun hobbies (for me) are all expensive.

when i supercharged my car - 3500.00 dollars,
when i put the mach 1 scoop and skirting on it - 1200.00 dollars
when a buddy of mine bout some ridiculous baseball card that was 40+ years old, it was well over 4000.00
hell, my black lotuses sell for over 2500.00 a price, and thats beat up. the rest of my power nine sells for 400.00-900.00 a card easily from magic the gathering.

point to this is, some hobbies cost money. GW isnt too far off the mark with their stuff, and remember that customers vote with their wallets. if you hate the company, dont play, and dont buy. (that includes the secondary market. secondary market for items is a prime driver of first market or OEM sales. ask any technology manufacturer of any product.)

Wasn't 2008 when the economy collapsed due to building houses on foundations of quicksand, so to speak?


Niot the "Hobbies are expensive" routine again.
My polo ponies cost a fortune to keep these days and as for the costs of flying them and myself to Argentina for an away game &c

Ultimately Games Workshop will become irrelevant, with the heat death of the universe.

Sorry to break the news but GW is never was relevant in the greater scheme of things.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Wasn't 2008 when the economy collapsed due to building houses on foundations of quicksand, so to speak?


Niot the "Hobbies are expensive" routine again.
My polo ponies cost a fortune to keep these days and as for the costs of flying them and myself to Argentina for an away game &c

what you are talking about with the variable interest/ARM loans bubble is COMPLETELY different and has absolutely nothing to do with the argument at hand. Everyone who had any sense (and i can remember this when i was going into grad school, before any of the government bankrolled loan office problems happened) PREDICTED this would happen. if it was a shock to you, or if it surprised you, then i would consider spending a little more time understanding where your money goes and how it works.

Additionally, i apologize if my argument isn't exactly original. I certainly know it isn't, however, whether it has been said 3,000 times, or 3, does nothing to discount its credibility. In fact, the more its used really does lend credibility to how effective of an argument is.

Lastly, sarcasm seems to be your strong suit. Obviously you poses a quick wit. try using that intellect to gather a rational argument instead of throwing a completely useless statement to something that i can only gather that you know little if anything about, based on your replies.

I did not mean to offend, obviously you sought it as so, otherwise you wouldn't have rebounded as you did. Why?

intimidation? do you know something i don't? frustration?

I enjoy healthy conversation. let it out.

Okay so global ecomomy meltdown had nothing to do with GW share prices falling, it was wholly dependent on which flavour of SM was released that year
Okay will go and rethink my economics.

Not only have we heard the argument many times before it always seems to be predicated on the will of the poster to demonstrate affluence rather than make any "reasonable argument" about the managerial decision making of GW.
It ranks, and I use the word in more ways than one, along other classic platitudes as *If you can't afford it don't play the game."

It seems rather rich for you to accuse another of banding about useless phrases and advocating the use of intellect.
Look to thine own faults first old chap.
I'm off to feed the polo ponies.

Odd One Out wrote:Mid-08, they released two army updates, Blood Angels and Dark Eldar. Take your pick...

ah yes Blood Angels...the whole deep striking land raider thing

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Okay so global ecomomy meltdown had nothing to do with GW share prices falling, it was wholly dependent on which flavour of SM was released that year
Okay will go and rethink my economics.

Not only have we heard the argument many times before it always seems to be predicated on the will of the poster to demonstrate affluence rather than make any "reasonable argument" about the managerial decision making of GW.
It ranks, and I use the word in more ways than one, along other classic platitudes as *If you can't afford it don't play the game."

It seems rather rich for you to accuse another of banding about useless phrases and advocating the use of intellect.
Look to thine own faults first old chap.
I'm off to feed the polo ponies.

Ah, digging out and utilizing a stronger vocabulary, or in this case, almost an entirely different vernacular does not, unfortunately, make your point any more valid.

Looking at target demographics would predicate the fact that the housing bubble had little, if anything to do with GW falling stock prices. The number of homes and households impacted by said bubble was actually very minuscule in comparison to the larger economy. Its hard to say the housing bubble was responsible for GW diminished sales (and its also very important to note that housing "crisis" as well as any other precipitating factors did little to mitigate GW sales throughout this economy. GW continues to be a very profitable, openly traded company. In an additional side note, while the wold economy has certainly slowed down, which directly or indirectly will affect EVERY company out there, it was hardly a "Meltdown". Last i knew, there weren't people dying of starvation in the dust bowl of Oklahoma.) To complete that point, GW still targets a younger demographic, which is most likely not a home owner if they are of legal or majority age, or simply aren't old enough otherwise.

Of course, the counter argument to this is if the parents are broke, then they cant afford to buy their kids toys right? Well, not necessarily. There is a reason why Kinect and Play Station 3 were the top selling items last holiday season, with the PS3 taking the lead in console sales, and the Kinect taking the lead in peripherals or add on products for console sales. Even in 2009, when the economy was easily at its worst, that December and November had shown the Xbox 360 and Nintendo as Overwhelming sales successes, and their corresponding accessories.

Point is this, bad financial planning put those people in their bind with an ARM loan, and while their loans were mostly modified to be an actuarial loan, the poor spending habits didn't stop. If their kids wanted it, they probably got it. regardless if whether or not the house payment was made. That's not nonsense, that's what happens when people can rack up more debt than they can handle. A great source on this topic is the Congressional Hearings on Credit Card policy in early 2009. I will have to look up the times and topic speakers, but great to read about.

The next point i want to bring to light is that the stock market is NOT A GOOD INDICATOR of how a company is currently performing. That's why day to day stock prices are not looked at for purposes of determining whether a company is a worth while investment for long term-sustainable growth. You have to look at the 5 year at a minimum mark (in which case GW is simply growing) or the 10 year mark if the company has been around long enough (in that case, GW has grown meteorically). Pointing at a stock market price today, or for the last year, and saying its down so they are in trouble, is a lot like pointing to the sky and saying the clouds are grey, it will rain next Thursday.

As far as my rich comment goes, please make no mistake. I work very hard for my money, same as you. I was not born into an affluent family, neither was my wife. I am, as my wife is, very cognitive of where money goes. We save and put back and plan out purchases. While your counter-comment poses the point that i want to demonstrate my ability to simply have more than you, i can only assure you that is not the case. I work for money the same as i am guessing you do, or your parents if you are not old enough yet. However, we have worked very hard to provide us with a life style that is comfortable to us and our soon-to-be-here daughter. to that i say this sir:

1. I will never apologize for being successful. While i do not want to approach any argument with an "I make more than you so i am better" mentality, please also do not confuse me for something else. I will NEVER apologize for being a fiscally conservative adult that values money and how best to use it. I will not apologize for being able to do almost anything I want, when i choose to do so (within reason). I have worked very hard, have educated myself, and now see the fruits of that labor. If you or someone else hasn't, or doesn't agree with the price raises due to individual financial limitations, i certainly understand, but i will not apologize that it has little long term affect on me.
2. GW is a publicly traded company. They have a valid argument for raising prices. Its because they choose too. Maybe its all of the incidental or developmental costs in switching to fine-cast, maybe its the will of the board of directors and they have little else they are interested in discussing openly, i don't know why, but debating why GW raises prices is pointless. Its their product and there are no government regulations on miniature gaming, so we are forced with two choices. Buy or Dont; your call.
3. As cruel as it is to say, hobbies do cost money. There are methods that can be employed to reduce or mitigate those costs, but you (as a user or consumer) will still have to buy stuff to take place in the hobby. No other hobby out there in the world that is worth while is completely free (or at least none that i can think of off hand, although i am sure there are a few exceptions, and even then, nothing is completely free, as there are always going to be opportunity costs associated with everything you do.) So not to hold it over like the proverbial "axe over ones head" but really, customers vote with their wallets. If enough don't like it, they stop voting, and enough missing votes will force the company into being competitive again. That situation is a win/win scenario for all of us.

And just to tie a few things up: My argument was on topic and thought out. i fail to see where i didn't provide a reasonable argument, but if in this case i did indeed fail to do so, than accept my rebuttal as the corrected version. I have no ego in this, just trying to prove a point. (that an i actually enjoy discussing opposing view points. Its fun for me.) As far as looking to my own faults, i certainly do, and will accept responsibility for the things i say and how i say them, however, in direct correlation to the previous statement, my argument was on topic.

@Sc077y

Thanks for your reply. There’s nothing disrespectful about your post and you’ve pretty much discussed things from a different angle. There’s some interesting ideas discussed in your post and I’m not to nitpick at everything (and start a big pyramid quote fest).

1. Average middle schooler having more disposable income than the average DINC.
Where did you get this data from? It’s just that this one seems a bit hard to believe and if it is true, I’ll like to see what the variables were, considerations made etc.

2. Kid expenditure versus adults strictly regarding wargaming sales.
Not necessarily doubting this one either but again the relevancy of this would also boil down to the variables, considerations and whatnot. It would be interesting to see the data for the frequency of sales and total expenditure between the 2 categories. Mind you this data would need to be sourced from wargaming/miniature sales to be worth a dime as gaming in general is too broad a category.

I’ll admit my kept afloat statement is a bit of an over exaggeration as GW is not going bust anytime soon (and I think said something similar in my post). I would say that the sales from youngsters would be quick volatile short term revenue and the core long term sales probably stem from the older crowd (repeat buyers).

3. Price Elasticity stuff
I’ve seen this theory before and it’s pretty much product specific. It’s also hard to comment on this with GW specifically without going into sales numbers, comparisons and whatnot. Your store A/B idea essentially proves that it is possible to price higher and not go bust which I completely agree with however this is not the issue here.

GW has been able to get away with the high prices largely because of product image, not because of frequency of sales or market pricing. GW products are purposely priced to help reinforce the image that their products are “premium” products of the war gaming miniature world. Consumers pay the higher prices under the idea that the product is premium and therefore worth it. It also helps that GW doesn’t have a competitor as large as them.

The issue is that there’s been a lot of bad press for GW of late as well as an increase in viable competitors for the market share. GWs current strategy to mitigate this is to increase prices and trim the fat (which is why I wouldn’t completely trust their financial report). Problem with this is the increasing abundance of cheap entertainment as well as the increasing amount viable competitors who undercut GW’s sales. This is largely where the price elasticity comment comes into play being that unless GW changes their ways, they will pretty much price out their target demographic (youngsters) out of the “GW hobby”.

Thanks again for comment. You raised some nice ideas and backed up your claims with some nice discussion points. Kudos for not trolling, flaming or posting apologist nonsense.

No parent will spend 165 dollars on 5 Blood knights, unless they have no sense or are so rich that they wipe their mouths with dollar bills at dinner.

The only time kids really get stuff is when they get a job or its the time of year when they have a birthday or its Christmas

Growing up I knew no kids, except the really spoiled ones who got anything expensive outside of those periods.

The pricing structure for GW only works in those periods, all other times of the year they may as well be dry as a bone, because a young demographic can't afford to buy the stuff. Its the older audience which keeps them afloat during these periods really

Asuron wrote:No parent will spend 165 dollars on 5 Blood knights, unless they have no sense or are so rich that they wipe their mouths with dollar bills at dinner.

The only time kids really get stuff is when they get a job or its the time of year when they have a birthday or its Christmas

Growing up I knew no kids, except the really spoiled ones who got anything expensive outside of those periods.

The pricing structure for GW only works in those periods, all other times of the year they may as well be dry as a bone, because a young demographic can't afford to buy the stuff. Its the older audience which keeps them afloat during these periods really

In the UK at least, you'd be surprised what Parents will buy their kids!

Mr Mystery wrote:

Asuron wrote:No parent will spend 165 dollars on 5 Blood knights, unless they have no sense or are so rich that they wipe their mouths with dollar bills at dinner.

The only time kids really get stuff is when they get a job or its the time of year when they have a birthday or its Christmas

Growing up I knew no kids, except the really spoiled ones who got anything expensive outside of those periods.

The pricing structure for GW only works in those periods, all other times of the year they may as well be dry as a bone, because a young demographic can't afford to buy the stuff. Its the older audience which keeps them afloat during these periods really

In the UK at least, you'd be surprised what Parents will buy their kids!

Maybe not blood knights, but I have parents coming in and dumping tons of money each week on their kids. Birthdays and Holidays are extra stuff. Some parents spend thousands a year on kids for school, soccer, art and music lessons, it's endless. Warhammer is nothing special, just one more thing they put money out for.

I wish my parents bought me things like that as a kid
they got me a job instead when I was a kid

I've resigned to the fact that GW stopped being a hobby company in the mid 90's and at that point turned into a serious business. sadly the seeds were already planted into my teenage brain by that point and like an addict i return regularly to get my fix.
i've tried other stuff, but the universe is familiar and invokes memories of happier days spent gaming with friends.
i've weaned myself to a point where i'll occasionally have a big blowout of gear, mostly ebay purchases of old 90's stuff which in turn leads me into the store to get paint and then the shiney new models on the shelves.
my eldest son is currently painting up two armies (he's 8) and is loving it, its something we can do together properly and enjoy.
however something really surreal happened the other week. i took son #1 into GW and he looked at some of the new shiny finecast and put it back on the shelf.
"whats wrong?" i asked
"Its too expensive dad"
I was shocked, i mean my kids ask for the moon for christmas, who doesn't? but he considered them too expensive, and he had the money to get em he just decided it wasn't worth it.
for instance the lord of the rings box game £51.50
the war olyphant was the same price and he couldn't get his head round it, he asked the store manager why they were the same price even though one is a whole game and the other is a model in a much smaller box that had a few men with it and no rules.

its nice to see through a childs eyes again.

Sc077y wrote:

as far as elasticity of product pricing goes, please remember that in business, you cannot sell a product for more than your opposition does. think of this, store a sells widgets for 100.00 dollars. store B sells them for 75.00. What happens?

does store A mark their price down? wouldn't that be common sense?

if you answered yes, you were dead wrong.

Store B increases their price. yup, thats right. If store A can sell widgets at 100.00 a price, and i am only selling them at 75.00, i am missing out on 25.00 per widget, and unless the item is a super hot new item, i am probably going to see enough of them at 100.00 to make up for the few i wont sell once i raise my price.

Sam Walton, Neal Catapano, and every other venture that relies on volume purchases disagrees with you. Assuming $50 is my cost, if I can sell 3 widgets at 75 to your one at $100, I've made more money on those sales. At 2 units, we break even. Any ratio above that 2:1, I'm ahead.

mikhaila wrote:

Mr Mystery wrote:

Asuron wrote:No parent will spend 165 dollars on 5 Blood knights, unless they have no sense or are so rich that they wipe their mouths with dollar bills at dinner.

The only time kids really get stuff is when they get a job or its the time of year when they have a birthday or its Christmas

Growing up I knew no kids, except the really spoiled ones who got anything expensive outside of those periods.

The pricing structure for GW only works in those periods, all other times of the year they may as well be dry as a bone, because a young demographic can't afford to buy the stuff. Its the older audience which keeps them afloat during these periods really

In the UK at least, you'd be surprised what Parents will buy their kids!

Maybe not blood knights, but I have parents coming in and dumping tons of money each week on their kids. Birthdays and Holidays are extra stuff. Some parents spend thousands a year on kids for school, soccer, art and music lessons, it's endless. Warhammer is nothing special, just one more thing they put money out for.

That must be why I spend so much on myself these days.

My parents scorned Dungeons and Dragons and expensive toy soldiers.

Sc077y wrote:


ok, lets clarify a few things. the average middle school kid has more disposable income than the average DINC (double income no kids) household. Middle school kids get mom and dads disposable income (which tends to be greater in households with children) they are always the target of gifts during gift giving season, and are easier to get interested into the game. as a result, kids actually DO spend more money. Sorry if that bruises anyone ego's out there, but the truth is the truth. look it up, any decent business site targeting a gaming or opportunity cost model will explain this. please try to remember, for every one of us hard corps 30+ year olds out there playing the game, they are 20 kids. they income adds up to more than ours do.

See when you start like that, something outrageously false with no backup, I cant take you seriously. There is, no way as any parent will tell you, two parents working who have kids, the middle school kid have more moeny then two people working, without kids.

Kids cost money. More in clothes, more in food, more in sports, art, dance.....

Sorry but thats just patently false. Kids might be the target of gifts, but two people working with kids do not have more money to spend on stuff then two people without kids.

Fate of Games Workshop?

*rolls a six-sided die*

*consults damage table*

It says here 'Crew - Stunned'.

carmachu wrote:

Sc077y wrote:


ok, lets clarify a few things. the average middle school kid has more disposable income than the average DINC (double income no kids) household. Middle school kids get mom and dads disposable income (which tends to be greater in households with children) they are always the target of gifts during gift giving season, and are easier to get interested into the game. as a result, kids actually DO spend more money. Sorry if that bruises anyone ego's out there, but the truth is the truth. look it up, any decent business site targeting a gaming or opportunity cost model will explain this. please try to remember, for every one of us hard corps 30+ year olds out there playing the game, they are 20 kids. they income adds up to more than ours do.

See when you start like that, something outrageously false with no backup, I cant take you seriously. There is, no way as any parent will tell you, two parents working who have kids, the middle school kid have more moeny then two people working, without kids.

Kids cost money. More in clothes, more in food, more in sports, art, dance.....

Sorry but thats just patently false. Kids might be the target of gifts, but two people working with kids do not have more money to spend on stuff then two people without kids.

Reading comprehension fail

He is not comparing kids vs no kids household. He is comparing DINC household to a middle school kid (from either household).

And as for this:

candy.man wrote:

1. Average middle schooler having more disposable income than the average DINC.
Where did you get this data from? It’s just that this one seems a bit hard to believe and if it is true, I’ll like to see what the variables were, considerations made etc.

I cant say where he got the data from, but think about it. Kids have no expenses - the electric, mortgage, food, retirement, etc is their parents problem. If the kid makes $100 a week (a very low estimate that nearly any kid could do with little effort) that is $400 a month in disposable income, because by default, ALL their income is disposable. If the kid bothers to apply themselves, clearing $600 - $1,000 a month is a very achievable goal.

@ Phobos
That crossed my mind as being a possible reason but without specifics I can’t see this being a blanket rule of thumb fact. I suppose this could be true assuming both adults were low income earners, bad mortgage and high interest rates. Again without numbers on total earnings, average expenditure etc, I can’t take the fact seriously.

Melonfish wrote:I've resigned to the fact that GW stopped being a hobby company in the mid 90's and at that point turned into a serious business. sadly the seeds were already planted into my teenage brain by that point and like an addict i return regularly to get my fix.
i've tried other stuff, but the universe is familiar and invokes memories of happier days spent gaming with friends.
i've weaned myself to a point where i'll occasionally have a big blowout of gear, mostly ebay purchases of old 90's stuff which in turn leads me into the store to get paint and then the shiney new models on the shelves.
my eldest son is currently painting up two armies (he's 8) and is loving it, its something we can do together properly and enjoy.
however something really surreal happened the other week. i took son #1 into GW and he looked at some of the new shiny finecast and put it back on the shelf.
"whats wrong?" i asked
"Its too expensive dad"
I was shocked, i mean my kids ask for the moon for christmas, who doesn't? but he considered them too expensive, and he had the money to get em he just decided it wasn't worth it.
for instance the lord of the rings box game £51.50
the war olyphant was the same price and he couldn't get his head round it, he asked the store manager why they were the same price even though one is a whole game and the other is a model in a much smaller box that had a few men with it and no rules.

its nice to see through a childs eyes again.

Very touching post glad your boy has a good head on his shoulders. Just wanted to say that before it disappears in a quagmire GW hate and Nerdrage this thread has become.

djphranq wrote:Fate of Games Workshop?

*rolls a six-sided die*

*consults damage table*

It says here 'Crew - Stunned'.

Epic lol's right there....

thanks phobos.

I worked for JP Morgan chase for many years as a financial evaluator and skip tracing/loss mitigation specialist/manager.

i will have to go back and dig it out, and youll forgive me as it will take a bit, but not only did many of my MBA professors teach this, so did my six sigma professors too. I later ran across it while do market research on EBITDA earnings while trying to help my boss determine whether or not a particular portfolio was worth investing in for consumer debt, when we had the opportunity to buy the paper for .30 cents on the dollar.

ran across some funky stuff, and phobos is correct, the main reason why children, in almost every category have more disposable income than their parents is because:

1. it is statistically proven through the us census that households with children tend to make more money than those without. what can i say, having a child changes your life. children typically DOMINATE their parents disposable income. Parents have trouble justifying spending anything on themselves, while their kids want something. its a normal process. Children don't really have to have jobs, they typically live in slightly, if not dramatically increased revenue homes where they are the direct beneficiary of the parents disposable income.
2. children typically acquire goods in one of three ways:
a. it is given to them during gift giving seasons
b. it is purchased for them in lieu of another chore or as reward
c. kids earn money. either through a paper route, shoveling show or mowing the lawn, or other household chores, they can earn money.
3. children have no fixed bills. they have no expenditures. every dime they make in a month, is still disposable income. they can build up and then decide to make a purchase, and it would shock you how much money kids can rake up.

the key here is that middle schoolers, ages 13-15 normally (and again, i will have to dig it out) have some form of extraneous income source. either grades (parents paying for good grades in school), chores, allowance, or an actual job in some cases, there is no long term financial obligation.

i can think back to when i was a kid, and while my parents certainly were affluent, i didn't want for much either. dad always made sure we had what we wanted within reason. think about your first gaming console. how much did your parents spend on it? how many games did they buy you? how about extra controllers?

someone said it earlier: they couldnt beleive that a parent would spend 125.00 on death knights for their army.

i have seen parents blow 2-300.00 dollars at a shot getting their kids into a hobby or game they really wanted to play. it may not have always been warhammer 40,000, but i cant count how many parents i have seen buy a box or three of magic expansions getting their kid into the game...

now, lets look at DINC. a DINC household is normally a younger couple. they are typically college students, or are paying off a heap of college debt. married, they learn quickly that two people cannot live as cheaply as one, and expenses pile up really quickly. Every DINC household i have studied, or observed, or even read about follow normally pretty close to this same guidelines, and Lexis Nexus financial reporter also tells the same story. As couples grow into marriage or long term commitment, a DINK household normally transforms into a DEWK (double employed with kids) and their income normally starts to elevate around the same time.

a couple of quick hits reveal the average DINK income as being 48,000 per year, approximately at 24,000 per working member, referring personal finance and some internal JP Morgan sites i still have access too. the average DEWK income is about 40,000 for the male or head of house hold and 26,000 for the secondary income.

now, someone asked what this means for the war gaming household, or total percent of sales, and that unfortunately i don't have, and i don't think that GW or anyone else is going to make that public knowledge anytime soon. We have to simply accept that these numbers are as close as we can get to drawing comparison.

i will grab some sources and cite them, to sedate everyone's curiosity. sorry to keep you all in suspense.

@Sc077y
$48k USD for a double income household seems pretty low to me which supports my low income household statement earlier. Are the people in this example working for McDonalds or something? Up where I live, a low end, low paying desk job would be paying 40ish (and this would be strictly low end desk jobs that wouldn’t require any sort of qualifications). The DEWK example had someone earning $40k therefore what sort of age demographic are we talking about here. Comparing the financials of young couple household with an older couple household with more established financials isn’t a reliable comparison (as it is comparing a low income household with a middle income household).

If we’re looking at 13-15 years, it means kids too young to grab a part time job therefore all financials come from the parents either through an allowance or Christmas/birthday present. What does the data say on the average allowance these kids would get or the value of the average Christmas/birthday gift? It’s a bit hard to suggest the average kid could obtains items to the value of a console (or Blood Knights) rather frequently. Whilst this seems very believable for a high income household, if the average person is only earning like 20k-40k in the US, I find this hard to believe.

Isnt it possible that GW is looking to the future and preparing to bail out into the computer game industry and ditch the minis games. Just a thought. Video games seem to be a way to make real profit.

Yes. The real reason they pay sculptors and painters plus invest money into complex injection moulding techniques and state-of-the-art computer-aided sculpting programs is because they're planning on ditching the whole thing and moving to computer games.

No Sennacherib - I think the reason they EXPAND into Computer/Xbox/whatthehellever Games is because of the Tabletop game being so 'accepted' - Not evolve (Possibly bad language but you get the idea) into a Digital media only.

Phobos wrote:I cant say where he got the data from, but think about it. Kids have no expenses - the electric, mortgage, food, retirement, etc is their parents problem. If the kid makes $100 a week (a very low estimate that nearly any kid could do with little effort) that is $400 a month in disposable income, because by default, ALL their income is disposable. If the kid bothers to apply themselves, clearing $600 - $1,000 a month is a very achievable goal.

WHAT?!?! Where the hell did you work as a kid? That or where the hell does your kid work? If I was making $100 a week, i would be working full time and worry about college 5 years later down the road. Are you delusional?

mikhaila wrote:

Mr Mystery wrote:

Asuron wrote:No parent will spend 165 dollars on 5 Blood knights, unless they have no sense or are so rich that they wipe their mouths with dollar bills at dinner.

The only time kids really get stuff is when they get a job or its the time of year when they have a birthday or its Christmas

Growing up I knew no kids, except the really spoiled ones who got anything expensive outside of those periods.

The pricing structure for GW only works in those periods, all other times of the year they may as well be dry as a bone, because a young demographic can't afford to buy the stuff. Its the older audience which keeps them afloat during these periods really

In the UK at least, you'd be surprised what Parents will buy their kids!

Maybe not blood knights, but I have parents coming in and dumping tons of money each week on their kids. Birthdays and Holidays are extra stuff. Some parents spend thousands a year on kids for school, soccer, art and music lessons, it's endless. Warhammer is nothing special, just one more thing they put money out for.

Since your a store owner I was wondering, what do kids in your store buy the most of generally and do they make up enough of your customer base to justify the GW mentality of " Parents will buy anything for their kids and so the price rises don't matter".
I'm curious as to whether its just a few kids that can afford this, or if alot of parents really don't care about the obscene prices and just lump it in with the other associated costs.