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.

Ravenous D wrote:
I would love to see a poll of how many people that love GW also like Micheal Bay and eating paint chips.

Correlation is not causation. Besides, paint chips are delicious. Can't get behind Bay though. Special effects are NOT plot.

Kroothawk wrote:

skyth wrote:Second off, they had a change in accounting standards that allowed them to shift 1.7 million of revenue from the previous two years to this year, artificially inflating the earnings for this year.

Care to elaborate?

Page 40 of the report (Note 10). They changed the accounting principles for how they recognize income from royalties. This led them to restate the two previous years income, and move 1.8 million (Sorry, had the wrong number originally) of income from the two previous year to this year's report.

Perfectly legal and reported properly, but not something an average person would catch if you're just looking at the numbers given rather than the notes on how they got them.

daedalus wrote:Special effects are NOT plot.

True - but the explosions do tend to supplement it nicely

mattyrm wrote: I don't get all the haters, I truly don't. Bare in mind, I haven't bought any new models for ages either, and I still haven't bought any finecast, In fact, I ebayed loads to get back under 3000 points.. my missus beats me up ive Ive got too many minis laying around the house. But I suppose that is linked to what I'm saying. I understand (to some extent) people "hating" because the hobby is so important to some people, I just don't understand why they are still here, and why they post in GW threads?

I agree with most of what you said in that post, although I will say to you what I have said before. The 'haters' are often the ones who have been the fans the longest. The ones who have made a big investment into GW games - they want the company to succeed, to return to its better practice - whether that was ever real or not is a subject for another discussion. So, the reaction is like something of an non-reciprocating lover?! I guess a psychologist could explain it more eloquently.

In way of explanation, I think this is probably what has got people's goat up: GW's business practice has been pretty crappy over the past couple of years, that includes but is not limited to the Finecast QC problems (still not sorted), the perennial price increases, the 'Rest of World' embargo (this is what pissed me off personally, as it stopped me from buying stuff completely - so there is my reason! ), the cut backs and laying-off of hundreds of staff while at the same time making dividend payments (as pointed out, around a million quid for the CEO), and the new secrecy policy. Other, smaller things, such as the activity of the legal arm crushing of garage-based bit casters (WarSmith industries the latest in a long line of 'little guys' who were crushed under heel).

Of course, there have been many positives as well (the new Dark Eldar range immediately springs to mind), the move towards digital, Dreadfleet (yes - I know it wasn't universally popular, but it was the first genuinely new game GW has released in years and we should celebrate that fact and hope more will come) and of course I think the perpetual bonus - that so many of us wouldn't be here now if GW closed its stores, and ultimately many other games companies can grow from the disenchanted newbies who have been through the GW gates (OK, I admit that last one is a little bit sarcastic.. )

So, with all of the factors, when you get this end of year report, and the company is actually seen to be benefiting from what many regard as poor business practice? Yes, of course that will pee people off. Especially when you consider that none of the points that I listed as being 'negative' were in existence as little as 3-4 years ago, and the more veteran gamers remember the time when the mantra of 'by gamers, for gamers' still applied, and before GW started behaving like all of the other nasty corporations in the big, bad world..

Is it any surprise that mattyrm's first post is to immediately go on the attack against the nebulous "haters"? I see people discussing financial results, not "haters".

I must admit, every time I see a financial report come out, I see the same doomsayers using their infinite knowledge of financial affairs to predict the eventual downfall of Games Workshop. They also tell us why despite GW's actual report saying they're making money, if you somehow read between the lines and move figures around, you'd see how they're practically losing money!

I've been seeing them doing that for five years however, and GW still seems to be doing alright. It makes me somewhat doubtful they'll be collapsing anytime soon. I get the impression that if GW had a truly stellar year and made lots of money for no good reason, they'd still predicting the end.

Ketara wrote:I must admit, every time I see a financial report come out, I see the same doomsayers using their infinite knowledge of financial affairs to predict the eventual downfall of Games Workshop. They also tell us why despite GW's actual report saying they're making money, if you somehow read between the lines and move figures around, you'd see how they're practically losing money!

I've been seeing them doing that for five years however, and GW still seems to be doing alright. It makes me somewhat doubtful it will. I get the impression that if GW had a truly stellar year and made lots of money for no good reason, they'd still predicting the end.

Yup, and I have seen people ranting about this since GW went public, back in 1991....

Will say though, the only time I thought GW was actually in trouble was after the LotR crash. They were losing money and the stock was being punished by the market.

Things are good and they are entering a sweet spot of Hobbit lovin'. Though, stock will drop once the Hobbit train ends and all the revenue from the tie-ins dries up. Hopefully GW is better prepared for this than last time. Doubt it though

Does increased sales mean volume output or cash intake? They have dramatically different meanings.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

H.B.M.C. wrote:Is it any surprise that mattyrm's first post is to immediately go on the attack against the nebulous "haters"? I see people discussing financial results, not "haters".

I'm a hater.

@Ketra

Perhaps you did not read fully the idiosyncrasies of the financial report, like some of us did.

I did say that they will make a profit. And I am correct. I also stated that the customer base erosion is still happening, and it looks like it is continuing as well.

The next 6 months in their half year report I believe will be even be better for GW. They are going to make money. I expect big money from the corporation. I would be shocked if this did not happen just because of on what they are doing now.

But I also expect more erosion in their customer base as well as they have not fixed the underlying problem of an expensive hobby to get into.

Anyway. Expect bigger profits ahead as they follow their revenue streaming process, but that company is just not my cup of tea to invest in.

I prefer Yorkshire Earl Grey with cream. Not Lipton and milk.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

ShumaGorath wrote:Does increased sales mean volume output or cash intake? They have dramatically different meanings.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

H.B.M.C. wrote:Is it any surprise that mattyrm's first post is to immediately go on the attack against the nebulous "haters"? I see people discussing financial results, not "haters".

I'm a hater.

You maybe so but you express your views in a logical manner in long and concise postings. I can't really argue from your stand point.

All I know is that I keep receiving dividends, that makes me a happy investor. In fact stock share price went up 15p today, nice tidy earnings for me. I've gained about 100p per share over the past year which beats the heck out of my citibank stock (ick).

Adam LongWalker wrote:@Ketra

Perhaps you did not read fully the idiosyncrasies of the financial report, like some of us did.

I wasn't commenting on the 'idiosyncrasies of the financial report', rather the idiosyncrasies of a certain subsect of my fellow poster here on Dakka, and the bizarely pessimistic type of post which they promulgate.
I named no names, if you choose to identify and affiliate yourself with them, that's entirely your affair.

agnosto wrote:All I know is that I keep receiving dividends, that makes me a happy investor. In fact stock share price went up 15p today, nice tidy earnings for me. I've gained about 100p per share over the past year which beats the heck out of my citibank stock (ick).

I'd imagine GW stock would be a perfectly fine thing to hold in the short term. Less than 5 years. Who knows what things will be like beyond that. If they can keep streamlinging and raising prices to increase revenue, their numbers will stay solid.

As an aside unrelated to your post, but related to other posts, the "haters" who still point at the fundamental problem GW is facing (falling unit sales) aren't predicting the end of GW any time soon. They just don't like how the constant price hikes are reducing sales to the point that the WFB & LOTR gaming community has shrunk and 40k is in the process of shrinking.

GW knows the majority of their customers don't ever play their games and don't stick around long term, so those of us who would like to play the game and would like to keep being their customer long term are frustrated by decisions made to get the most money possible from their new player recruitment churning.

Locally GW games have died in terms of public gaming by the local gaming community. All the independent stores have more table and shelf space dedicated to Flames of War & Privateer's stuff. There's a GW store, but since they went to one person stores and reduced the table count, there isn't actually a table you can play on there and the store is hardly ever open. There's still one annual tournament and if you ask around there where people buy their stuff, they'll say Miniature Market, Warstore and eBay because of GW's "screw Canada" pricing. So there's no incentive for local independents to stock and push GW as their margins are terrible and people get sticker shock and then order from the US.

The annual reports show that GW is not deviating from this path. For the purposes of the directors, it's working. They're getting rich by maximizing revenue through drastic price hikes. It's just sad that they're scuttling the local gaming communities in the process.

Fortunately for us gamers, other companies will gladly take the market share of dedicated adult gamers while GW continues to go after teenagers who will quit the hobby in under two years.

My prediction for the future: Increase in revenue, increase in profit, continual slow decline of unit sales. More dividends paid out. GW continuing as if the price hikes = more money strategy can work forever.

You do realize though that next year (and for the next few years after that) you will likely hear more due to the Bilbo Bump.

Unless the movies are really bad - they should have a significant sales increase till the Hobbit trilogy is over. That will carry them into FY2016 based on the behavior of the last LotR movies.

Absolutely they could get a big boost from more LOTR movies.

GW might be in the best position possible for an injection of new blood that will stick around as long as the movies are in the theatres.

It could change everything for the better as far as GW's finances go.

Though I'm not sure it'll stop massive annual price hikes on 40k and WFB.

Ketara wrote:

I've been seeing them doing that for five years however, and GW still seems to be doing alright. It makes me somewhat doubtful they'll be collapsing anytime soon.

Thats the whole point, they wont be collapsing soon, however if things go on as they are the will collapse. Its a simple question of numbers, eventually GW will run out of paying customers. GW had a better year than I expected that they would (although they appear to have been a bit sneaky with thier numbers) but the underlying problem of falling sales is still there and its been there for 6 or 7 year now.

Incidentally I don't see the rationale behind calling people doomsayers when the problem is undenaibly real and solvable.

Palindrome wrote:
Thats the whole point, they wont be collapsing soon, however if things go on as they are the will collapse. Its a simple question of numbers, eventually GW will run out of paying customers. GW had a better year than I expected that they would (although they appear to have been a bit sneaky with thier numbers) but the underlying problem of falling sales is still there and its been there for 6 or 7 year now.

Incidentally I don't see the rationale behind calling people doomsayers when the problem is undenaibly real and solvable.

Can you, or someone, please provide a reference for this falling sales? Not in a "pictures or it didn't happen" way, but I would genuinely like to see where people are getting this information from. I seem to remember something 4-5 years ago when GW released a sales report, and it was in the same year where there finances took a hit as well.

The main thing I don't understand is everyone saying that it is all down to an increase in costs, as if costs on all products were increased. By my calculation there was about a 10-15% average across 10-15% of the range, which is big, but not responsible for the profit. Personalty I'm not convinced that sales are falling in the way people are saying and would love to see the sales data showing one way or the other. GW themselves are saying "This has resulted in an encouraging level of volume growth." which is sales growth. As others have said this may be down to the paint range, but without a breakdown of the numbers we just don't know.

Steve steveson wrote:

Palindrome wrote:
Thats the whole point, they wont be collapsing soon, however if things go on as they are the will collapse. Its a simple question of numbers, eventually GW will run out of paying customers. GW had a better year than I expected that they would (although they appear to have been a bit sneaky with thier numbers) but the underlying problem of falling sales is still there and its been there for 6 or 7 year now.

Incidentally I don't see the rationale behind calling people doomsayers when the problem is undenaibly real and solvable.

Can you, or someone, please provide a reference for this falling sales? Not in a "pictures or it didn't happen" way, but I would genuinely like to see where people are getting this information from. I seem to remember something 4-5 years ago when GW released a sales report, and it was in the same year where there finances took a hit as well.

The main thing I don't understand is everyone saying that it is all down to an increase in costs, as if costs on all products were increased. By my calculation there was about a 10-15% average across 10-15% of the range, which is big, but not responsible for the profit. Personalty I'm not convinced that sales are falling in the way people are saying and would love to see the sales data showing one way or the other. GW themselves are saying "This has resulted in an encouraging level of volume growth." which is sales growth. As others have said this may be down to the paint range, but without a breakdown of the numbers we just don't know.

GW miniatures and games belong to a special type of product called a networked good. The value of the product increases as the number of people using the product increases. Think telephones or social networks. (The opposite of this is a conspicuous good, like Chanel handbags).
If you look at the numbers GW posts, you can say within a reasonable margin that the total revenue is a reflection of sales volume. It could also be taken as an indicator of the number of new players (as their target market is new players buying directly from GW) or the number of total players*. Thus, growth in revenue can mean growth in number of players and growth in sales volume.
*However*, you need to adjust for inflation. A company should be making about 3% more money than they did last year,. As well as this, GW does constant price rises. Especially last year on the majority of their entry-level products - rule books, battleforces, codices, starter sets, paints. Once you account for this increase in prices and inflation, their sales volume appears to be decreasing.

Why do we care about that? Sales volume is what we are interested in, as gamers. Lower sales volumes means less people to play against; and due to the network effect, once the number of players falls below a certain critical mass (the ability to easily find a game of 40k near you) the number of players could fall rapidly.

In the report, you can find this stated in a round-about way in Mark Wells' preamble. He says that 207 managers increased their store revenue beyond the GW yearly price adjustment. That means about half of their stores *DID NOT* manage to bring in more money than last year, despite increased prices. That means sales volume fell for those stores.
Making some wild assumptions based on intuition and anecdotes, but I would expect that independent retailers on average would be experiencing a greater decrease in volume than GW stores (due to potentially stocking competing products). However, we don't know how much sales fell in their other stores so extrapolation beyond that point isn't really helpful.

Looking at profit isn't really a good indicator of sales volume, as there is all kinds of cost reductions that goes into increasing profits without sales volume increasing. Dropping down to 1-man stores, using resin instead of metal, changing the type of paints made, etc, etc.
This year saw a few more increases which also increased GW's revenue, but don't reflect increased sales of miniatures. #1 is royalty revenue (from the Space Marine game). #2 is increases from Black Library and Forge World (though these are probably closely tied to miniatures sales). #3 is the near-mandatory selling of the entirety of the new paint range, where stockists *had to* buy the stock, which doesn't necessarily reflect the demand.


However, despite that, GW is running well and has ample ability to turn around. They're debt free, making a profit, and running fairly lean on inventory and staff. if they do find themselves under serious threat, they may be able to reshuffle and come out on top once again.


* The secondhand market clouds this, as does the ability for people to not buy and still play, but for every person who stops buying and still plays there could be two that throw theirs in the trash or hide it in a closet.

So what your saying is that the numbers are pulled out of the are based on assumptions and guess work? Even with the assumptions it seems to me, compared to the rest of retail, GW are doing quite well. But without details all it is is guess work and conjecture.

I do think they could do better with a sanitisation of the pricing structure. I don't think everything is overpriced, but some things are, however we don't know all of the details. I don't think that GW are in any risk. I do think they made a few errors, mostly with the US market, but they seemed to have stepped back quite quickly.

? Its not assumptions and conjecture. Admittedly there are a lot of unknowns, but there are a lot of knowns as well. Its simple arithmetic.
If revenue = volume * price, and price increases but revenue stays the same, that means volume is falling. This seems to be the situation for the company as a whole.
Wells said that for about half of their stores, volume went up. That means for the other half of their stores, volume stayed the same or went down. (Yeah, I know that is pretty much the definition of glass-half-empty).

GW has constantly said that they don't feel like they are affected by current economic trends. Perhaps they are, and they're really doing remarkably well all things considered. However, most major companies that aren't performing to expectations have blamed the economy: GW could, but they aren't.

No-one is saying that GW is in any risk of collapse in the next six months or year. Their miniatures are going from strength to strength. But if their current trends continue, there won't be anyone left to play against. Anecdotally, this is occurring in many clubs as people move towards games with more mature rules and lower buy-in points.

Steve steveson wrote:
Can you, or someone, please provide a reference for this falling sales? Not in a "pictures or it didn't happen" way, but I would genuinely like to see where people are getting this information from. I seem to remember something 4-5 years ago when GW released a sales report, and it was in the same year where there finances took a hit as well.

There is no specific reference as it needs to be inferred. Basically GWs revenues have been very stable for years, and they grew slightly last year, however in that time the retail price of their products have increased significantly year on year, I think it works out to around an average 7% annual increase. If GW was selling the same or more each year then its revenues would increase in step with their price increases. This hasn't happened and the only real conclusion that can be drawn is that their sales are declining at around the same rate as their price increases. Granted you can't get a truely accurate picture from such limited data but the trend is clear.

Palindrome wrote:
Basically GWs revenues have been very stable for years, and they grew slightly last year, however in that time the retail price of their products have increased significantly year on year, I think it works out to around an average 7% annual increase. If GW was selling the same or more each year then its revenues would increase in step with their price increases. This hasn't happened and the only real conclusion that can be drawn is that their sales are declining at around the same rate as their price increases. Granted you can't get a truely accurate picture from such limited data but the trend is clear.

One of the blatantly most stupids argument in this discussion is the constantly recurring *they increased prices by 10% (or whatever) but only increased profits by 6%* so their sales went down*

That is simply not true. First, there is such a thing as inflation. Yes, I know it does not account for all of their price increases, but it does for some of that. They lowered production costs with Finecast and Paints, but rent for stores, salaries, electricity, plastic, the coffee in the machines on the hallway, etc.. all became more expensive. At equal sales, there needs to be some price increase to keep profits equal. And they increased profits.

Furthermore, GW also expanded. As said above, their creative team alone added 24 new people.. that is a 26% increase of people to their old team of 90. And profit margins on miniatures, even finecast miniature, did not rise by 26%. Not even close.

Etc.., etc..

So even the most simple comparisons of price increases and profit increases to deduce changes in sale should at least acknowledge some basic things like inflation, investments and growing staff, etc.. . There may or may not be a drop in sales. But it sure as hell is not as drastic as these misleading subtractions of price increase from profit increase suggest.

Also, 7% a year is a fairly normal increase JUST in order to stay on the baseline.

Zweischneid wrote:

Palindrome wrote:
So even the most simple comparisons of price increases and profit increases to deduce changes in sale should at least acknowledge some basic things like inflation, investments and growing staff, etc.. . There may or may not be a drop in sales. But it sure as hell is not as drastic as these misleading subtractions of price increase from profit increase suggest.

We are talking about revenues here not profits. If I was basing my argument upon GW's reported profits then you would have a point but I'm not.

The expenses are actually pretty easy to track, and by looking back over past financial reports - you can see that the cost of doing business for GW hasn't increased that much...no where near the 7% "just to stay on the baseline."

FY2012 had expenses (revenue, less operating profit) of £111.9 million. FY2011 was £107.9 million. That would be a change in expenses year over year of 3.7%. Going back a few years, you can see that while inflation does impact everything - most of GW's expenses are not tied to it.

FY2010 - £110.4 million
FY2009 - £116.7 million
FY2008 - £107.8 million
FY2007 - £111.3 million
FY2006 - £111 million
FY2005 - £122.3 million
FY2004 - £131.9 million
FY2003 - £111.6 million
FY2002 - £95.1 million
FY2001 - £83.2 million
FY2000 - £71.3 million
FY1999 - £59.8 million
FY1998 - £53.2 million

Within the reports you can find a variety of reasons for the costs (opening new stores, closing old stores, moving factories to China, moving factories back from China, building warehouses in Maryland, moving them to Tennessee...). You can also find more detailed breakdowns regarding how much is actually spent on the manufacture and design of products versus all the other junk - if you don't feel like digging it up, the manufacture costs are down around 2% of GW's expenses.

Zweischneid wrote:One of the blatantly most stupids argument in this discussion is the constantly recurring *they increased prices by 10% (or whatever) but only increased profits by 6%* so their sales went down*

If you weren't wrong about everything ever, you might realise that this has nothing to do with profit. Trying to fall back on inflation and other excuses is further evidence that you have no idea what you're talking about.

The problem is that GW sold X units this year, while they sold X+Y units last year. Selling less units is bad because the value of the product is highly dependant on sales volumes - both so that you personally can field a whole army and not just a unit, and so you have someone to play against. By selling less armies, GW devalues their own product.

AlexHolker wrote:

Zweischneid wrote:One of the blatantly most stupids argument in this discussion is the constantly recurring *they increased prices by 10% (or whatever) but only increased profits by 6%* so their sales went down*

If you weren't wrong about everything ever, you might realise that this has nothing to do with profit. Trying to fall back on inflation and other excuses is further evidence that you have no idea what you're talking about.

The problem is that GW sold X units this year, while they sold X+Y units last year. Selling less units is bad because the value of the product is highly dependant on sales volumes - both so that you personally can field a whole army and not just a unit, and so you have someone to play against. By selling less armies, GW devalues their own product.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/jun/04/inflation-economics
I don't know if you noticed, but no one in the west really has any more any more
Given that inflation in the UK has been hovering at 5-5.5% a 6% average really isn't so bad. And that's distorted by a few very expensive things, rather than the more popular boxes that haven't increased so much.

Trasvi wrote:? Its not assumptions and conjecture. Admittedly there are a lot of unknowns, but there are a lot of knowns as well. Its simple arithmetic.
If revenue = volume * price, and price increases but revenue stays the same, that means volume is falling. This seems to be the situation for the company as a whole.

I'm sorry, but you just can't make those assumptions without sales numbers.
Revenue = volume * price is only valid if you are taking like for like. Unfortunately this is never true in the real world due to changes is sales profile, exchange rates etc. As I said you cannot make these inferences from a consolidated income statement. There is no evidence that sales are falling. The only statement is that sales volume is increasing. However, as I said we don't know WHAT sales volume is increasing, what the margins are on what is selling more and what the value is.

Palindrome wrote:
There is no specific reference as it needs to be inferred. Basically GWs revenues have been very stable for years, and they grew slightly last year, however in that time the retail price of their products have increased significantly year on year, I think it works out to around an average 7% annual increase. If GW was selling the same or more each year then its revenues would increase in step with their price increases. This hasn't happened and the only real conclusion that can be drawn is that their sales are declining at around the same rate as their price increases. Granted you can't get a truely accurate picture from such limited data but the trend is clear.

Again, you cannot infer anything from it. Yes, the price of some products increased, but not all of them (the majority did not increase this year) and without knowing what sold you cannot say that sales are falling. If a company that sell 100 products increased one by 1000% but keeps the rest the same, but only has a 10% increase in revenue it dose not mean that they are selling less. Without sales data and context the numbers are meaningless for working out if sales are up or down. You don't know if the 7% increase is in line with stable or falling sales, or an increase in sales of lines with no price increase and a fall in sales of lines that have gone up in price.

That might be a reasonable argument for this years results, but do you think it's still reasonable to apply that reasoning to the last 6 or 7 years?

I think the aggregation of price increases leaves no doubt that unit sales volume has probably fallen in half since the end of LOTR.

And I'm not sure you're being completely honest with yourself when you talk about the price increases being of such a minority of products. The large price increases are on things like starter boxes, battleforces, and regiment/squad boxes. The things which most likely make up the majority of their sales if people are getting into the game.

And if the customers are not getting into the game, but shifting more and more to being "craft hobbyists" that never play the games, that's just as bad for the network effect. If more and more people are buying stuff that didn't go up in price and less and less people are buying codecies, army books, starters, battleforces or squad boxes, that still has a negative effect on the local player base.

I want GW to turn things around so that there is no doubt that sales volume of all types of purchases are going up. But the numbers just aren't there without also assuming that less and less people are buying the things that went up in price-- which are the purchases you'd have to make if you are into playing the game.

It's entirely possible that people are buying the stuff that didn't go up as much in droves, but that doesn't help a given local gaming community with maintaining good numbers of players at all.

AlexHolker wrote:

The problem is that GW sold X units this year, while they sold X+Y units last year. Selling less units is bad because the value of the product is highly dependant on sales volumes - both so that you personally can field a whole army and not just a unit, and so you have someone to play against. By selling less armies, GW devalues their own product.

I am not denying the importance of sales.

I am denying the logic of people concluding that sales went down because price increases > profit increases (hence the false assumption forwarded several times that the difference is mostly or entirely explained by lower sales).

Sales volume for GW went UP(!). Says so right there in the report. So no devaluation of their product on this account.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Testify wrote:
I don't know if you noticed, but no one in the west really has any more any more
Given that inflation in the UK has been hovering at 5-5.5% a 6% average really isn't so bad. And that's distorted by a few very expensive things, rather than the more popular boxes that haven't increased so much.

The point wasn't mainly about inflation. The point was that many things - investments, new staff, expansion and (yes, among other things and in combination with other factors) inflation - can and likely do explain the difference between price increases and profit increases, which people have simply equated with a drop in sales.

As I wrote in my original post, I didn't even deny that there was possibly a drop in sales over the longer time period (i.e. over and beyond last year, when sales bumped up). Just that people should consider that not everything except GW prices and GW profits is perfectly invariable (especially if you look at things over several years).

Have their legal costs from the CH case and their various appointments in the IP and legal department started to show up yet? Or are they still to insignificant to warrant mention? No talk of 'fortress walls' this year, or do they save that for another time?

Steve steveson wrote:

Again, you cannot infer anything from it. Yes, the price of some products increased, but not all of them (the majority did not increase this year) and without knowing what sold you cannot say that sales are falling. If a company that sell 100 products increased one by 1000% but keeps the rest the same, but only has a 10% increase in revenue it dose not mean that they are selling less. Without sales data and context the numbers are meaningless for working out if sales are up or down. You don't know if the 7% increase is in line with stable or falling sales, or an increase in sales of lines with no price increase and a fall in sales of lines that have gone up in price.

A good number of products did increase this year, check out the first page of this post with price alterations:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/451127.page

Halfway down the page, 17 pages (with about 30 items each) of price increases, which I would say is not inconsiderable. Some of them went up by a very small amount (as little as a few $), but for the majority it was a lot more, I believe someone quoted above that it was around 12% on average. It was also what could be termed as 'core' products, battle forces, units of infantry such as the Cadian boxset, things like that.

The contents of that kind of thread are the same as every year that the 'rumour' about price rises gets posted, paraphrased with extracts (some quoted directly!) below:

Stage 1 - the disbelief: "It's not real!" "Mountain of salt!" "I call shenanigans!" "I can't believe they would raise prices again!" "I live in Australia! Please no!"
Stage 2 - the realisation, and rejection: "I can't believe the prices have gone up again!" "So glad I already collected my army.. " "Well that's my other project on hold" "Can anyone give me any info on Infinity?" "Lucky I don't live in Australia!"
Stage 3 - The justification: "It's the rate of inflation, gas is more expensive too" "How many people here genuinely need more stuff?" "This is still much cheaper than my other hobby, paragliding", "Use ebay and discount sellers" "Everything else is more expensive in Australia too"

We will have exactly the same thing again next May/June, around and around we go.. Does seem to help the other sections of the forum get a surge in interest though..