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.

School leavers and teenagers in general have very limited resources.
If granny and grandad are suffering financially due to low interest rates/savings pension funds. And mum/dad because of household expenses.
Then little timmy, is not getting that khorne mower.

The older gamer(look around dakka), tends to have a more settled life style. Usually a profession of some sort, with a regular income.
He/she has already made a commitment to the hobby, via purchasing GW products through the years.

GW is discarding these people in favor of younger spur of the moment buyers, who may or not stay around.
Meanwhile the older players are been pushed out, and moving onto other games. As these players join other game systems, they're increasing the market share of these other games.Thus GWs share of the market decreases. GWs main advertisement is word of mouth, and its main selling point is You can always find a game with 40k.
Well the gamers who have left GW are quite vocal.
And if the rate of people leaving the game carry's on, the chances are the game your watching/playing, at the store will not be 40k.

The longtime gamer is the rock Games Workshop was built on. The new gamers maybe tomorrows rock, ATM they're just sand.

 loki old fart wrote:
Snip

True, but the older gamers are also more aware of used products and have existing armies. We like to say they will buy more, but the majority of players only have one army and stick with it. This is what Priestly was stating in his interview and likely the view inside GW. There are very few that cycle through multiple armies. And of those, how many do you know that have more than two or three? Someone who has been in the hobby for 10+ years will have all the armies he is interested in at this point. Even with a new release for an army, that player may only buy the new units. New kits of existing units may not be bought by veterans because they already have the unit. You can complain about how they target younger players, but they are going to buy a whole new army, not a just a single kit or two. Worse, veterans will wait till Timmy buys the box, gets tired and buys it from him a few months later.

 silent25 wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:
Snip

True, but the older gamers are also more aware of used products and have existing armies. We like to say they will buy more, but the majority of players only have one army and stick with it. This is what Priestly was stating in his interview and likely the view inside GW. There are very few that cycle through multiple armies. And of those, how many do you know that have more than two or three? Someone who has been in the hobby for 10+ years will have all the armies he is interested in at this point. Even with a new release for an army, that player may only buy the new units. New kits of existing units may not be bought by veterans because they already have the unit. You can complain about how they target younger players, but they are going to buy a whole new army, not a just a single kit or two. Worse, veterans will wait till Timmy buys the box, gets tired and buys it from him a few months later.

Very likely. But Timmy's mum might say I,m not paying that for a box of toy soldiers, or Timmy might get a small box keep playing for a week. then lose interest.

Or mum might walk into a store, see a lot of people playing warmachine /hordes, and buy timmy that instead.
There's a lot of what ifs there, and if GW loses more of its market share. Anything can happen.
Sometimes you must look after your older customers, too keep your market share. And suppress your competition.

cammy wrote:
The executive board i have on good authority that about 70% of them activly play the game, and i know people who have played against the CEO. Maybe the Non -exec board dont play the game? however all a voice of the customer woudl do woud be to give views to a group that isn't their core demographic. They may have more players in the older group but the money comes from the youngsters, a group which doesnt need a voice of the customer as they are new, and do not know what they want.

If GW decided to expand their focus to more demogrpahics then yes it may be worth it, however the cost expended on targeting this other demographic may actually not pay back on their finacial model.

If many play the games great.

Kids know what they want and they seem to be going that way (bigger more stompy models!).

There is no point in expanding the demographic because that would require investment for the future: as indicated, there are board members that need to be paid by dividends, their financial model is being met.

Going with the "one off" sales is again a short term method of money making, "a sucker is born every minute" so if they get a sufficient number of new hobbyists annually they can perpetuate this.

cammy wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:
OP, you have picked a much talked about topic.
First some links since I had written my fingers off on a few of these:
Note, too many had to use spoiler button:

Spoiler:

Miniwargaming store closing[b] Note: Some good statements from the viewpoint of a retailer and on-line store.
http://www.miniwargaming.com/content/the-miniwargaming-store-closing

[b]Subject: The Future of the Game
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/544639.page

Subject: The end times for our hobby
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/544931.page

Subject: GW Annual Report for 2012-2013
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/543013.page

Subject: The Games Workshop Hobby, I gotta admit it, I'm out. The prices got to me.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/541941.page

Subject: Is GW changing their business model again?
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/539085.page

Subject: The Combat Company considering legal action against GW due to mistreatment of wholesale customers.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/529143.page

Subject: I'd like to make a challenge...GW standard prices are not insane.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/527641.page

Subject: White dwarf delivery
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/525888.page#5606290

Subject: What could "save" GW?
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/524703.page

Subject: Impressions of the new Citadel paints?
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/524874.page#5577862

Subject: Specialist games are gone, what will GW cut next?
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/524168.page

Subject: So GW are completely removing in-store open gaming now?
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/516952.page

Subject: Has GW finally hit that magic number that will price people out of the hobby?
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/497907.page

Subject: Why does GW not have a community representative?
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/495775.page

Summary:
GW a long time ago was the first and unique company to offer an "immersive" customer experience or "culture".
- They own their own stores with their product you could pursue all elements of "the hobby": assemble, paint, play.
- They have their own fiction describing in large detail the universe of their "intellectual property": IP.
- They used to have articles beyond counting of hobby tips, used to have their own forums, used to support local hobby store GW competitions.
- They have their own magazine to promote their product and up-coming events.
- They hold their own "Games Day" in key cities around the world.
- They have their own awards for modeling and painting: The Golden Demon.
- They now have "full service" products for all elements of the hobby: paint, glue, tools, brushes, terrain, buildings, books and ebooks. Now, no "outside" crafting is promoted since it would compete with salable items, which is too bad, since they used to be very creative hobby ideas were promoted.

Prices have been increased to keep up revenue until the time they determine they had gone as far as the market will bear.
Increased competition from Privateer Press and Fantasy Flight is reducing what was once a monopoly.
Computers, Netflicks, portable devices, consoles all compete for people's free time and money so would also reduce the piece of the pie (time/money) for recreation.

They are no-longer maintaining the immersive experience that set them apart and charge a premium for their product like their name-brand retained value (as they reflect in their financial statements) while they are not investing in higher public awareness.

Good short term financial measures like spending cash for dividends has been good for shareholders but development and production equipment purchases have shrunk which leads people to question what is the plan management has for the next 3 years.

Their IP of 40k has been utilized in the past for computer games and they missed an opportunity to purchase/hire some elements of "Relic Entertainment" to develop their own software "in-house", which the loss of the licensing was noted in the prior financial statement (2012).

They need more "Voice of customer" and the decision making level to further their brand name appeal.
If at least half the board played the games they produce they would have the mindset of what is needed.

The executive board i have on good authority that about 70% of them activly play the game, and i know people who have played against the CEO. Maybe the Non -exec board dont play the game? however all a voice of the customer woudl do woud be to give views to a group that isn't their core demographic. They may have more players in the older group but the money comes from the youngsters, a group which doesnt need a voice of the customer as they are new, and do not know what they want.

If GW decided to expand their focus to more demogrpahics then yes it may be worth it, however the cost expended on targeting this other demographic may actually not pay back on their finacial model.

Considering some of the condecending (and outright insulting) thing we hear from the higher ups about us smelly nerds and our toy soldiers I highly doubt that.

 Talizvar wrote:

cammy wrote:
The executive board i have on good authority that about 70% of them activly play the game, and i know people who have played against the CEO. Maybe the Non -exec board dont play the game? however all a voice of the customer woudl do woud be to give views to a group that isn't their core demographic. They may have more players in the older group but the money comes from the youngsters, a group which doesnt need a voice of the customer as they are new, and do not know what they want.

If GW decided to expand their focus to more demogrpahics then yes it may be worth it, however the cost expended on targeting this other demographic may actually not pay back on their finacial model.

If many play the games great.

Kids know what they want and they seem to be going that way (bigger more stompy models!).

There is no point in expanding the demographic because that would require investment for the future: as indicated, there are board members that need to be paid by dividends, their financial model is being met.

Going with the "one off" sales is again a short term method of money making, "a sucker is born every minute" so if they get a sufficient number of new hobbyists annually they can perpetuate this.

I agree with that however the stratergy will be based on something more than the one of purchase. There will be soem models which they would have ruin from some insight analysis on the percentage they manage to convert from new buyer to 1 year, 2 year 3 year dropp off and model the amount of revenue they would expect, so retention figures will be important, but only for the initaly period.

 loki old fart wrote:
Snip

So you are saying that the right market (people) is older gamers then? Over school leavers (older teens) and "Little Timmy" (who I assume to be the young teen 11-14 bracket)?

The thing is your claiming that older gamers are the rock GW was built on, but this may not actually be true. Sure they are the ones who in the early 80's got the ball rolling but it was the "Little Timmys" that got them to being the monolith GW is today.

Silent25 raised some issues with that view which are quite valid.

While "little timmy"'s parents may do this or that, so might anybody, older gamers included. There are however more likely to walk in to a GW and buy "Little Timmy" a box of marines or Dark Vengeance than an established gamer will (I have no need of any tactical marines at all or the Dark Vengeance box, nor glue, paint, brushes, basing materials etc).

While GW's product mix in the 90's was more varied and catered for older gamers better (with some excellent games like Space Marine, Epic, Necromunda etc.) without knowing the contribution to the bottom line we cannot know if this was actually an important market for them. Given that when GW sidelined and then dropped the specialist games their sales did not plummet I'd conclude that they were not that important to GW. I see no reason why they should be more important now than then.

Focusing on the current macro financial problems may be a little short sighted when it comes to deciding how a company like GW will conduct it's business over the next 5-10 years.

And we are ignoring the fact that GW do have an arm which caters to the affluent older gamer, Forge World. It would be interesting to see how much difference they make to the bottom line at GW and would be a much better basis for arguing one target against another.


I think the market argument in analogous to selling sheep fleeces or sheep skins. It would appear better to take the fleece and not the skin because you can do that every year, and this is analogous to the older gamer. But to do that you must care for the sheep all year, provide them pasture, protect them etc. all year, every day but it pays off year after year and you only need to replace a sheep when they die of old age.

If you skin a sheep you get a single pay off, but the rest of the year is your own which you can spend skinning more sheep or drinking. You only need to care for the sheep until you kill it and skin it, and even then not to the same level of care as the Shepard. As long as the supply of sheep keeps up and a hide makes you more than a sheep costs you'd be daft spend all your time on that rainy hill waiting for next year. (there is more to this analogy that includes breeding sheep and the capacity of a Shepard as opposed to the skinner, but you get the gist).

Of course the size of the market is of vital importance to this but "looking around dakka" proves very little on it's own.

 Koppo wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:
Snip

I think the market argument in analogous to selling sheep fleeces or sheep skins. It would appear better to take the fleece and not the skin because you can do that every year, and this is analogous to the older gamer. But to do that you must care for the sheep all year, provide them pasture, protect them etc. all year, every day but it pays off year after year and you only need to replace a sheep when they die of old age.

If you skin a sheep you get a single pay off, but the rest of the year is your own which you can spend skinning more sheep or drinking. You only need to care for the sheep until you kill it and skin it, and even then not to the same level of care as the Shepard. As long as the supply of sheep keeps up and a hide makes you more than a sheep costs you'd be daft spend all your time on that rainy hill waiting for next year. (there is more to this analogy that includes breeding sheep and the capacity of a Shepard as opposed to the skinner, but you get the gist).

Of course the size of the market is of vital importance to this but "looking around dakka" proves very little on it's own.

You skin all the sheep this year, where do next years lambs come from. No lambs means no new sheep to skin.
GW needs adult gamers to nurture younger gamers, and keep them in the hobby.
Your argument is built on the premise, that GW is doing well. Well its not.

 loki old fart wrote:
GW needs adult gamers to nurture younger gamers, and keep them in the hobby.
Your argument is built on the premise, that GW is doing well. Well its not.

I would hate to argue with you about the older gamers keeping the younger in the hobby.
I suppose it would be better than saying "Stop now while you can! Before you know it you will have $5000 of the stuff and GW has you by the short and curlies! Go play X-wing while you still can, it is too late for me... RUN!"

GW is doing well, what is not as well is rather than roll profit into growing the business, management is assuming it is "right sized" and feel dividends are the way to make investors happy (and themselves).

It is totally up to them on how much liquid assets go out of the company so their bottom line can fluctuate any way they want.

Until they show no profit, I suspect their methods will not change and if they do it would lean on further reduction of facilities and personnel.

Bottom line is unless us fanboys sufficiently stop spending on GW products they feel no need to change. (The darn new SM codex will not help me with that.)

loki old fart wrote:You skin all the sheep this year, where do next years lambs come from. No lambs means no new sheep to skin.

koppo wrote:As long as the supply of sheep keeps up and a hide makes you more than a sheep costs

Well the simple answer is you buy them. This is analogous to the effort GW would expend in recruiting the "Timmys". The alternative is you keep a few hoarny old ewes around who drop a few lambs a year raise the lambs to the required size and then skin them rather than raise them and keep them around through the horrible rainy winter.

GW needs adult gamers to nurture younger gamers, and keep them in the hobby.

Not if it can recruit enough "Timmys" and churn them fast enough via other channels. That also presupposes that old gamers nurture young ones and this has a big effect. Also from where do these younger gamers come from? While this is sometimes true and does form a very important link most kids are introduced by other kids their own age or slightly older (go in to any GW store during the holidays to witness this). I was introduced by be older brother, who was introduced by his mate and this was pretty much the MO for most of the people I knew at the time. So while the older gamers do introduce new gamers to the hobby, there are other channels and they could be much more effective at generating the churn that GW has used in the past. To return to the sheep analogy it is as if by birthing a lamb, two more lambs end up coming over to you to join them. Then you skin all three!

Also it cost money and effort to nurture these adult gamers, we are moaning, narky lot who what constant attention for our own pet loves. If the main customer base was established gamers and GW released the "new improved tactical marine" most of them would not buy them until their hobby needs got around to needing a tac squad, which could be years away. The return on investment just takes too long.

Your argument is built on the premise, that GW is doing well. Well its not.

Here I think you have misunderstood me. I am not basing my argument on how well GW are doing now, but rather on the fact that this model has worked in the past for them, including through recession. I'm not saying that GW are doing well, I'm saying that the market they have historically targeted, and the prices they charge based upon that market has proved to work before and can continue to work if GW act correctly to retain their position of being the first wargame kids try (the strategy is right, the execution may be off).

I also hold that the "right" market for GW is not older/adult gamers. This is based on GW's view point (or rather their owners).

And that does kind of depend upon what you mean by "doing well". GW turn a profit and can return profit to it's owners in the form of dividends. That is "doing well" by the share holders view point (well the short term ones at any rate).

So GW are targeting the "right" people, at the "right" price (for those people) and much to my own disappointment, with the "right" models (for those people, and the price), based upon historical behaviour and performance.

In their recent report they mentioned the sales increase was led by Forge World and Black Library. Two entities that cater to the older customer/gamer.

Even though I can field multiples of every space marine unit in the codex, I find myself building two new heresy armies.

So, I do not believe the should be focused exclusively on the young consumer, but also on retention of existing customers.

It would be nice to know what percentage FW and BL contributed. From the report:

"That small increase in sales (3% or so) is a mix of strong performance in our more hobby oriented Forge World and Black Library businesses
(our ‘Other businesses’) and the North American region and less good performances in Continental Europe and the UK."

It goes on to say for "Other. This includes the other operating segments reviewed by the chief operating decision-maker. These are the Forge World business, the Black
Library business, digital sales and Warhammer World."

revenue was for 2013 £14,716,000 and 2012 £12,118,000

So, yeah Forge World may well be a greater boon to GW as a whole that I first thought, but the entire segment including FW is about a tenth of GWs revenue, so important, but not that important.

 Koppo wrote:
It would be nice to know what percentage FW and BL contributed. From the report:

"That small increase in sales (3% or so) is a mix of strong performance in our more hobby oriented Forge World and Black Library businesses
(our ‘Other businesses’) and the North American region and less good performances in Continental Europe and the UK."

It goes on to say for "Other. This includes the other operating segments reviewed by the chief operating decision-maker. These are the Forge World business, the Black
Library business, digital sales and Warhammer World."

revenue was for 2013 £14,716,000 and 2012 £12,118,000

So, yeah Forge World may well be a greater boon to GW as a whole that I first thought, but the entire segment including FW is about a tenth of GWs revenue, so important, but not that important.

It might not be coincidence that many gamers seem to hold FW apart from the mothership of the evil empire of GW? Many have said that with the price rises that FW has become better value, perhaps that has become a demonstrable trend.

 azreal13 wrote:

It might not be coincidence that many gamers seem to hold FW apart from the mothership of the evil empire of GW? Many have said that with the price rises that FW has become better value, perhaps that has become a demonstrable trend.

FW is certainly a better value on some things now, or only marginally more expensive so that I would rather get the cooler looking FW model over the GW one.
GW Tau Broadside: $50, FW version: $45
GW Tau Crisis Suit Commander: $41, FW version: ~$45
GW Baneblade kit: $140, FW Stormblade: $155 (and probably includes all the extra options from the Baneblade kit anyway)
GW SM Terminators: $50, FW Tartaros Terminators: $54

Just a few examples off the top of my head. Admittedly, the GW models can be bought for cheaper from places that offer discounts,

But, yes, I do hold FW in higher regard than GW. FW makes models I want to buy. GW makes models they want me to buy. Probably 80% of what I have spent on 40K this year was for Forgeworld stuff.

 Koppo wrote:
It would be nice to know what percentage FW and BL contributed. From the report:

"That small increase in sales (3% or so) is a mix of strong performance in our more hobby oriented Forge World and Black Library businesses
(our ‘Other businesses’) and the North American region and less good performances in Continental Europe and the UK."

It goes on to say for "Other. This includes the other operating segments reviewed by the chief operating decision-maker. These are the Forge World business, the Black
Library business, digital sales and Warhammer World."

revenue was for 2013 £14,716,000 and 2012 £12,118,000

So, yeah Forge World may well be a greater boon to GW as a whole that I first thought, but the entire segment including FW is about a tenth of GWs revenue, so important, but not that important.

Revenue isn't everything. This is something a lot of modern businesspeople just don't seem to grasp; sometimes it's worth catering to/supporting market segments which generate lower absolute revenue in order to gain intangible benefits which drive increased revenue from elsewhere. GW relies largely on store presence and word of mouth to market their product, both avenues which are enhanced by an enthusiastic and loyal core of long-term customers(and I don't buy the "allowing vets = having a store full of smelly, grumpy, insular grognards" myth, because in 20 years of visiting GW stores all over Scotland and the North of England, I've seen that happen once at my own local store, for a period of exactly two weeks while the manager was on holiday and one of the redshirts was temp managing the place).

I learned a lot of my hobby skills at my local GW, not from the staff, but from the older(late teens to mid twenties) "vets" who were in the store playing games, painting, chatting with the staff. I bought my first fantasy army because of the conversation I overheard between a vet and a staffmember and subsequently seeing the vet's models. When the staff were busy with sales, the vet gamers would offer to help the browsing parents figure out what their Little Timmy would actually want for his present. The store was a welcoming environment, rarely empty, with stuff to do and people to talk to. Contrast that with today, when many GW stores are essentially just another sterile, sales-focused retail outlet. Vets, providing whoever's running the store doesn't indulge his cronies(which is a failure of management, not an inherently negative result of having vet gamers in the stores), enhance GW's store presence by making the stores into a social hub.

The benefits loyal long-term customers can bring to word of mouth advertising are obvious, as are the potential problems that can arise if you alienate them and turn them and they begin to spread bad word of mouth.

The same thinking holds true for things like Specialist Games; they probably weren't long-term moneyspinners on their own, but for the cost of a little shelf space and a few hobby articles, they brought other benefits to GW. People bored with the main systems would try out one of the SGs, keeping them inside the GW ecosystem; many would later go back to the core systems, some wouldn't, but even those that didn't were still useful to the company because they weren't spending money with GW's competitors. The same can be said for subsets of gamers, like "people who only play skirmish games"; you entice them in with Mordheim or Necromunda, some will expand into the core systems and other SGs, some may buy one warband for one SG and never buy a single model ever again, but they were all contributing to GW's dominance of the market.

So sure, Forgeworld might provide 10% of the total in absolute terms, but the intangible benefits gained from supporting the segment of the market that favours FW products mean Forgeworld is likely at least a contributory factor in more than 10% of purchases from GW as a whole.

 Yodhrin wrote:


Revenue isn't everything.

Its all I had figures wise. To make a better comparison it would be nice if GW broke down revenue by FW, BL and also attributed costs to FW, BL and the other segments. If FW makes £2m in revenue but costs £10m to run then it probably does not really help that much (although the intangibles you relate below could well make up for the cost, but they are notorious for being hard to track and GW themselves would have to recognise that fact)

However retaining vets is a bit pointless for GW as a whole if they are not targeting their younger market as the Vets, while loyal, just don't bring in the money as well as the Timmys.

In fact, thinking about it, Forge World could just be best strategical move GW have made in years. It allows the profits to be taken on from the kiddies while retaining vets to act at mentors and exemplars to use to sell to the kiddies.

You could say that Forge World is actually the marketing that GW claim they don't do (Hey they even turn up to non-GW events!).

 Koppo wrote:
If FW makes £2m in revenue but costs £10m to run then it probably does not really help that much (although the intangibles you relate below could well make up for the cost, but they are notorious for being hard to track and GW themselves would have to recognise that fact)

I shouldn't think that Forge World takes up much money as overheads. They have an office with a manufacturing arm nearby (or the same place, I'm not sure), plus a website. They generally cast models to order from resin (thus not requiring the expensive steel molds that plastic models do) and their packaging is not nearly as fancy as GW's - think white boxes and plastic ziplock bags printed with the Forge World logo in the main. They have no stores as such which require rent (I believe that their products are stocked at GW HQ but that's shared space really), their marketing mostly involves sending out email newsletters, updating the website and going to conventions. The conventions probably cost, but they take product with them and boy, does it sell, so I can't imagine that they don't recoup their costs on those trips.

On the other hand, Forgeworld also clearly don't skimp on hiring sculptors, designers, writers, sales personnel, etc so I can imagine that their wages packet is probably a pretty large percentage of their costs. They're also, hobby wise, pretty old school and proud of it. The equipment list for Modelling Masterclass: Volume One makes it pretty obvious, including such heresies as Johnson's Future Floor Wax and Tamiya Clear Red...

How much money FW (and BL, licensing, etc) take up is irrelevant. We know two things:

1) FW and BL are making a net profit.

2) GW doesn't have anything else to spend cash on.

Spending $X to make slightly more than $X is only a problem if you have something you could invest the $X in instead that would make more money. But that's not the case with GW, they had plenty of cash that they could have used if they needed it for expanding production lines/marketing/whatever, but they gave it away as dividends. That means that as long as FW/BL continue to make a net profit (and possibly even if they make a small loss) GW should keep them around, otherwise they're just throwing away profit.

How did we get around to deciding whether GW should keep Forgeworld around? I thought we were discussing how useful the veteran market is by comparing profits for GW vs FW?

I mentioned costs as Koppo said all he had was revenue figures, ergo you need to estimate costs to get to a general profit figure. Do you have any actual profit data? I think it'd be pretty interesting reading.

Another interesting fact I saw in the GW annual review thread was that they paid out more dividends this year than their profit figures allowed for, something about dipping into a cash reserve? Not sure what to make of it though.

 Koppo wrote:
Not if it can recruit enough "Timmys" and churn them fast enough via other channels. That also presupposes that old gamers nurture young ones and this has a big effect. Also from where do these younger gamers come from? While this is sometimes true and does form a very important link most kids are introduced by other kids their own age or slightly older (go in to any GW store during the holidays to witness this). I was introduced by be older brother, who was introduced by his mate and this was pretty much the MO for most of the people I knew at the time. So while the older gamers do introduce new gamers to the hobby, there are other channels and they could be much more effective at generating the churn that GW has used in the past. To return to the sheep analogy it is as if by birthing a lamb, two more lambs end up coming over to you to join them. Then you skin all three!.

But even the scenario you mention here is the older gamer introducing the younger gamer. If the older brother/mate/any other version of older gamer is either completely irate with the company, or worse, is now playing (enter game x here), then little Timmy is not getting in. And, since GW refuses to market their product, they have NO other way to bring new gamers into the hobby, especially as technology gives more, faster, easier outlets for younger geeks. I am a certified geek and have been for a VERY long time and I just heard of GW 4-5 years ago, and just started palying this game in 2010; and I love these games, and would have been playing a lot earlier if I had ever heard of it before a friend I worked with started playing and got me into the game.

 LadyCassandra wrote:
How did we get around to deciding whether GW should keep Forgeworld around? I thought we were discussing how useful the veteran market is by comparing profits for GW vs FW?

I think I confused the actual argument here with a different argument that I've heard before (like with the specialist games), that GW should get rid of non-core products because even though they make a profit they aren't making enough profit and the money used to keep them operating could be better spent elsewhere.

 Battlesong wrote:

But even the scenario you mention here is the older gamer introducing the younger gamer. If the older brother/mate/any other version of older gamer is either completely irate with the company, or worse, is now playing (enter game x here), then little Timmy is not getting in. And, since GW refuses to market their product, they have NO other way to bring new gamers into the hobby, especially as technology gives more, faster, easier outlets for younger geeks. I am a certified geek and have been for a VERY long time and I just heard of GW 4-5 years ago, and just started palying this game in 2010; and I love these games, and would have been playing a lot earlier if I had ever heard of it before a friend I worked with started playing and got me into the game.

]

The age difference is not that much and I shoudl have staed the the age groups. At the time I was 8 or 9 putting me in a younger subset than the "little Timmy" characterisation (who I've been using as a proxy for 11-14), my older brother would have been 13-14, making him a "Little Timmy".

At that time until my hiatus at around 15 (the point I'd have stopped being a Timmy) I was not aware of anybody outside of my peer group who was a wargamer, other than the staff at GW, who did not really factor in my thinking.

So in my personal scenario there was no vet needed, just a peer group. Now there was probably a vet lurking somewhere sparking off a Timmy here and there. You could probably model this using models developed for carriers of typhus...

Great thread, and very interesting. It seems like few people have mentioned the cost savings of moving production to a lower cost country. There is prestige and cachet for producing certain items (ie Rolex, Ferrari). But GW isn't targeting the upper reaches of the population. Although moving production overseas might be a short term cost, in the long run, I think it could save them money and help maintain profit margins while still lowering costs to consumer and thus opening up their products to more consumers. If they want to remain a boutique company, then they should still address their utter lack of marketing. Ferrari has a Formula 1 team, Rolex runs print ads every where. Just my 2 cents.

talljosh85 wrote:
It seems like few people have mentioned the cost savings of moving production to a lower cost country. There is prestige and cachet for producing certain items (ie Rolex, Ferrari). But GW isn't targeting the upper reaches of the population. Although moving production overseas might be a short term cost, in the long run, I think it could save them money and help maintain profit margins while still lowering costs to consumer and thus opening up their products to more consumers.

They did this and moved manufacturing to China, which is ones of the main reasons why the Chinese recasters exist - as they were running off extras and selling them over the internet. So they axed that and brought it back to the UK.

 LadyCassandra wrote:

talljosh85 wrote:
It seems like few people have mentioned the cost savings of moving production to a lower cost country. There is prestige and cachet for producing certain items (ie Rolex, Ferrari). But GW isn't targeting the upper reaches of the population. Although moving production overseas might be a short term cost, in the long run, I think it could save them money and help maintain profit margins while still lowering costs to consumer and thus opening up their products to more consumers.

They did this and moved manufacturing to China, which is ones of the main reasons why the Chinese recasters exist - as they were running off extras and selling them over the internet. So they axed that and brought it back to the UK.

I have never heard of this. THey closed a US Plant but have continued production of most models in Nottingham, ramping up production there. (I"m not talking about packaging, I'm talking about GW and FW figures). Where is this story from?

Forge World were the ones who temporally had production in China. This was in response to the demand after the 1st apocalypse supplement and was only meant to be a stop gap while production ramped up in the UK.

The Chinese company kept the moulds! That is if rumour is to be believed.

I think GW proper has never moved production of its models out side of the UK or the USA. Printing has been done in China and Poland.

Ah, my apologies. I've seen it mentioned a few times and thought it was common knowledge. That'll teach me to trust the rumour mill.

Living in US, I just don't get the little Timmy model. I travel quite a bit for my job, and have yet to see a GW store any place except Chicago. I do however stop by independent gaming stores and if little Timmy walks into those stores, he's playing magic or some other card game with the other Timmys.

I do however see young adults and up playing miniature games. It must be different in the UK and Europe.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:
I think the main business goal of GW is to ensure Tom Kirby can retire to very well padded bank account

This is the unfortunate truth. GW's leadership have no real personal stake in the company. Sure, they own stock, for which they get really nice dividend payouts every year, but none of them care about the company's actual product. Should GW collapse today, the only impact on the company's leadership is that they simply have to find a new job while they enjoy the millions of dollars they have already milked out of the company.

Gee, it is almost as though most of the major shareholders in a publicly traded company are in fact holding companies rather than individuals?

That is true of most of the Fortune 500 companies. You have either large family trusts or institutional investors.

 AshAxe wrote:
Living in US, I just don't get the little Timmy model. I travel quite a bit for my job, and have yet to see a GW store any place except Chicago. I do however stop by independent gaming stores and if little Timmy walks into those stores, he's playing magic or some other card game with the other Timmys.

I do however see young adults and up playing miniature games. It must be different in the UK and Europe.

I think I may have been a "Little Timmy". Is this the young gamer? If so, that was me. I was almost 13 when I started the hobby - I think I was either in 6th or 7th grade. I couldn't afford to buy all the neat stuff - I could only afford to buy infantry. Magic was "cheap" by comparison. Heck my first army was Dark Angels and it was 3 Devastator squads (lots of bolters and 4 HB's, 4 LC's, & 4 ML's) and a Deathwing Termie squad with a Captain and Librarian. I acquired every model blister by blister. I still have my ugly as sin termies (when compared to the new termies which have gone up by 25% in the 17-18 years of gaming). The price of a tactical squad hasn't changed much since then if you bought it blister by blister $34 to $37 over 15 years... man I think I am going to gaze upon my painted models and marvel at how much my painting abilities have improved over the decade or two...