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.

carmachu wrote: Its ok, I see that in fanboys all the time.

Calling people names doesn't really advance your argument. I think there's a name for this logic foul too. Secondly, calling someone a fanboy because their criticisms of a company don't match yours isn't even really fair. Is anyone who disagrees with you a fanboy? How critical of the company do I need to be in order to shed this label you want to stick on me? Because I've certainly been pretty vocal about their failures in how they approach game design - something that I believe has more to do with their bottom line failures than 'price increases'.

But no matter what you tell me, the bottom line of those reports were- money went up, unit sales did not. Whether you believe or not, is not really relevant.

What was released isnt relevent. Those formations were huge. However, notice they arent around anymore? They arent profitable- because if they were.....we would still see them right?

First of all, if you're trying to determine why a company isn't doing well, knowing the timing of events is relevant. If the argument is "they've lost sales because they raised prices", then tracking price increases to sales decreases is relevant. If, on the other hand, the argument is "they've lost sales cause they're not producing enough stuff people want to buy", then pointing out how the successful product releases happened in years with positive sales growth, and the years with unsuccessful product releases coincided with lowered sales seems pretty relevant to me.

Secondly, let's consider the idea that they weren't profitable. What did they consist of? Basically, it was multiple kits packaged together, with some marginal discount for buying the bulk item. In exchange, they cut packaging costs, and ensured more sprues sold. If the minor savings passed on to the consumer in this manner made these package deals unprofitable, that would lend some credence to the idea that the price increases are being driven by real world costs and not just greed.

I think your argument that they are not releasing anything worth buying is a strong one, Redbeard.
I'm an avid Orc player, but the new Orc and Goblin book was so similar to the old that it absolutely failed to inspire me to buy any new stuff. Now, orcs doubling in price didn't help that either, but mostly it was waiting such a long time for such a lacklustre product. From the release of 8th, how many months went by without a book? It's now been a year, and still, only 2 books released? That's pretty poor considering how fast GW change editions. The creative control isn't there anymore. Seems like the design studio just sort of potter along with limited oversight. There certainly isn't the pace of releases that Privateer or Mantic have going on. I collect 2 40K armies and 3 Fantasy armies. Surely I should have something, from those 5 forces, that sparks my interest in a year? Instead I get a lacklustre update that recycles 80% of the material from the previous edition and introduces only a couple of new units.

Redbeard wrote:
Calling people names doesn't really advance your argument. I think there's a name for this logic foul too. Secondly, calling someone a fanboy because their criticisms of a company don't match yours isn't even really fair. Is anyone who disagrees with you a fanboy? How critical of the company do I need to be in order to shed this label you want to stick on me? Because I've certainly been pretty vocal about their failures in how they approach game design - something that I believe has more to do with their bottom line failures than 'price increases'.

When you start your belief with the words "you cannot convience me" thats firmly in the camp of fan boy when it involves favor to GW, just as we have names like hater for folks that cannot be convinced of good GW does.

YOU stated you cannot be convince, despite any and all facts to the contray- that make either a fanboy, or something worse which I wont name since it will get me a one week vacation. Thats on you. YOU arent open to anything. why would I try convincing you? Name calling or whatnot, facts arent going to penetrate.

First of all, if you're trying to determine why a company isn't doing well, knowing the timing of events is relevant. If the argument is "they've lost sales because they raised prices", then tracking price increases to sales decreases is relevant. If, on the other hand, the argument is "they've lost sales cause they're not producing enough stuff people want to buy", then pointing out how the successful product releases happened in years with positive sales growth, and the years with unsuccessful product releases coincided with lowered sales seems pretty relevant to me.

Secondly, let's consider the idea that they weren't profitable. What did they consist of? Basically, it was multiple kits packaged together, with some marginal discount for buying the bulk item. In exchange, they cut packaging costs, and ensured more sprues sold. If the minor savings passed on to the consumer in this manner made these package deals unprofitable, that would lend some credence to the idea that the price increases are being driven by real world costs and not just greed.

If they were profitable, wouldnt they keep selling them? They've been losing sales of units every year, and every year they have been increasing prices to compensate, along with a few other things thats been shown in reports. Last year or the year before, if you were part of the discussion, you'd know that there was a bit of currency exchange, favorable to GW which hid some of the loss.

Price increases arent solely the cause. GW's had a number of shoot in the foot instances. But the facts are that GW's sales of units have decreased, repeatedly every year. Their losing sales for a number of reasons, including raising prices.

So...

Are they making money or losing money? Is the share price overly inflated, and if so, by who?

Compared to last year at this time, what do the numbers look like?

Redbeard wrote:
How is it that in one sentence you say that arguing about prices will get no where, and in the very next, you complain about price increases by calling them excessive?

In Australia the annual rate of inflation is around 4%
The average worker gets an annual wage rise (if they are lucky) of 3-4%

Therefore, when an item goes up by 15-20% every year or so… it IS excessive

GW is a high end hobby manufacturer, and therefore expensive (and rightly so, detail, etc), so when the price increases… it is expected

However, when the price rises excessively AND often… it is obscene

This tread (and many more like it) is not about debating which product is the cheapest, or who has the most detail
It is also not a competition over who is better value, Barbie dolls or Lego

An observation of fact was made… actual product unit numbers is decreasing

It does not state the many different reasons WHY, only that it is

And the fact that they still make profit is because of the rise in prices… excessive rise

It is not a complaint about prices… it is an observation from an Australian perspective

If your country gets an annual wage rise of 20%, then good on you… but we don’t

That was the only discussion intended… if you (anybody) go on and on about why or how, or why not…then a worthwhile debate cannot be upheld

You make valid observations yourself…

Redbeard wrote:
When they gave us something we wanted (apocalypse) we bought it, in large quantities. When they gave us Spearhead, we yawned and ignored them. I think the real issue isn't in the price increases, it's in the lack of reasons for me to buy stuff.

However, the fact remains that if the sale of 1000 items generates $1000 one year

If then, in the following year, sales are 900 items, then that generates $900 unless you increase prices AND cut costs

Eventually, the cost of each item will be unsellable to generate the regular expected (or higher) profit

Nonetheless, I still believe that all debates should be about GW business practices involving treatment of current followers (vets) and embracing the Internet and not the rules, or detail, or price

GW should be like FW where all the prices are in GBP and uses the Internet for sales regardless where you live

Mik

carmachu wrote:
When you start your belief with the words "you cannot convience me" thats firmly in the camp of fan boy when it involves favor to GW, just as we have names like hater for folks that cannot be convinced of good GW does.

Having 'names', or 'labels' for people who don't agree with you is simply a way for you to marginalize any voice that doesn't agree with you so that you can ignore it. It's bad logic and bad conversation.

YOU stated you cannot be convince, despite any and all facts to the contray

You're right. I said YOU cannot convince me that GW lost sales units between 2008-2009. I'm not illiterate, I can, and have, read the annual report. Sure, there were some currency fluctuations mentioned. Of course, doesn't that mean that all UK companies should have benefited the same? But, even discounting that, their sales increased. Here's a quote from that document, "Our profits, year on year, have improved a lot; the underlying
growth in our core business is more modest. Nevertheless it is there." - Tom Kirby, Chaiman's Preamble.

You want me to take your word, some random guy off the internet, who claims their sales didn't grow in that one specific year, over the chairman of the company, who is bound to be honest in his report? And you call me unreasonable. You cannot convince me despite facts to the contrary, because the facts are not to the contrary. GW may have lost sales volume four of the last five years, but not every year. That's the truth, that's the facts, and it's right there, in their annual statement.

You seem to have an ax to grind with GW. I don't. I believe that, in the interest of better discourse, you have to be willing to see the positive as well as the negative, even when criticizing someone.


Re: Apocalypse box sales:

If they were profitable, wouldnt they keep selling them?

That depends if they were profitable enough, I guess. And discounts the idea of diminishing returns. Look, the casual gamer isn't going to walk into a GW shop and walk out with a company of marines. At some point, the people who want a whole company have bought it. The key is to make just enough for the people who want them to buy them, and no more, because a full company of marines sitting on a shelf not being sold is of far less value than the equivalent stock broken down into unit packages that move every week or month.

I think this report will be very similar to last year's - slightly higher profit, falling unit sales, falling costs. They might make a big deal over Dark Eldar, Grey Knights and WH8, but WH8 overall seems to have turned many people away, whilst DE's success was cancelled in part by their lacklustre Christmas period.

It is easy to see why GW sales are declining:
1) High unit/startup/overall RRP for kits turns many newcomers and veterans away.
2) Slow release schedule, especially for WH8.
3) Using more profitable areas of the business to prop up the declining store model - and switching to one-man stores.
4) Lack of regard for competitors - many other mini's companies are approaching/surpassing GW's quality in both miniatures and rules, whilst being cheaper to boot.
5) Lack of respect for customer base - the Finecast, Southern Hemisphere Embargo, price hikes and preview debacles have generated ill will amongst their previously loyal customers.

Unfortunately, I don't think any of point 5 will reflect in the report: it was far too soon before the EOFY that they can probably have enormous claims like 'we're significantly reducing costs for next year, buy now!!' without relaying any of the customer reaction.

Redbeard wrote:

Having 'names', or 'labels' for people who don't agree with you is simply a way for you to marginalize any voice that doesn't agree with you so that you can ignore it. It's bad logic and bad conversation.

Says the man who has basically stuck his fingers in his ears, adn said "I cant hear you", yet keeps going on in the discussion. becuause that does wonders for conversation and logic.

You're right. I said YOU cannot convince me that GW lost sales units between 2008-2009. I'm not illiterate, I can, and have, read the annual report. Sure, there were some currency fluctuations mentioned. Of course, doesn't that mean that all UK companies should have benefited the same? But, even discounting that, their sales increased. Here's a quote from that document, "Our profits, year on year, have improved a lot; the underlying
growth in our core business is more modest. Nevertheless it is there." - Tom Kirby, Chaiman's Preamble.

Right. You wont believe anyone in the discussion, yet you'll believe the chairman's words, but without backing up with a single shread of actual numbers.

Post the numbers of unit sales from 2007-2008, then compare them to 2008-2009. Otherwise its just corporate speak, which we have heard before. It doesnt mean unit sales have grown, it can easily be said that its just more money at the bottome figure.

You want me to take your word, some random guy off the internet, who claims their sales didn't grow in that one specific year, over the chairman of the company, who is bound to be honest in his report? And you call me unreasonable. You cannot convince me despite facts to the contrary, because the facts are not to the contrary. GW may have lost sales volume four of the last five years, but not every year. That's the truth, that's the facts, and it's right there, in their annual statement.

You have no facts. NONE. You have some words from kirby, but you have no numbers to back them up. Your facts arent facts. Show me where the 5th year the volume of unit sales have grown.

You seem to have an ax to grind with GW. I don't. I believe that, in the interest of better discourse, you have to be willing to see the positive as well as the negative, even when criticizing someone.

It seems I was accurate with fanboy, as you seem to just want to stick with yoru opiniuon. I suggest, in the interest of better discourse, you actually learn what facts are. Because you have none at the moment.

That depends if they were profitable enough, I guess. And discounts the idea of diminishing returns. Look, the casual gamer isn't going to walk into a GW shop and walk out with a company of marines. At some point, the people who want a whole company have bought it. The key is to make just enough for the people who want them to buy them, and no more, because a full company of marines sitting on a shelf not being sold is of far less value than the equivalent stock broken down into unit packages that move every week or month.

No there is no depends. If tehy were profitable enough, they would continue. GW would LOVE for a casual gamer to walk into GW and walk out having bought a comapny of marines. They are all about the churn, not the long term gamer.

Kilkrazy wrote:

pixelpusher wrote:

Can't really compare Tamiya or Dragon kits to GW.

Why not?

They are polystyrene model kits for hobbyists.

The design and production method is the same.

Absolutely, and for anyone who has ever made a Hasagawa or Dragon kit, they will agree that the level of detail and workmanship involved in their production is far better than any of the tank plastic kits that GW has on the market right now. I would say that the Storm Raven looks more like Fisher Price by comparison.

If Mantic start producing tank kits that are a fraction of the price to GW, yet of similar standards, then we might finally see the latter pull their finger out of their bottoms and start producing product that is a of quality to match the price range.

carmachu wrote:
Right. You wont believe anyone in the discussion, yet you'll believe the chairman's words, but without backing up with a single shread of actual numbers.

Post the numbers of unit sales from 2007-2008, then compare them to 2008-2009. Otherwise its just corporate speak, which we have heard before. It doesnt mean unit sales have grown, it can easily be said that its just more money at the bottome figure.

I fail to understand why you believe the burden of proof is on me. You made a claim, without posting any numbers backing it up. I called you on it. You started the very responsible tactic of calling me names, and calling for me to post numbers that you know as well as I do aren't publicly available. But that's not how it works. You want to claim that they've lost unit-to-unit sales for five straight years, it's on you to prove it. Otherwise, no, they haven't. And, yes, I'll take the chairman of the company's word on this over yours. He states that there was moderate growth, and the numbers that we do have available (something like 3% sales growth in constant currency terms), in a year where they put out a very successful expansion, seem to back that up.

Anyway, you're not going to back up your claim with data, so we're done here.

Therefore, when an item goes up by 15-20% every year or so… it IS excessive

Some items went up by almost 40% this year, and were produced in a cheaper material.

Unfortunately, Redbeard, you also made a claim - that, despite what carmachu has been saying, you claimed that sales had increased this year.

Redbeard wrote:
But, even discounting that, their sales increased. Here's a quote from that document, "Our profits, year on year, have improved a lot; the underlying
growth in our core business is more modest. Nevertheless it is there." - Tom Kirby, Chaiman's Preamble.

I, too, have read the latest financial report, and it does say that their sales have decreased. From page 5 of the 2009-2010 full financial yearly report:

"Sales are down on last year on a constant currency basis despite strong growth from the new Games Workshop Webstore. We increased the number of
Hobby centres by 27 stores during the year, but the growth from these was not able to offset the decline in existing stores."

infinite_array wrote:Unfortunately, Redbeard, you also made a claim - that, despite what carmachu has been saying, you claimed that sales had increased this year.

Redbeard wrote:
But, even discounting that, their sales increased. Here's a quote from that document, "Our profits, year on year, have improved a lot; the underlying
growth in our core business is more modest. Nevertheless it is there." - Tom Kirby, Chaiman's Preamble.

I, too, have read the latest financial report, and it does say that their sales have decreased. From page 5 of the 2009-2010 full financial yearly report:

"Sales are down on last year on a constant currency basis despite strong growth from the new Games Workshop Webstore. We increased the number of
Hobby centres by 27 stores during the year, but the growth from these was not able to offset the decline in existing stores."

Wait, GW unit sales have decreased... how to fix this?

INCREASE PRICES!

infinite_array wrote:Unfortunately, Redbeard, you also made a claim - that, despite what carmachu has been saying, you claimed that sales had increased this year.

Redbeard wrote:
But, even discounting that, their sales increased. Here's a quote from that document, "Our profits, year on year, have improved a lot; the underlying
growth in our core business is more modest. Nevertheless it is there." - Tom Kirby, Chaiman's Preamble.

I, too, have read the latest financial report, and it does say that their sales have decreased. From page 5 of the 2009-2010 full financial yearly report:

"Sales are down on last year on a constant currency basis despite strong growth from the new Games Workshop Webstore. We increased the number of
Hobby centres by 27 stores during the year, but the growth from these was not able to offset the decline in existing stores."

Except Redbeard is talking about the 08-09 report, not the 09/10 report. Sales decreased in 09/10, but increased in 08/09. Everyone happy now?

More on the recession: http://news.yahoo.com/flat-jobs-data-signal-weakest-recovery-decades-211320802.html

U.S. based, interesting to note:

"Workers' hourly pay fell in June. They worked fewer hours. And 16.2 percent of those who wanted to work were either unemployed, forced to settle for part-time jobs or had given up looking for work. That figure was up from 15.8 percent in May."

"The tepid recovery is taking a toll on consumers, whose spending accounts for 70 percent of economic activity. The Conference Board business group said last week that its consumer confidence index fell to 58.5 in June. A healthy reading is 90. At this point after the previous three recessions, the index averaged 87."

I do not understand how people considering GW's bottom line can be ignoring, or understating the impact of the worldwide financial conditions to the extent that they are, or, for that matter, how GW's executives can claim that they're completely immune to such economic conditions.

The information you've quoted still does not put us into another recession.

For 1H2011, non-farm payrolls are up quite materially. Unemployment overall is lower, although not as low as it has been in 2011 when it was sub-9%. Even in the report you cited, the biggest drop was in government payrolls, most other industry sectors actually increased.

The S&P is up 20% YoY. The Dow is up 25% YoY.

Job creation and equity growth (especially to this extent) simply does not occur in recessions.

There's a lot that isn't good with the US and the world in general right now, but the simple fact is that it's still far, far better than 2009. We are not in a recession, regardless of how the media or your personal 'feel' for the economic situation interprets the facts.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Redbeard wrote:I do not understand how people considering GW's bottom line can be ignoring, or understating the impact of the worldwide financial conditions to the extent that they are...

If you truly believe the world is in a worst place today than it was 2-3 years ago, then I can understand how this doesn't make sense to you.

For a number of reasons, including accommodative monetary policy and therefore the weakness of the dollar relative to other currencies (which does not help UK-based GW as much, other than protecting more versus raw material inflation in GBP-denominations) corporate profitability (and therefore stock valuations) are higher.

Redbeard wrote:
I do not understand how people considering GW's bottom line can be ignoring, or understating the impact of the worldwide financial conditions to the extent that they are, or, for that matter, how GW's executives can claim that they're completely immune to such economic conditions.

when looking at a set of results one ALWAYS looks at the impact of outside environment Part of the outside environment is looking at the economy but a major part is looking at how competitors are doing because they are facing the same conditions. So, part of what is needed to look at is how have sales/ growth etc been for companies like PP, Reaper and the company that produces Malifaux.

Traditionally it has always been held that a recession doesn't overly impact the gaming industry and infact there is often a slight uptick in traditional boardgames as people don't go out as often to restaurents and bars etc. Don't have any figures to prove that - you would need to speak to someone who analyses the gaming industry. This is why both sides of the argument tend to ignore recession impacts. I do however agree with Sourclams that the recession is by and large over but I don't believe that Joe Public actually believes that and with the economy perception is often reality.

When I look at GW results I don't look at the bottom line first - no-one really does. It is how you get to the bottom line that is important. For this, I am looking at sales primarily. Constant sales growth once you strip out currency, price rises and any impact Black Library has is what I am looking for - it gives me a gut feel for unit sales. Constant sales isn't necessary bad (sometimes growth if uncontrolled is bad), obviously more is good and less is bad. Bearing in mind new players are an investment that produce future returns a downward blip may not necessarily be a one off and the impact can drag out.

Control over costs during a recession is extremely important. No-one can argue that GW hasn't addressed this. I would argue that the one man store is going to be a longer term failure - it is cutting cost but I believe it is cutting costs at the expense of growth and revenue. This fact was acknowledged in the report.

I actually ignore licences for GW. Yes it is great to have but it isn't the core of the business. Without the core the licences wouldn;t exist so to me licences are just icing on the cake.

When I read this years results I will be focusing on cashflows - I am still curious as to their dividend policy as I really didn;t think they would restart dividends so soon but I am willing to bet the pressure to do so is immense. But again, having an active in the business COB owning 6% (from memory) of such a small company worries me when he personally benefits for each decision he makes - especially as there is talk of him wanting to leave/ retire. Part of me last year when I read the results wondered if the comapny was being plumped up for sale.

We may not be in a recession, but we're not exactly booming in recovery either. And just because it's not as bad as two years ago, doesn't mean it still isn't bad. Corporate profitability is up. That's great, if you're a corporation, or if you sell to corporations, or even if you're lucky enough to own shares of corporations.

But as the jobs report shows, corporations aren't exactly using that profit to hire new people. Unemployment is still high, underemployment is higher, and companies like GW that sell non-vital goods to consumers aren't recovering nearly as well as companies that sell to governments or other corporations.

I'm not disagreeing with anything you said, I'm just not sure that the well-being of Caterpillar, IBM and Walmart can be applied to expectations for a luxury toy manufacturer.

Redbeard wrote:

I fail to understand why you believe the burden of proof is on me. You made a claim, without posting any numbers backing it up. I called you on it. You started the very responsible tactic of calling me names, and calling for me to post numbers that you know as well as I do aren't publicly available. But that's not how it works. You want to claim that they've lost unit-to-unit sales for five straight years, it's on you to prove it. Otherwise, no, they haven't. And, yes, I'll take the chairman of the company's word on this over yours. He states that there was moderate growth, and the numbers that we do have available (something like 3% sales growth in constant currency terms), in a year where they put out a very successful expansion, seem to back that up.

Anyway, you're not going to back up your claim with data, so we're done here.

You fail at alot of things here. You acknowlege the fact just a couple posts ago, that YES GW has had less unit sales BUT taht one year they didnt. And post up kirby's line. SO you already agreed, except for that one year. YOU claimed they went up. So you can back up your claim, not me.

In your view, are GW getting any real sales growth in terms of revenue and/or units?

I'd love a positive result. I am Manager Red Shirt at my Store. No. I don't force people to buy things. I am different to most stores.

If there is a person who I haven't meet I ask them a few questions, if they aren't new to the hobby, I ask what army do you play, ask them would they like a seat at the painting table, if they don't have anything. Make a few suggestions and walk off chilled.

If not, I am forced by GW to introduce them via one of three, starting games etc. After that I actually help them by showing e.g. of models other than Ultramarines if they play Space Marines.

I know, I know Games Workshop is not a Utopia for everyone I don't drive sales, I tell people about the costs etc. and I do care about the community. 8 years of being Manager.

Redbeard wrote:But as the jobs report shows, corporations aren't exactly using that profit to hire new people.

Actually to a modest extent they are. The 'big' job losses were mostly in gov't. Private sector overall was hiring.

Unemployment is still high, underemployment is higher, and companies like GW that sell non-vital goods to consumers aren't recovering nearly as well as companies that sell to governments or other corporations.

Can you cite some relevant facts to back this one up?

I just looked on a whim at stuff that I consider non-vital goods like Bed, Bath and Beyond (up 50% YoY), Apple (up 42% YoY, although admittedly stagnant through 2011), and Limited Brands (Victoria's Secret, higher-end women's retail, up about 50%).

More recent, but still relevant, according to the Privateer Press staff, their sales orders have roughly quadrupled (orders, for individual SKUs/product, not profitability/sales $/revenue) resulting in the recent shortfalls of production relative to demand. I would not necessarily believe this coming from PP if I hadn't experienced the pain of waiting three months to get two boxes of Kayazy Assassins with my Underboss still stuck in backorder limbo.

So I really do wonder where this giant macro sledgehammer hitting GW that you're citing is, because it simply isn't evident in the world of $300 bed sheets, iPhones, and women's intimate apparel. It also doesn't seem evident in US-based Miniatures Wargaming.

I'm not disagreeing with anything you said, I'm just not sure that the well-being of Caterpillar, IBM and Walmart can be applied to expectations for a luxury toy manufacturer.

How about Privateer Press?

Actually if you look back over six years, GW's revenue was down year on year from 2005 to 2008 when the economy was in supposedly good health.

It has grown slightly in the past couple of years post Lehman Brothers.

And that really is the more significant measure; versus the broader market, GW does very, very badly. 'Up' isn't necessarily good, if you're up 1% and everything else is up 10%+.

sourclams wrote:

Redbeard wrote:But as the jobs report shows, corporations aren't exactly using that profit to hire new people.

Actually to a modest extent they are. The 'big' job losses were mostly in gov't. Private sector overall was hiring.

Unemployment is still high, underemployment is higher, and companies like GW that sell non-vital goods to consumers aren't recovering nearly as well as companies that sell to governments or other corporations.

Can you cite some relevant facts to back this one up?

I just looked on a whim at stuff that I consider non-vital goods like Bed, Bath and Beyond (up 50% YoY), Apple (up 42% YoY, although admittedly stagnant through 2011), and Limited Brands (Victoria's Secret, higher-end women's retail, up about 50%).

More recent, but still relevant, according to the Privateer Press staff, their sales orders have roughly quadrupled (orders, for individual SKUs/product, not profitability/sales $/revenue) resulting in the recent shortfalls of production relative to demand. I would not necessarily believe this coming from PP if I hadn't experienced the pain of waiting three months to get two boxes of Kayazy Assassins with my Underboss still stuck in backorder limbo.

So I really do wonder where this giant macro sledgehammer hitting GW that you're citing is, because it simply isn't evident in the world of $300 bed sheets, iPhones, and women's intimate apparel. It also doesn't seem evident in US-based Miniatures Wargaming.

I'm not disagreeing with anything you said, I'm just not sure that the well-being of Caterpillar, IBM and Walmart can be applied to expectations for a luxury toy manufacturer.

How about Privateer Press?

Privateer Press is a small threat, they don't own Hobby Centers of what I know of and their Models are inferior in quality.

Ultramarinescout wrote:
Privateer Press is a small threat, they don't own Hobby Centers of what I know of and their Models are inferior in quality.

Implying that it is a given Hobby Centers are a good thing....and given the Finecast launch quality is certainly subjective.

Regardless, let's not turn this into a PP v. GW thread please....the discussion regarding GW's financials is pretty interesting and would be a shame to derail.

AgeOfEgos wrote:

Ultramarinescout wrote:
Privateer Press is a small threat, they don't own Hobby Centers of what I know of and their Models are inferior in quality.

Implying that it is a given Hobby Centers are a good thing....and given the Finecast launch quality is certainly subjective.

Regardless, let's not turn this into a PP v. GW thread please....the discussion regarding GW's financials is pretty interesting and would be a shame to derail.

I was not talking about Finecast, even the non-finecast Models are better detailed than Privateer Press. IMO Hobby Centres are great, it gives me a job and I help people develop skills in the hobby.

sourclams wrote:And that really is the more significant measure; versus the broader market, GW does very, very badly. 'Up' isn't necessarily good, if you're up 1% and everything else is up 10%+.

It's one of the few times I wish PP was traded....so we could accurately compare growth.

For the purposes of this discussion, I don't care in the least about the quality of PP versus GW models, game, hobby, whatever.

I am simply commenting on the incredible growth in sales that PP has been experiencing over the past 6 months relative to what is clearly a more stagnant trend for GW, and how the 'recession' that the US has been asserted to be in is hurting 'luxury toys/goods' sales, and how the data doesn't seem to back up that assertion.

And yes, having a much smaller market presence than GW makes it easy for relatively small absolute volumes to create big fractional increases when the denominator is tiny to begin with.

Ultramarinescout wrote:

sourclams wrote:

Redbeard wrote:But as the jobs report shows, corporations aren't exactly using that profit to hire new people.

Actually to a modest extent they are. The 'big' job losses were mostly in gov't. Private sector overall was hiring.

Unemployment is still high, underemployment is higher, and companies like GW that sell non-vital goods to consumers aren't recovering nearly as well as companies that sell to governments or other corporations.

Can you cite some relevant facts to back this one up?

I just looked on a whim at stuff that I consider non-vital goods like Bed, Bath and Beyond (up 50% YoY), Apple (up 42% YoY, although admittedly stagnant through 2011), and Limited Brands (Victoria's Secret, higher-end women's retail, up about 50%).

More recent, but still relevant, according to the Privateer Press staff, their sales orders have roughly quadrupled (orders, for individual SKUs/product, not profitability/sales $/revenue) resulting in the recent shortfalls of production relative to demand. I would not necessarily believe this coming from PP if I hadn't experienced the pain of waiting three months to get two boxes of Kayazy Assassins with my Underboss still stuck in backorder limbo.

So I really do wonder where this giant macro sledgehammer hitting GW that you're citing is, because it simply isn't evident in the world of $300 bed sheets, iPhones, and women's intimate apparel. It also doesn't seem evident in US-based Miniatures Wargaming.

I'm not disagreeing with anything you said, I'm just not sure that the well-being of Caterpillar, IBM and Walmart can be applied to expectations for a luxury toy manufacturer.

How about Privateer Press?

Privateer Press is a small threat, they don't own Hobby Centers of what I know of and their Models are inferior in quality.

I don't think the threat to GW is another company. It is the possibility that they price themselves out of the market.