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.

 insaniak wrote:

Yeah, that used to be the policy. It was changed at some point in the last decade (I believe due to the questionable legality of it under Oz trade laws at the time), and a handful of internet stores sprang up as result, but this new ruling by the ACCC allows them to discriminate against independant stores based on whatever criteria they decide to devise..

The funny thing is, in North America, unless you control a virtual monopoly an the industry (like Microsoft with Windows), price discrimination IS the standard trade practice. From a capitalist's standpoint, if you have customer A that is a good customer that buys lots of stuff and evangelizes your product, why wouldn't you give them a price discount, over Customer B who adds no value, and just flips it for a quick buck? In the same way, stores often give their good customers a special discount, and it doesn't always have to do with how much product they buy. It might be because they're very active in the local scene and bring people to play at the store, for example, or it might be because regulars get preferential treatment.

See, for me, the funnier thing is that GW want to hold their independant partners to standards that they're not prepared to adhere to in their own stores.

 Talys wrote:
The funny thing is, in North America, unless you control a virtual monopoly an the industry (like Microsoft with Windows), price discrimination IS the standard trade practice. From a capitalist's standpoint, if you have customer A that is a good customer that buys lots of stuff and evangelizes your product, why wouldn't you give them a price discount, over Customer B who adds no value, and just flips it for a quick buck? In the same way, stores often give their good customers a special discount, and it doesn't always have to do with how much product they buy. It might be because they're very active in the local scene and bring people to play at the store, for example, or it might be because regulars get preferential treatment.

I have a wee bit of cynicism to throw out on this:
In Canada I tend to also see companies that have a bit of a monopoly tend to quietly jack up the price on the steady regulars.
It is only those that switch to competitors, change buying practices that then get the "special" treatment, everyone else gets milked.
If GW "thinks" they need you, they will play ball, if not: you pay through the nose like everyone else.

I have a local store that has no gaming space but being next to two Universities, their walk-in sales are out of this world so they have the lowest rates anywhere I have seen for GW product.
They have threatened to reduce GW shelf space a few times and pretty much get what they want.
Now GW is moving a store into the area, I will be interested to see what shenanigans start-up when the GW store gets in place.
Due to their pricing strategy for their stores, the only way I could see them get sales is by cutting off supply to their competitor.
Let us see how GW plays: if it goes as expected I may be cutting my already skimpy GW purchases even further.

<edit> To stay on topic, I guess I am trying to figure out GW store vs FLGS strategy in general, the Australia overall strategy does not make much sense at the moment unless they just find business practice law in general disagreeable in that country.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Guildsman wrote:
Don't be shocked when they end trade sales altogether and only sell through their own official stores and website. I'm betting it'll happen in two years, three at the most.

If GW does something that stupid they'll be dead by the next financial report. Outside of the UK they don't have enough stores to go direct-only without losing the majority of their customers (who aren't going to drive an hour or more to get to a store). Existing customers might buy online for a while to finish their armies, but in-store gaming would be crippled and GW's ability to recruit new players would disappear almost entirely.

I agree entirely. It would be monumentally stupid. Doesn't mean that they won't do it. With these ever-more restrictive trade terms, the writing is on the wall. GW will tighten their terms more and more, until indies either can't or won't sell their product any more. Maybe they don't eliminate all trade sales; maybe they just eliminate wholesale discounts for stores, move everything to "mail order only." With all of the other stunts they've pulled in recent memory, is it really that far-fetched?

They might try it first in the UK where they have a much higher penetration/density of company stores and then roll it out further if the results show no change in revenue (20% less sales but the remaining sales go to them direct so net them 40% more per item so no change). That I could see them doing. I'm sure they have the data from the massive amount of stuff them shifted to direct only to see if the bottom line # of models sold versus total income makes it worth it. It really is just the next data point on the line they've been plotting for over a decade.

This reminds me of the times when Apple was cracking down on Gravis and other stores that sold their stuff...

I buy stuff from Black Cultist; its a Online store - dont understand what the OP is doing apart from complaining that he has had delays in getting stock.

 warboss wrote:
They might try it first in the UK where they have a much higher penetration/density of company stores and then roll it out further if the results show no change in revenue (20% less sales but the remaining sales go to them direct so net them 40% more per item so no change). That I could see them doing. I'm sure they have the data from the massive amount of stuff them shifted to direct only to see if the bottom line # of models sold versus total income makes it worth it. It really is just the next data point on the line they've been plotting for over a decade.

Can they actually do that in the UK? The EU has some fairly good laws around this type of thing but I'm not an expert on them so I don't know how far GW can push it.

Switzerland is actually in a worse situation right now... with no GW-Store and no-one really selling the whole GW-range and being not EU, thy are more or less embargoed and have to "smuggle" stuff via friends in surrounding countries...

At least in Germany they can´t push it that far officially, inofficially they can loose orders oder have hick-ups in their system when online-shops order from them.

 Aeon wrote:
I buy stuff from Black Cultist; its a Online store - dont understand what the OP is doing apart from complaining that he has had delays in getting stock.

I dunno, maybe it's because you didn't bother to actually look into it before you posted a snide comment? 5 seconds on google brings up several articles on the subject, and shocker of shockers one of them even quotes the owner of the store you state that you buy from.

Games Workshop’s attempt to secure this arrangement with the ACCC was first noticed by Canberra-based online retailer Black Cultist, well-known among Australia’s Games Workshop community for offering good prices on their favourite products.

Posting on their Facebook page, the trader pointed out that “stores that don’t have a face to face over the counter option (like me) will not be able to have an account”. But with such a massive time difference between May 9 when Games Workshop lodged the application and August 4 when Black Cultist first noticed it, one might have suspected that the company was using the time to discuss the move with trade partners and maybe allay their concerns. It was not.

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=734398079950734&id=140805555976659

Or you could read about it on the ACCC website (but that's apparently asking too much).

http://registers.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/1178319/fromItemId/776499



What the OP is complaining about, aside from delayed/shorted orders, is how GW is limiting access to their product. Once this goes into affect, you'll have to order from a brick and mortar store, GW hopes it's a GW store which is partially why they're doing this.

From the ACCC ruling:

2.4. GWOP proposes that any independent business that wishes to acquire goods from it (i.e. hold a Trade Account with GWOP) must enter into a Trade Agreement that will contain certain terms restricting the re-supply of the products supplied by GWOP. In broad terms, the Trade Terms include the following:
 Trade Accounts must have at least one bricks and mortar outlet. In other words, GWOP will not supply on-line only retailers.
 Trade Accounts must not supply GWOP products to a third party who will sell the products through a market stall or any websites hosted by third party platforms (including Amazon Marketplace and eBay).
 Trade Accounts must not resupply GWOP products acquired for an outlet except through that outlet.
 Trade Accounts must respect embargos concerning new products, with a penalty of delays in supply of new products where a Trade Account breaches the condition.
 Trade Accounts must not supply GWOP products to customers outside of Australia and New Zealand, or such territories as may be determined by GWOP from time to time.
 Trade Accounts must supply GWOP products in the form provided and must not alter, divide or break down the products into their component parts.
 Trade Accounts must not supply to customers that it reasonably suspects intend to alter, divide or break down GWOP products into component parts for the purpose of resale.
 Trade Accounts must not supply GWOP products pre-painted, but may offer a painting service after the point of purchase.

2.5. GWOP is also proposing to introduce a value added service pricing model (VASP) in its agreements with Trade Accounts. Under the VASP, each outlet of a Trade Account would be scored against certain criteria. The score achieved would then determine which wholesale pricing tier was relevant for each outlet. GWOP proposes to apply the VASP to all outlets, whether they sell online or only through a shop front.

2.6. Trade Accounts (other than online stores) may choose to participate in a 'Stockist Program' which provides fixed value rewards and incentives for shop front channel outlets that maintain stock levels of certain core product ranges, including best seller and new release ranges.

Good news for you though, your preferred vendor has been determined to be linked to a B&M storefront:

3.6. The ACCC notes that GWOP has subsequently confirmed in a public response to submissions that it considers ‘The Black Cultist’ to be linked to a shop front store, ‘Good Games Canberra’, and that it would therefore meet the requirements of the Trade Terms and continue to be supplied by GWOP.

But you're right, since GW's petition and the subsequent ACCC decision doesn't affect you, personally, it must be whining about delayed orders. Cheers, I hope nothing ever affects your livelihood to the point you feel the need to share it with others, someone might think you're whining.

Those restrictions are even more severe than IIRC the ones posted a few years back. The previous ones didn't allow you to break up models but now they put the impetus to not sell to final end individual customers who might do that (as opposed to businesses by acting as a defacto distributor). Is the amazon and ebay restriction new as well or have those been in the US terms as well?

Well that's good news. I've used Black Cultist a couple of times.

 Aeon wrote:
I buy stuff from Black Cultist; its a Online store - dont understand what the OP is doing apart from complaining that he has had delays in getting stock.

I believe he's referring to this application which is likely just finished it's process based on "Allowed to Stand":

http://registers.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/1178319/fromItemId/1133393

Basically if you don't have a B&M storefront, you can't get a GW Trade Account in Australia which effectively means you can't sell GW products. Interesting is that you cannot sell pre-painted GW minis on on a Trade Account, which may be standard terms everywhere else in the world already; not sure if that applies to stores that buy used armies and resell them or not, but one would figure not. Amusingly it specifies that you can't sell GW abroad either, but somehow I doubt highly anyone buys from the Aus/NZ market from overseas. One would imagine that based on the timing of being approved in November, that it doesn't come "in force" until the Trade Accounts need to be renewed which is likely coming up.

The Black Cultist is actually mentioned by name in the Statement of Reasons document by people concerned it will disappear entirely. Obviously they can open a B&M storefront, but that's going to cut into the amount of discount they're able to provide.

EDIT: Ninja'ed so hard!

 warboss wrote:
Those restrictions are even more severe than IIRC the ones posted a few years back. The previous ones didn't allow you to break up models but now they put the impetus to not sell to final end individual customers who might do that (as opposed to businesses by acting as a defacto distributor). Is the amazon and ebay restriction new as well or have those been in the US terms as well?

its basically the same thing that came in for US sellers (minus the no online carts bit). The US trade terms already prohibited selling on stuff to anybody other than consumers

(so they cant sell to ebay/amazon sellers or people wanting to sell out of a local flea market or even a genuine gamestore that can't or won't deal direct with GW)

these are the documents from the dakka thread on it a few years back https://www.dropbox.com/sh/wn5gq2srlbvxs6l/AAD_HJJW9unDXY0t7KraRHHsa/Games%20Workshop%202013%20RETAILER%20POLICY.pdf?dl=0 (sorry I don't remember who posted them)

Thanks for the link. That is the document that I was referring to in my earlier post and it feels like they've both expanded and tightened up the language. For instance, in the 2013 document:

". For the reasons explained above, Retailers are prohibited from removing any individually packaged and
labeled G AMES W ORKSHOP components from their original packaging for the purpose of reselling
such individual components to Consumers."

YOU, the person or company signing the trade agreement with GW, are prohibited from splitting up the package to sell as bits. In the Oz terms,

" Trade Accounts must not supply to customers that it reasonably suspects intend to alter, divide or break down GWOP products into component parts for the purpose of resale. "

You cannot sell to ANYONE who you "reasonably suspect" that might split up the parts even if they are NOT a business and are an individual gamer who plans on buying a kit or kits ONLY for certain bits (like the arquebus thingie in the skitarri box that everyone needs more of but you only get one of) who happens to tell you that he'll sell the rest that he doesn't need. The onus is now on you to police your INDIVIDUAL customers or you risk losing your trade terms with them. The reality is that most stores can't and won't do this and ebay bits sellers (the few that still exist) are not just individual buyers but the language is there now and GW can use it to drop a "troublesome" store at their whim if they send one person in on a sting to buy a kit specifically for reselling.

That is the type of subtle yet significant change I was referring to. I was however incorrect about the ebay/amazon limitation as it was there before in general but simply didn't list them specifically by name as examples. I suspect they'll pull the same schtick in the US as well in a month or two as IIRC the news of new trade agreement terms usually hits in the summer.

Wow, I am impressed.
I am always on the lookout for a "weasel clause", had to write a few myself but this IS impressive:

" Trade Accounts must not supply to customers that it reasonably suspects intend to alter, divide or break down GWOP products into component parts for the purpose of resale. "

Everything outlined by others is I suspect exactly the intent for GW to be able to shut down any shop they see as competing with them or "troublesome".

Now if only they could write zingers like that in their game rules?
I think the legal department needs to go drink more with the game rules folks.

 Talizvar wrote:
Wow, I am impressed.
I am always on the lookout for a "weasel clause", had to write a few myself but this IS impressive:

" Trade Accounts must not supply to customers that it reasonably suspects intend to alter, divide or break down GWOP products into component parts for the purpose of resale. "

Everything outlined by others is I suspect exactly the intent for GW to be able to shut down any shop they see as competing with them or "troublesome".

Now if only they could write zingers like that in their game rules?
I think the legal department needs to go drink more with the game rules folks.

Technically, you alter the components by building, converting, and painting them. If they so chose, they could try to shut down every online painting studio that buys their kits instead of being sent them by the customer. If they find out where they get their kits, they can bully the store to turn off the supposed source. Will they sweep all of them clean? No. Can they target an individual one that is critical of them in response to that criticism? Yes.

 warboss wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:
Wow, I am impressed.
I am always on the lookout for a "weasel clause", had to write a few myself but this IS impressive:

" Trade Accounts must not supply to customers that it reasonably suspects intend to alter, divide or break down GWOP products into component parts for the purpose of resale. "

Everything outlined by others is I suspect exactly the intent for GW to be able to shut down any shop they see as competing with them or "troublesome".

Now if only they could write zingers like that in their game rules?
I think the legal department needs to go drink more with the game rules folks.

Technically, you alter the components by building, converting, and painting them. If they so chose, they could try to shut down every online painting studio that buys their kits instead of being sent them by the customer. If they find out where they get their kits, they can bully the store to turn off the supposed source. Will they sweep all of them clean? No. Can they target an individual one that is critical of them in response to that criticism? Yes.

They can't stop someone from breaking down kits and reselling them. There is no legal recourse for this in any jurisdiction in the world. They CAN choose to stop selling to that person's supplier. Though how would they possibly know, one way or another >.<

Which, I suppose, is why they don't enforce it (they have no way of doing so).

However, they do things like forcing stores to buy a ratio of codex books to datacards (2:1), to prevent people from buying datacards just to resell on eBay.

 Talizvar wrote:
Wow, I am impressed.
I am always on the lookout for a "weasel clause", had to write a few myself but this IS impressive:

" Trade Accounts must not supply to customers that it reasonably suspects intend to alter, divide or break down GWOP products into component parts for the purpose of resale. "

Everything outlined by others is I suspect exactly the intent for GW to be able to shut down any shop they see as competing with them or "troublesome".

Now if only they could write zingers like that in their game rules?
I think the legal department needs to go drink more with the game rules folks.

Yeah no kidding. If they applied even one iota of the technical skill they have at right legal jargon to drive at specific points like this, they might actually have a decent game going for them!

 warboss wrote:
Thanks for the link. That is the document that I was referring to in my earlier post and it feels like they've both expanded and tightened up the language. For instance, in the 2013 document:

". For the reasons explained above, Retailers are prohibited from removing any individually packaged and
labeled G AMES W ORKSHOP components from their original packaging for the purpose of reselling
such individual components to Consumers."

While it's fun to vilify GW, this is a very common trade clause. For example, bundled software cannot be separated from hardware to be sold separately; a multipack of Tupperware (discounted with mixed sizes) can't be split up into its separate pieces and sold by the grocery store; a discounted two-pack of toner from HP can't be split and sold as two singles. In any of these cases, if the authorized distributor does this and gets caught, they'll be yanked.

Largely, it's not to prevent people from selling bits. It's to prevent stores from buying, for example, 50 boxes of Deathstorm, and putting it onto the shelf as 50 whitebox DC, 50 whitebox Carnifex, 50 whitebox Furioso, 50 whitebox Karlaen, 50 whitebox Terminators (hahahahaha), 50 softcover rules, etc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Talizvar wrote:

In Canada I tend to also see companies that have a bit of a monopoly tend to quietly jack up the price on the steady regulars.
It is only those that switch to competitors, change buying practices that then get the "special" treatment, everyone else gets milked.
If GW "thinks" they need you, they will play ball, if not: you pay through the nose like everyone else.

What do you mean by, "a bit of a monopoly"? A monopoly in something that doesn't really matter (eg a patented security screw)?

 Talys wrote:

 warboss wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:
Wow, I am impressed.
I am always on the lookout for a "weasel clause", had to write a few myself but this IS impressive:

" Trade Accounts must not supply to customers that it reasonably suspects intend to alter, divide or break down GWOP products into component parts for the purpose of resale. "

Everything outlined by others is I suspect exactly the intent for GW to be able to shut down any shop they see as competing with them or "troublesome".

Now if only they could write zingers like that in their game rules?
I think the legal department needs to go drink more with the game rules folks.

Technically, you alter the components by building, converting, and painting them. If they so chose, they could try to shut down every online painting studio that buys their kits instead of being sent them by the customer. If they find out where they get their kits, they can bully the store to turn off the supposed source. Will they sweep all of them clean? No. Can they target an individual one that is critical of them in response to that criticism? Yes.

They can't stop someone from breaking down kits and reselling them. There is no legal recourse for this in any jurisdiction in the world. They CAN choose to stop selling to that person's supplier. Though how would they possibly know, one way or another >.<

Which is exactly what I said (the part about cutting of their source). They have no problem doing that at all if someone pisses them off even if they're a relative niche "celebrity" and Beast of War would be a prominent example. They posted leaks and GW threatened to not ship stuff to their sponsor (wayland games) unless BOW got booted (and they did). As for tracking where the source is in other cases, they can simply just comb through social media posts ("props to our local store, they're great!") or even easier go by geography and see what is sold on the site and if it corresponds to the SKUs sent to local stores as well as track batch numbers that are on every box. They have that data and they can "ask" for that data via their terms from distributors. Is it fool proof? No, not at all. The point is that they specifically changed the terms to allow themselves that option regardless of whether they end up using it (or just threaten to). When those 2013 terms came out, I don't remember where but they hit one region first and some apologists kept saying not to jump the gun because we had no way of knowing if they would go to other regions (which they did). I fully suspect the next North American and UK terms to include something similar if allowed by law. They apparently needed to go through government oversight in Oz to do so and they had to publicly spill the beans there first ahead of time. I don't think, judging from previous Vader-like episodes, that they need to do the same here in the US.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Talys wrote:
While it's fun to vilify GW, this is a very common trade clause.

And yet it has never been a "common trade clause" in the industry that we're talking about... until now. You can return physical goods generally for 30 days in the US (dependent on local laws) even if used... try doing that with software. What happens within the tupperware industry or software =/= tabletop hobbies. As for the other industries, last I checked Hasbro, Disney, and Mattel don't disallow folks from selling their goods online with shopping carts and don't go after folks (whether directly or indirectly) who buy and sell their items individually even if packaged together. They simply honor the first sale doctrine without trying to get around it by punishing a third party. I bought plenty of DDM and SWM singles despite them being packaged together without any fear for the source being punished by the other big dog in this industry (WOTC). This is a new and very unwelcome (both for retailers and customers) change in THIS industry.

 Aeon wrote:
I buy stuff from Black Cultist; its a Online store - dont understand what the OP is doing apart from complaining that he has had delays in getting stock.

..I can't tell if you're trolling or simply can't read.