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.

Illegal...no, not under any particular law I can think of.

GW would no doubt release their hounds...and as with other leaked information (pictures and rules) various sites will have their own level of BS that they are willing to deal with before they remove the links and or documents...

For a third party (not tied to the case) to post it, would be protected in the US under various free speech, journalism and academic research clauses. However, just because those laws exist...doesnt mean that you dont have to fight to exhert them (see the Colorado shooting journalist who is being hauled into court to reveal her sources).

Hrm... not what I remember... Also no information on starter boxes...

 Aerethan wrote:
As requested

That isnt the leaked one...at least not the leak in question. That came from a former employee of GW Memphis factory.

Ah. I do not have the document in question then.

Should be gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.251.2.pdf - though I am having trouble connecting to my cloud drive right now for some reason, and can't double check to make sure that is the right document.

Might be able to find a cached version of that...though, it is hard to say.

Actually humorously enough, Aerethan does have that document... as I have an email from him with that document in it

Aerethan, if you can't find the email, I'll send it back to you... might be able to upload it here... Do we have the okay for it?

Edit: Holy feth that was almost a year ago... As Sean's post with that link ending in it was way back in July...

That's the right one.
If you're looking for the one with information like this:

Space Marine tactical Squad box
US Sales Value GW year (in dollars)

2004: 118,841
2005: 191,862
2006: 257,396
2007: 276,615
2008: 248,633
2009: 192,011
2010: 106,278
2011: 84,834
2012: 60,699

This is a compilation of 2 products as they phased out one box and brought a new one in during '05

hmm, I'll check my outbox for it. For some reason the PDF is misplaced on my computer

Here it is. Had it in a different folder from the excel sheet.

Also, I fail to see how posting information that was made public would be illegal. Not really our fault if the court messed up and leaked documents. Once they are public, it's pretty impossible to delete them.

 Aerethan wrote:
Here it is. Had it in a different folder from the excel sheet.

Also, I fail to see how posting information that was made public would be illegal. Not really our fault if the court messed up and leaked documents. Once they are public, it's pretty impossible to delete them.

I am not saying that is illegal - but what I am saying is that I would guess in a matter of time...someone at DakkaDakka will get an email asking (telling) them to remove the offending document. They could say STFU well enough... They then might be asked (told) more forcefully to remove it. They could say STFU again. The legal peon might then go to DakkaDakka's host and tell them that Dakka is hosting a private communication or some such and the host will ask (tell) Dakka to remove it under threat of having their server shut down... They might go to court and file for some form of an injunction - which Dakka would then need to spend time and money to go in front of a judge and say their peace...

The general idea of not being able to shut it down is vastly different than the actual reality that corporations (not just GW) and governments will go to extremely great lengths to keep that sort of information out of the public eye.

In that case, should Dakka be requested to remove it, anyone can feel free to email me directly for it at hotmail.com with my username.

 Aerethan wrote:
In that case, should Dakka be requested to remove it, anyone can feel free to email me directly for it at hotmail.com with my username.

BTW - you already see the same thing happen with a lot of sites and the leaked pictures...nothing that you can really fault a site like Dakka for - it is more hassle than it is worth for them generally speaking.

Ashitaka wrote:
That's the right one.
If you're looking for the one with information like this:

Space Marine tactical Squad box
US Sales Value GW year (in dollars)

2004: 118,841
2005: 191,862
2006: 257,396
2007: 276,615
2008: 248,633
2009: 192,011
2010: 106,278
2011: 84,834
2012: 60,699

This is a compilation of 2 products as they phased out one box and brought a new one in during '05

So, sales doubled in 4 years... then QUARTERED in an equal amount of time.
Interesting.
I wonder what GW REALLY thinks about the downward spiral their sales are in. I'm not talking about their rhetoric or internet presumptions... I'm talking about behind closed doors.

It's like everything is going downhill for them, but they insist on putting forward a strong (if thin) veneer to the outside world, while categorically denying anything that paints them in a negative light. They rattle their sabres, cajole and threaten anyone they think they might be able to bulldoze with bluff and bluster, only to fall apart when their target mounts a strong defense.
Hmm...

Games Workshop; The North Korea of wargaming.

Eric

 MagickalMemories wrote:

Ashitaka wrote:
That's the right one.
If you're looking for the one with information like this:

Space Marine tactical Squad box
US Sales Value GW year (in dollars)

2004: 118,841
2005: 191,862
2006: 257,396
2007: 276,615
2008: 248,633
2009: 192,011
2010: 106,278
2011: 84,834
2012: 60,699

This is a compilation of 2 products as they phased out one box and brought a new one in during '05

So, sales doubled in 4 years... then QUARTERED in an equal amount of time.
Interesting.
I wonder what GW REALLY thinks about the downward spiral their sales are in. I'm not talking about their rhetoric or internet presumptions... I'm talking about behind closed doors.

It's like everything is going downhill for them, but they insist on putting forward a strong (if thin) veneer to the outside world, while categorically denying anything that paints them in a negative light. They rattle their sabres, cajole and threaten anyone they think they might be able to bulldoze with bluff and bluster, only to fall apart when their target mounts a strong defense.
Hmm...

Games Workshop; The North Korea of wargaming.

Eric

When I read the Chairman's Preamble to FY reports - I always picture Baghdad Bob...

To be fair, the rise in specialist Space Marine squad boxes has allowed people to buy the box for their Chapter instead of the vanilla box, so I'm sure that's had some impact.

 judgedoug wrote:
To be fair, the rise in specialist Space Marine squad boxes has allowed people to buy the box for their Chapter instead of the vanilla box, so I'm sure that's had some impact.

Nearly 188,000 boxes worth?
Even half that much, do you think?

I'm wondering if the document shows the sales #'s of non SM Power Armored boxes. Anyone?


Eric

I'll check, got a kit in mind?

After perusing the doc, I can't seem to find the tactical marine numbers.

However it appears that GW hasn't sold a Tau Battleforce in 3 years unless that data is incomplete.

2012 sales for the Tau Battlesuit Commander was $3482, down from $41,541 in 2011, and down from the peak of 2007 at $89,620.

Aerethan, check page 100 of that document. It has the listing "Tactical" which has the Tactical Squad box and the DA Tac Squad box:

Space Marine Tactical Squad box - GW US Catalogue 2006/2007 - $64,131; $255,117; $273,814; $247,810; $192,011; $106,278; $84,834; $60,698

Sales figures from2005/06 to 2012

thank you

Whoops, actually my earlier year numbers might be off as they apparently had metal and plastic available at the same time... I posted just plastic numbers.

The good stuff is pages 95 - 101. Two things of note:
1.These are only from items up to the 2008 Catalog. So newer kits don't appear to be factored in.
2. Most these items peak in 2008-2009 which coincide with the release of 5th edition. Some drop in 2008 which can easily prove rules do affect sales.

I don't think those numbers are telling us the whole story.

It is inconceivable that one of the most popular units in the game could suffer a decline of 75% in sales and the company not show something on the bottom line. I assume the health of Space Marines is roughly indicative of the overall product line.

I know the US is only one market, but even so.

Something happened that we can't see. For example, perhaps ANZ sales were done from the US and got moved to the UK.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I don't think those numbers are telling us the whole story.

It is inconceivable that one of the most popular units in the game could suffer a decline of 75% in sales and the company not show something on the bottom line. I assume the health of Space Marines is roughly indicative of the overall product line.

I know the US is only one market, but even so.

Something happened that we can't see. For example, perhaps ANZ sales were done from the US and got moved to the UK.

Even if the leap from 192k to 106k was due to a shift in region, the steadier decline from 106-84-60 is indicative of a drop off in sales.

Even still, ignoring the single ~50% drop from 2009-2010, the other drops are rather steady: 14% '07-'08, 22% '08-'09, 44.7$ '09-'10, 20.7% '10-'11, 28.5% '11-'12.

Ignoring the single major drop in sales from '09-'10, we still see steady drops of 14-20%, with an average of 21.3% per year since the peak amount of $273k

@KK: Keep in mind that over the same time, the per-unit-cost for that item has gone up by almost 50% and the company as a whole has been engaged in sweeping cost cutting policies.

Yes. These numbers are only half the story, as price changes mean that not only does a lower $$$ on that report mean fewer sales in volume, but price increases drop that volume even more.

What was the price per box in 2007 when the unit peaked in sales? $35?

That would give us a volume for that year. These numbers also don't likely take into consideration wholesale revenue where the $ per box is even lower.

So in 2012 assuming no wholesale is reported on this file, we see a sales of roughly 1629 units in 2012(even if it was 100% wholesale, we'd only see 2500 units sold).

in 2007 at $35 per box they would have sold 7823 units assuming no wholesale, 12035 units if they were 100% wholesale at 35% off from retail value.

Pretty massive drops.


Also, are you suggesting that ANZ is responsible for nearly as much as the US in sales? I doubt that ANZ was 44.7% of the sales for North American tactical squads.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I don't think those numbers are telling us the whole story.

It is inconceivable that one of the most popular units in the game could suffer a decline of 75% in sales and the company not show something on the bottom line. I assume the health of Space Marines is roughly indicative of the overall product line.

I know the US is only one market, but even so.

Something happened that we can't see. For example, perhaps ANZ sales were done from the US and got moved to the UK.

Under penalty of perjury that should just be the US market. Remember - that is evidence that GW is using to demonstrate the value of their trademarks in the US market only...not saying that they wouldn't have goofed, but it is reasonable to assume that it is fairly accurate.

Codex and rulebook sales show interesting information (though keep in mind - they are not exactly accurate in terms of which Edition they are actually referring to...see Eldar IIRC). You can plot them out with regards to new editions of the books versus the old and see what sort of carry over or growth might be going on. You can also do the math to calculate roughly how many people purchased any given Codex (and thereby see the theoretical popularity of the army).

However, if the numbers were off by some calculation like that...you would expect to see a comparable tumble across the board. Even if you just focus on the one faction of vanilla marines, you don't see a dramatic drop like that for Assault, Devastator or Terminator boxes. The drop happens when GW pokes the rules and makes other things more valuable compared to the regular Tactical marines.

Saldiven wrote:
@KK: Keep in mind that over the same time, the per-unit-cost for that item has gone up by almost 50% and the company as a whole has been engaged in sweeping cost cutting policies.

The sales figures are dollars, not units (boxes). Thus the cost per unit is irrelevant to the question of overall revenue.

I know the company was engaged in cost-cutting, but that is irrelevant to the question of overall revenue which was very roughly steady during the period of the rapid decline in SM Tactical sales.

What I mean is that if a company had total income of 150 million $ in 2006 and in 2010 it had total income of 150 million £, yet during that time the income from one of its most representative products dropped 75% we clearly are not seeing the whole story.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Saldiven wrote:
@KK: Keep in mind that over the same time, the per-unit-cost for that item has gone up by almost 50% and the company as a whole has been engaged in sweeping cost cutting policies.

The sales figures are dollars, not units (boxes). Thus the cost per unit is irrelevant to the question of overall revenue.

I know the company was engaged in cost-cutting, but that is irrelevant to the question of overall revenue which was very roughly steady during the period of the rapid decline in SM Tactical sales.

What I mean is that if a company had total income of 150 million $ in 2006 and in 2010 it had total income of 150 million £, yet during that time the income from one of its most representative products dropped 75% we clearly are not seeing the whole story.

Fair enough point. Does anyone have the revenues from 2007-2012?

On another point, looks like the 2007 price was $35, so there wouldn't be much difference in the profit per box there(under 10%).

So in 2007 we saw as many as 12000 boxes of tactical marines sold, and in 2012 we saw 2500 at the most, roughly 20% of the volume they were doing.

Probably want to break off into a different thread...this is well outside the scope of the CHS case...though, yes - I have all the pertinent numbers going back well past the information in this particular file.