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.

UNCLEBADTOUCH wrote:
Shock horror I'm not referring to finecast lol we all know the failings there so wasn't referring to that. In a lot if the new plastics you can see where detail has been smudged and the model deformed so that it can be in less pieces, hobbit goblins are a prime example they lack necks and ears are blended into shoulders. Also some kits have been oversimplified an example being the wall if martyrs, it would have been exceptionally easy to provide attachable detail panels however they chose to fudge it to save material and number if sprues. These are examples of reduction in quality for the sake of cost cutting which isn't passed onto the consumer.

What GW could have done is made a wall entirely made of bodies. Imagine Cadians and skulls stacked up like Legos. That would be a proper wall of Martyrs (GW Style).

I think the current version is fine, what else do you want with sections of wall? The dead bodies they have show what the damned thing it fits it's name.

As for the Hobbit Sprues. Meh. It has happened in the past and will happen again, and is not just GW guilty of it.

The bodies should be separate as it would allow non-IG players more versatility for using it instead if doing it on the cheap and limiting its appeal.

When it comes to blurring models to fit moulds, it's fine if you charge mantic prices but not what GW charges. They claim to be the Ferrari of the miniature world and charge accordingly, I think it's time they revised that opinion of themselves.

UNCLEBADTOUCH wrote:
Shock horror I'm not referring to finecast lol we all know the failings there so wasn't referring to that. In a lot if the new plastics you can see where detail has been smudged and the model deformed so that it can be in less pieces, hobbit goblins are a prime example they lack necks and ears are blended into shoulders. Also some kits have been oversimplified an example being the wall if martyrs, it would have been exceptionally easy to provide attachable detail panels however they chose to fudge it to save material and number if sprues. These are examples of reduction in quality for the sake of cost cutting which isn't passed onto the consumer.

Fair enough, you are entitled to your opinion.

Out of interest, do you think that these failures in the mini have gotten worse in the past few years or remained steady - as if they have remained steady then it's nothing new and can hardly be blamed on the shareholders dividends.

I do question the point about cutting costs and not passing it onto the customer though - (N.B. all figures I'm about to quote are made up and I have no idea if they are true) Presuming GW have cost increases of 20% due to increase wages/electricity bills/business rates/cost of raw materials and they decide to simplify a model and increase it's cost by 10% then, this is a saving for the customer - it just doesn't look like it.

We do seem to be getting a little off track anyway as I have already pointed out that shareholder dividends have gone down recently to what it used to be, so they certainly are not cashing in on any real or preceived drop in quality - and this thread is supposed to be about if the Dividend is justified or not.

In answer to your question i think plastic quality peaked DE/Necron releases and has been decreasing since.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
In answer to your question i think plastic quality peaked DE/Necron releases and has been decreasing since.

UNCLEBADTOUCH wrote:
The bodies should be separate as it would allow non-IG players more versatility for using it instead if doing it on the cheap and limiting its appeal.

When it comes to blurring models to fit moulds, it's fine if you charge mantic prices but not what GW charges. They claim to be the Ferrari of the miniature world and charge accordingly, I think it's time they revised that opinion of themselves.

I would agree that being the best in the business and blurring models isn't quite right. But there are conversion opportunities. Sometimes we get spoilt a little too much. Not that I have had much need for GW related products over the last 5-10 years.

 Adam LongWalker wrote:

silent25 wrote:

 Adam LongWalker wrote:

 Testify wrote:
HBMC has a problem with shareholders running a business for profit.

http://theback40k.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-vice-thats-squeezing-gw.html#more


Decent article. Oh and as an investor in the legalize gambling the stock market I certainly would not invest in GW at the moment. I get a better return and the confidence in investing into a major gaming company such as Hasbro. Now if Fantasy Flight Games opened up for funding, I'd invest into it in a heart beat as they have a good business model currently.

You know GW outperformed the S&P500 by over a 4 to 1 ratio over the last year as oppose to Hasbro which was essentially flat over the last year? I have owned some shares for the last year and it is the best performing stock I have and beat all the index funds (S&P500, NASDAQ, Wilshire 2000) quite handily. Though my continued holding of them relies on how the Hobbit does.

There are two ways in answering this. The first way is to ask what is your investment mindset. If you are young enough (20's to 30's) you can go ahead and take chances with a company such as GW. If you are in the right place at the right time, you will be fine.

I'm an old man so my mindset is to have a stable return rate that is ahead of the inflation rate on a year to year basis.

I used Hasbro because of this. I like the yearly growth that it has,

http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=HAS+Interactive#symbol=has;range=my;compare=;indicator=volume;charttype=area;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=off;source=undefined;

Compared to GW's

http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=GAW.L+Interactive#symbol=gaw.l;range=my;compare=;indicator=volume;charttype=area;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=off;source=undefined;

GW is way too up and down for my tastes.

As I have posted previously, I'm into real estate. Both Commercial and Residential within the Western parts of the US. My portfolio is roughly 60% invested into property which I get a overall return of 8% profits per year. 25% in good old hard cash and 15% which consists of mostly Tax sheltered annuities, then federal and/or state exempt bonds. Because of my health and age I am actually consolidating my holdings and to those people who have been good to me (as well as my pets) will be taken care of financially when I am gone.

The Second way of dealing with your comment is a phrase that came from a person who stated.

GW shops in America only live as long as their lease.

This is a very true analogy on how part their business model works in the US. In my case this practice as well as the Data collected over the years, the conversations with current/ former employees as well as stock holders are another reason why I do not invest into that company. I do my research on everything that I can get before making an investment.

And in my case I would invest into a company such as Hasbro over GW.

But of course your mileage may vary

Now look at the links over 5 years rather than since 1984 - Hasbro has flatlined - GW not so much - presumably these charts assume that dividends are reinvested - I couldn't check.

http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=HAS+Interactive#symbol=has;range=5y;compare=gaw.l;indicator=volume;charttype=area;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=1;logscale=on;source=undefined;

 RFHolloway wrote:

 Adam LongWalker wrote:

silent25 wrote:

 Adam LongWalker wrote:

 Testify wrote:
HBMC has a problem with shareholders running a business for profit.

http://theback40k.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-vice-thats-squeezing-gw.html#more


Decent article. Oh and as an investor in the legalize gambling the stock market I certainly would not invest in GW at the moment. I get a better return and the confidence in investing into a major gaming company such as Hasbro. Now if Fantasy Flight Games opened up for funding, I'd invest into it in a heart beat as they have a good business model currently.

You know GW outperformed the S&P500 by over a 4 to 1 ratio over the last year as oppose to Hasbro which was essentially flat over the last year? I have owned some shares for the last year and it is the best performing stock I have and beat all the index funds (S&P500, NASDAQ, Wilshire 2000) quite handily. Though my continued holding of them relies on how the Hobbit does.

There are two ways in answering this. The first way is to ask what is your investment mindset. If you are young enough (20's to 30's) you can go ahead and take chances with a company such as GW. If you are in the right place at the right time, you will be fine.

I'm an old man so my mindset is to have a stable return rate that is ahead of the inflation rate on a year to year basis.

I used Hasbro because of this. I like the yearly growth that it has,

http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=HAS+Interactive#symbol=has;range=my;compare=;indicator=volume;charttype=area;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=off;source=undefined;

Compared to GW's

http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=GAW.L+Interactive#symbol=gaw.l;range=my;compare=;indicator=volume;charttype=area;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=off;source=undefined;

GW is way too up and down for my tastes.

As I have posted previously, I'm into real estate. Both Commercial and Residential within the Western parts of the US. My portfolio is roughly 60% invested into property which I get a overall return of 8% profits per year. 25% in good old hard cash and 15% which consists of mostly Tax sheltered annuities, then federal and/or state exempt bonds. Because of my health and age I am actually consolidating my holdings and to those people who have been good to me (as well as my pets) will be taken care of financially when I am gone.

The Second way of dealing with your comment is a phrase that came from a person who stated.

GW shops in America only live as long as their lease.

This is a very true analogy on how part their business model works in the US. In my case this practice as well as the Data collected over the years, the conversations with current/ former employees as well as stock holders are another reason why I do not invest into that company. I do my research on everything that I can get before making an investment.

And in my case I would invest into a company such as Hasbro over GW.

But of course your mileage may vary

Now look at the links over 5 years rather than since 1984 - Hasbro has flatlined - GW not so much - presumably these charts assume that dividends are reinvested - I couldn't check.

http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=HAS+Interactive#symbol=has;range=5y;compare=gaw.l;indicator=volume;charttype=area;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=1;logscale=on;source=undefined;

You're comparing stock price so this would not assume dividends are reinvested.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 htj wrote:

It's funny, I've worked for a fair few retail chains, and never one that pays dividends without profit. Actually, wait, scratch that - I worked for GW for a while, so I guess I did.

...

What R&D do you think GW are missing out on? The rules are constantly being changed, and modelling processes upgraded and altered, do you not think that this fills the role of necessary R&D to keep the market fresh?

Hopefully I got the quotes right...

Making a profit and having cash on hand do not have to coincide with each other. Most public companies have the expectation that dividends will be paid and if you're not paying dividends at your usual rate, something must be wrong. If GW never paid dividends, the expectation wouldn't be there and not paying them would be the norm. But to institutional investors, if the Company is making a profit and traditionally pays constant dividends, not paying a dividend would indicate a potential problem. They would need to be issuing a press release or something that would indicate their need to not pay the dividend and what their plans are going to be and why its better to reinvest in the Company because they are going to do X, Y, and Z with the money instead of pay it as a dividend. As an investor, if they are not going to pay me dividends, I want to know what growth initiatives they are working on. Why should I let you reinvest my earnings, why would you do a better job of managing that money than me? If you plan on changing course and don't want to tell everyone your release schedule some 2-3 years out which can hurt your sales. GW has made a healthy profit for the last several years - paying a dividend shouldn't be unexpected especially since they are one of the few companies thats still around making a game you obviously enjoy (otherwise you wouldn't be on the site).

I agree with you - they've paid dividends, still put out new models, and new editions for all 3 core games.

 Testify wrote:
HBMC has a problem with shareholders running a business for profit.

Except that that's not true and anyone with half a God-damned brain knows that that's not true.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Testify wrote:
HBMC has a problem with shareholders running a business for profit.

Except that that's not true and anyone with half a God-damned brain knows that that's not true.

I don't see why anyone with a God-damned brain would know your opinion on something. You clearly don't think businesses should pay dividends, I don't see what else there is for you to say on the subject.

If a company is paying dividends because it is growing the buisness, improving products and the demand for the products.NO PROBLEM.
Restructuring the buisness to make it more efficient , and sustanable long term, is also grounds for paying dividends.

However, wallet raping customers to the point they leave in droves , so the company chairman can pocket another £300K in dividends before he retires, may be seen as short sighted money grabbing of the worst order.

Just sayin'

To be fair, you don't know that customers are leaving in droves. Or rather, that the net loss of customers is high. They probably do lose a lot of customers but the constantly gain them which means they have a high turnover in customers. Which is perfectly ok in a business as long as the money keeps coming.

Lanrak wrote:
If a company is paying dividends because it is growing the buisness, improving products and the demand for the products.NO PROBLEM.
Restructuring the buisness to make it more efficient , and sustanable long term, is also grounds for paying dividends.

However, wallet raping customers to the point they leave in droves , so the company chairman can pocket another £300K in dividends before he retires, may be seen as short sighted money grabbing of the worst order.

Just sayin'

Again, we have no idea if GW customers are falling, we do know that their sales have fallen but since profits are going up pretty much every year that would indicate a steady customer base with people just spreading the purchase of their armies over a longer period.

I do actually probably agree that the customer base has fallen, but personally I doubt it'll be as big as most people on here think.

We can compare the rate of increase of prices with the rate of increase of revenues.

This comparison suggests that revenues are being maintained or increased by selling fewer kits at higher prices.

That might be because customer numbers are increasing but each customer is buying fewer kits. It might be that customers are buying as many kits but there are fewer customers. There is no real way to tell.

 htj wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
A dividend doesn't mean they're 'going strong'. All it means is that they paid a dividend. They've borrowed money in the past to do that.

They have? This is not something I'd heard of happening. Seems like a great way to collapse into debt. Oh well, so much for optimism.

Costco just did the same thing ahead of the new tax rates, borrowed to pay a larger dividend.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324705104578149012514177372.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

 Kilkrazy wrote:
We can compare the rate of increase of prices with the rate of increase of revenues.

No we can't. We can compare average price increase of their catalogue to their revenue increase, but since we do not know anything about respective sales volumes, such comparison tells us almost nothing. Pretty much all we can do is to rule out most extreme propositions (big growth/huge collapse).

Well, we know that revenue (inflation-adjusted at least) is nearly flat for several years.
We know that all introductory product prices (starter boxes, rulebooks, Codices, standard troops) were massively increased for several years until 2011.
We know that all character and elite troop prices were massively increased when recast in Finecast. Also all batallion boxes this year.
We know that Hobbit product prices are massively increased relatively to LOTR prices.
Any prices left not massively increased in the last few years?

 Kroothawk wrote:
Well, we know that revenue (inflation-adjusted at least) is nearly flat for several years.
We know that all introductory product prices (starter boxes, rulebooks, Codices, standard troops) were massively increased for several years until 2011.
We know that all character and elite troop prices were massively increased when recast in Finecast. Also all batallion boxes this year.
We know that Hobbit product prices are massively increased relatively to LOTR prices.
Any prices left not massively increased in the last few years?

Yes we know these things, but a flat revenue stream and decreased sales doesn't automatically mean a fallen customer base. Lets face it, wargaming is a finite hobby for most people, once you have your army there is very little incentive to buy more stuff. Now if you used to spend, let say £500 a year on models you would get your army in 2 years - now, keeping the same spend going, it takes you 3.5 years. You still buy the same amount of stuff as you always would have done, your still a customer - infact they can class you as a customer for longer as you would previously have stopped being a customer after 2 years and now you are a customer for 3.5.

I'm not saying that price increases havn't happened, I'm not saying that some people havn't fallen out with the company, I'm not even saying that the customer base hasn't fallen slightly due to the price rises, what I dispute is this idea that GW is putting up prices and losing "all" their customers, that is going to drive them into a collapse that Kirby is so desperately desiring for his own personal profit.

What is far more likely is that GW is very carefully monitoring the situation and is putting prices upto the maximum they can charge before the amount of people leaving them is far higher than the number joining the hobby - something that hasn't happened yet. Yes this is more about getting the maximum profit out of their customers as possible, rather than giving their customers the product they want at a resonable profit, but that is what the Shareholders want and in a PLC what the shareholders want is what goes.

Lets not forget that if 50% of the current customer base keep spending the same each year, but take twice as long to buy everything they need then you can stand to suffer a 50% drop in customer base and still be making the same profit (based on a rolling customer base, i.e. new customer join each year) in fact you would probably make more profit as you would need to make less moulds and use less plastic/resin.

 Kroothawk wrote:
Well, we know that revenue (inflation-adjusted at least) is nearly flat for several years.
We know that all introductory product prices (starter boxes, rulebooks, Codices, standard troops) were massively increased for several years until 2011.
We know that all character and elite troop prices were massively increased when recast in Finecast. Also all batallion boxes this year.
We know that Hobbit product prices are massively increased relatively to LOTR prices.
Any prices left not massively increased in the last few years?

Yes, many basic troops prices has stayed same for years (though some have increased because of repackages). And of course, transition to plastic has cut prices of some individual items. But of course majority of the prices have increased, in some cases very signifantly.

Actually, we do know that from the Chapterhouse suit that sales levels have fallen YoY.

 notprop wrote:
Borrowing to finance dividend speaks more on liquidity at a moment in time rather than a lack of profits which is not really an issue that GW have.

Where are you reading that they borrowed money to pay their dividends. The article I read made no mention of it. How are they borrowing money? Is it a Line of Credit they are using? Commercial Paper? Bonds? What sort of debt instrument are they using?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

12thRonin wrote:
Actually, we do know that from the Chapterhouse suit that sales levels have fallen YoY.

I must have missed that in their financial statements. Please provide a page number or was this in another press release?

The debt financing of the dividend was like 3-4 years ago now.

The sales figures were in documents released by the court supplied by GW. They have been retracted but the actual documents are in the wild still. Go read the last few pages of the Chapterhouse suit thread.

Stranger83 wrote:

Lanrak wrote:
If a company is paying dividends because it is growing the buisness, improving products and the demand for the products.NO PROBLEM.
Restructuring the buisness to make it more efficient , and sustanable long term, is also grounds for paying dividends.

However, wallet raping customers to the point they leave in droves , so the company chairman can pocket another £300K in dividends before he retires, may be seen as short sighted money grabbing of the worst order.

Just sayin'

Again, we have no idea if GW customers are falling, we do know that their sales have fallen but since profits are going up pretty much every year that would indicate a steady customer base with people just spreading the purchase of their armies over a longer period.

I do actually probably agree that the customer base has fallen, but personally I doubt it'll be as big as most people on here think.

Over the past 5 years (although I'm unfamiliar with UK accounting practices, only AU), without fully knowing what they changed in regards to reporting that changed their sales figures their sales have indeed been increasing.

If we simply brought 2004 turn over in to 2012 allowing for inflation.
That give us in excess of £175M.
As GW have implemented price rises and in game devaluation .(Lowering PV of models.)ON TOP of this .
They should have a turn over in excess of £300M if they kept constant sales volumes.

So GW plc are selling less than half of what they did 2004.
We can reasonably assume fewer people are spending the same amount as they were before.

And as there has been a massive swell of support for other companies in the TTMG hobby over the last few years.Its resonable to assume GW plc has lost a lot of existing customers, and new customer take up has slowed down due to prohibitive pricing.

As GW plc is focused on new customers ,and do not concern themselves with customer retension.
It is more likely fewer people are buying into GW.

As a Snap shot simply look at the reaction to the 'Hobbit range' prices. Compared to the favorable reaction the LoTR range recieved on release...

Even the released sales figures for the US .(From the CHS case.) Show reduces sales across all lines in monetary value...(Which doesnt even take into account the price rise.)

Lanrak wrote:


As GW have implemented price rises and in game devaluation .(Lowering PV of models.)ON TOP of this .
They should have a turn over in excess of £300M if they kept constant sales volumes.

Actually lowering the PV wouldn't effect the volume of sales - if I can only afford 1 unit a month then the lowerin gof the PV doesn't suddenly mean I can afford to buy 2 units a month, it just means I'd take twice as long to buy an army of the same points value - this would results in the same yearly profits, just for more years.

Lanrak wrote:

So GW plc are selling less than half of what they did 2004.
We can reasonably assume fewer people are spending the same amount as they were before.

Firstly, resonable based on what? How do you know that more people are not paying significantly more than they were before, or that the same number are paying less than they were before? The fact that it fits the image you have in your head does not make it reasonable.

Secondly, your value of 50% is high, based on the info in the chapter house suit - they only thing we have to base it on - they have fallen around 10%.

Your argument also presumes that all GW costs have gone up exactly by inflation, which is unlikely. Gas/Electic costs in the UK have risen nearly 30% in the last 3 years alone, I don't know the mechanics of how it all work, but I presume that there is a large amount of electricity used to power the machines that make miniatures, therefore their costs will have risen much higher than inflation. On the other hand, GW as a company does not have to by food for itself (ingnoreing the fact that it would have to increase wages of staff to pay for the food) or buy itself a house - both hings that have risen (or in the case of houseing fallen) below inflation in the last 3 years.

Inflation is based on the average cost of a family to live - as a company GW has a very different cost factor.

Lanrak wrote:

As GW plc is focused on new customers ,and do not concern themselves with customer retension.
It is more likely fewer people are buying into GW

Again, based on what? What actual facts do you have that fewer people are buying into GW? Yes they focus on new gamers rather than old (though I would argue that the Horus Heresy game is targeted specifically at veterans) but what factual information do you have that fewer people are starting up the GW hobby? Again, remember that a fall in sales does NOT mean a fall in customer base.


Whilst I agree that GW probably has had a fall in customer base, it is a luxuary item afterall and we are in a recession, plus their competitors are getting better and with the advent of the internet it's a lot easier for them to make themselves known. Despite that however I have yet to see any proof that the customer base has fallen, just a lot of people saying it has, people who are probably basing that upon their own gaming groups who have moved to other systems - but GW have always suffered from that, it doesn't take into account the new players starting out.

To bring it back on topic, based on the fact that we don't know if the customer base is falling, hell I doubt even GW can say that for sure, we can hardly say that GW should pay a dividend because of a falling customer base.

Sorry for the large number of edits, seems I forgot how to spell for awhile.

As GW plc keep telling everyone their gross margins have improved.
(EG ALL their costs excluding retail and logistics, make up a declining amount of their retail price.)

The last I heard they were running at 76% gross profit.
This means they are not suffering rampant cost increases forcing them to raise retail prices to compensate..(Down sizing stores to reduce the retail costs...)

And as my mate who works AT GW Nottingham has access to lots of actual costings, and sales data..

Sales volumes are falling year on year.

GW have always 'suffered' from older customer s 'growing up and moving on'...hence their total focus on recruitment .
(Rather than fixing the problem and generating long term appeal.)

So as customers usualy quit before 2 years in the GW hobby.(From GW own sales research, BTW.)

Then the main change to sales volumes would be a lower start up rate of new customers.
(As die hard fans will pay any amount for GW product.These would be the ones still involved with GW after many years.)

76% is the gross profit margin, the key point in that is Gross profit.

Gross profit is not ALL the costs, gross profit is simply the price you sell it at - the price of the materials/labour to make it (i.e the cost of the moulds and the plastic/resin) Electricity, building rates wages are all an overhead so would come out of the net profits, I don't have the figures for that on hand, maybe you do but any successful company will pay far more attention to net profit than gross (note, I'm not saying gross profit isn't important, just net is the key value that takes in ALL costs)

Yes traditionally GW has had customers for 2 years at which point they have their army and either don't buy new stuff or switch to another game system, but previously after 2 years you would have a "finished" army, if it now takes you 3 years for a "finished" army - due to price increases - does that mean that people will stop buying their army 2/3rds of the way through?

I guess it all depends on why people drop out of GW, is it because they grow to hate the game/company or they see another game and decide to try that, then yes they will still quit after 2 years and we can presume they have a falling customer base.

However if they quit because suddenly, after 2 years (which at 14/16 seems like a lifetime) you find yourself with a "finished" army and suddenly think to yourself 'well what do I do now?' and then go looking and find other companies (I can't speak for everyone but that is almost exactally how I found out about other companies - though I admit back then other games were very difficult to find and my first "other" game was BFG) then we can safely say that the lower sales just means people are taking 3 years to complete an army rather than 2 and the customer base is the same.

Like I say, I actually agree that GW has a falling customer base - we have the highest unemployment in years and, certainly in the UK, have had wage freezes for the past 3 years. It's hardly surpriseing that people are not starting up a new hobby.

Again, I reiterate falling sales, yes we know this. Falling customer base, likely but we simply do not know for a fact and saying it is a fact and quoteing falling sales as the reason we know this is just plain wrong.

Hi.
I think we may have been talking at cross perpouses a bit.(Sorry.)

The gross profit includes all costs apart from logistics and retail.(Logistic costs seem to be average ,less than 10% of gross profit.)

This is why GW are down sizeing B&M stores to one man stores and focusing more on retail to try keep retail costs under better control.
(Over 50% of gross profit!)However , this removes one of the reasons customers used to help justify the high prices.All the free hobby help and support in store.

It is not possible to give absolute proof the GW customer base is shrinking by a specific amount.(Even GW plc do not have the information to determine this .)

(GW plc do not think 'proper market research' into customer - product synergy to determine effective marketing is worthwhile.
Tom Kirby 's statement ' we sell toy soldiers to children ' has a lot of negative impact across lots of levels.)

However, the growth of other companies share of the market in the last few years, coupled with GW falling sales volumes , and compensatory price hikes.

Means its is a fairly logical and widely held theory...

 Kroothawk wrote:
Well, we know that revenue (inflation-adjusted at least) is nearly flat for several years.
We know that all introductory product prices (starter boxes, rulebooks, Codices, standard troops) were massively increased for several years until 2011.
We know that all character and elite troop prices were massively increased when recast in Finecast. Also all batallion boxes this year.
We know that Hobbit product prices are massively increased relatively to LOTR prices.
Any prices left not massively increased in the last few years?

"Massively increased" seems like an overstatement when inflation-adjusted price increases are not even always apparent over an 8-year span. I priced out the Marines I used in a recent game and compared them between now and 2004 (inflation-adjusted); they had gone up in price by 12% over eight years if you didn't count starter set availability savings and had gone down in price by 21% if you did. Further, the models had been vastly improved during that period.

Hardly a "massive increase."

Lanrak wrote:

(GW plc do not think 'proper market research' into customer - product synergy to determine effective marketing is worthwhile.
Tom Kirby 's statement ' we sell toy soldiers to children ' has a lot of negative impact across lots of levels.)

Citation needed?

Lanrak wrote:

However, the growth of other companies share of the market in the last few years

Again, any proof of this?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kingsley wrote:

"Massively increased" seems like an overstatement when inflation-adjusted price increases are not even always apparent over an 8-year span. I priced out the Marines I used in a recent game and compared them between now and 2004 (inflation-adjusted); they had gone up in price by 12% over eight years if you didn't count starter set availability savings and had gone down in price by 21% if you did. Further, the models had been vastly improved during that period.

Hardly a "massive increase."

I said something similar a few pages back (or possible in another thread). The price of a necron army had remained the same (so in real terms had decreased by inflation between '04 and '12), and the price of a guard army had gone up about 4% a year. I was still flamed by about 8 posters who insisted I was insane and refused to use any facts whatsoever.

So yeah, expect the flame police any day now

 Testify wrote:
Citation needed?

From a publicly available end of year results document from a few years back - I'm sure Lanrak has the specific date.