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.

Would having a GW rep on this board really do any good? Logistically speaking, how much positive interaction would there be before one of the Dakkawankers got all donkey cave on him about something that's already happened. This place can be a tank of piranhas and once blood is drawn....

I think the modding on this board is excellent and the personalities on this board are very memorable, but this is a board holds its object of affection to very high standards and is very unforgiving when they aren't met. Kinda why I like it here.

 spaceelf wrote:

 mattyrm wrote:

You choose to take heroin.

You don't choose to be raped or abused.

Makes perfect sense to me.

In actuality addicts and abused spouses usually have many things in common. The addict is dependent on the substance. The abused spouse is usually codependent on the abusive party and thus does not want to leave.

Also, although you may choose to take a drug, you do not choose to be addicted. Some people are and some are not.

I think that it is clear that GW would benefit from having a community representative, that is what PR and spin is all about. The fact that they do not speaks volumes about what they think of us.

I agree, but they have been lurking in various sites for many years. They do their data mining in a way I have done my data mining research into various companies (this include game companies) for investment. Why should they? They get the information that they lurk in here for and don't have to deal with people with the concerns of the product they are pushing.

You are contradicting yourselves in your rush to condemn GW surely?

If "contradictory to what I appear to believe" there are legal consequences, then why haven't the regulators charged GW?

The British board of advertising standards haven't said anything, ergo they can't have dropped the ball.

Also be aware lm not in disagreement with HBMCs last statement, sure you can call them on it, that is our right.

I certainly have because I've not bought any finecast.. I'd also agree with azreal13, they are probably flirting with taking the piss, but like I said, the rest of you talking about legal this and court that are clearly wrong, because they haven't wound up being forced to reword their advertising campaigns right?

What I said was simply that it's dishonest to make out like GW are vastly different from everyone else with regards advertising.

And you know I'm right, because these legal ramifications some of you keep mentioning haven't been forthcoming. Hundreds of ads get forcibly pulled, but finecast ads aren't one of them. As I've said many times, I certainly won't defend bloody finecast, I refuse to buy it as well! But let's not start saying stupid gak just because you feel passionate about your hobby. GW surely take the piss a little, but that's life, and that's the world of marketing.

Never heard of eight minutes abs? If they can get away with showing a photoshopped/whole other humans arse as a result of some fat chick using an infomercial exercise product for a couple of minutes a day.. GW aren't breaking any laws by stretching the truth about their models.

Clearly they walk the fine line of legal bs and outright illegal bs like a pro.

Excuse grammar and lack of quotes, I'm on my phone.

Matty, I was on board with most of your points in the thread, but Finecast has been a legit problem.

If their policy is (in fact) to treat air bubbles of any kind as unavoidable and not reasonable grounds for returning the product, then that's not acceptable to me. The metal models they replaced did not have those air bubbles; I just expect finecast models to live up to the same standards as their metal casts. Which shouldn't be asking too much, considering that GW has stated that the Finecast models are superior, and an improvement in cast quality and detail.

 Mannahnin wrote:
Matty, I was on board with most of your points in the thread, but Finecast has been a legit problem.

If their policy is (in fact) to treat air bubbles of any kind as unavoidable and not reasonable grounds for returning the product, then that's not acceptable to me. The metal models they replaced did not have those air bubbles; I just expect finecast models to live up to the same standards as their metal casts. Which shouldn't be asking too much, considering that GW has stated that the Finecast models are superior, and an improvement in cast quality and detail.

But this 'policy' being quoted is drastically different from what others are experiencing at other GWs and the experience differs from what lots of people experience on the phone from customer support.

Metal models did have rounding, pitting and miscast seamlines... and if it was damaged, GW replaced it. I actually feel like I have gotten more metal 'failures' recently as they are not spinning as much metal now... I have been buying shoulderpads and metal accessory packs and I have seen more flaws in the past 2 years than I have seen in 10. All metal figures.

And GW replaces any that I want.

I am highly skeptical over this 'policy' as after a solid 20 years of flawless customer support from GW, something they are known form, somehow that has all changed... especially when I still experience the flawless support to this day both in-store and on the phone.

I once read a neat article comparing the internet to the Chaos Gods in how GW seems to see it

entertaining read, GW sure seems to think its 1995 or something

 Mannahnin wrote:
If their policy is (in fact) to treat air bubbles of any kind as unavoidable and not reasonable grounds for returning the product, then that's not acceptable to me. The metal models they replaced did not have those air bubbles; I just expect finecast models to live up to the same standards as their metal casts. Which shouldn't be asking too much, considering that GW has stated that the Finecast models are superior, and an improvement in cast quality and detail.

Being a problem isn't the same as being a legal problem you can take legal action against GW over. It just means they have a product and your decision to buy or not buy should reflect that low quality. It's no different than your local fast food place advertising their tasty FineBurgers, you don't get to sue them for false advertising because it tastes like .

 Mannahnin wrote:
Matty, I was on board with most of your points in the thread, but Finecast has been a legit problem.

If their policy is (in fact) to treat air bubbles of any kind as unavoidable and not reasonable grounds for returning the product, then that's not acceptable to me. The metal models they replaced did not have those air bubbles; I just expect finecast models to live up to the same standards as their metal casts. Which shouldn't be asking too much, considering that GW has stated that the Finecast models are superior, and an improvement in cast quality and detail.

Yeah you havent read all of what I wrote Mannahin, essentially im in full agreement with peregrin, finecast is clearly flawed and i have refused to buy it thanks to the community feedback.

I wasnt saying otherwise, I was simply saying that GW telling everyone its the bees knees isnt illegal, and its certainly not uncommon behaviour in the cut throat world of marketting.

 mattyrm wrote:

I wasnt saying otherwise, I was simply saying that GW telling everyone its the bees knees isnt illegal, and its certainly not uncommon behaviour in the cut throat world of marketting.

That doesn't man that we shouldn't complain about it. That sort of nonsense it's allowed in advertising precisely because people don't make a bigger deal of it.

 mattyrm wrote:
I wasnt saying otherwise, I was simply saying that GW telling everyone its the bees knees isnt illegal, and its certainly not uncommon behaviour in the cut throat world of marketting.

It's at least skirting the edge - it's objectively not the best, and advertising claims need to be either objectively true or supported with other documentation.

This is why Carlsburg is only 'probably' the best lager in the world. To say outright that you are the best and then consistently offer poor product should invite comment. I don't know that it's adds up to false advertising though, it is a bit misleading though, but they could argue it still only represents a matter of opinion.

rigeld2 wrote:
It's at least skirting the edge - it's objectively not the best, and advertising claims need to be either objectively true or supported with other documentation.

How is it objectively not the best? It might not be the best casting quality among resin models, but who says you can't value the price to quality ratio, or even just the fact that it's a sculpt from GW's IP?

Now, in a certain person's opinion it can certainly be not the best, but that's a subjective preference, not objective fact. Just like how your local fast food FineBurger is inedible but you can't sue them for false advertising for claiming that it's tasty.

 Peregrine wrote:
How is it objectively not the best? It might not be the best casting quality among resin models, ...

... and yet GW claims that it is. Hence the suggestion that this is a false statement. There is no 'might not be' involved. 'Fine'cast most certainly is not the best quality resin on the market. A simple comparison between GW's casts and any of the myriad other resin miniature producers out there selling miniatures without airbubbles and excessive flash shows that without any doubt.

 insaniak wrote:
... and yet GW claims that it is. Hence the suggestion that this is a false statement. There is no 'might not be' involved. 'Fine'cast most certainly is not the best quality resin on the market. A simple comparison between GW's casts and any of the myriad other resin miniature producers out there selling miniatures without airbubbles and excessive flash shows that without any doubt.

It's the best casting quality because it's resin formed into the shape of a space marine, so all those other companies don't matter. Saying they're superior is like saying that a flawlessly cast plain cube of resin is the best model because it has the fewest casting flaws.

Anyway, the point is that "I hate it" and "grounds for a lawsuit over false advertising" are two very different things. Finecast is garbage, but you're just not living in the same reality as the rest of us if you think you can sue GW for false advertising over it.

 insaniak wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
How is it objectively not the best? It might not be the best casting quality among resin models, ...

... and yet GW claims that it is. Hence the suggestion that this is a false statement. There is no 'might not be' involved. 'Fine'cast most certainly is not the best quality resin on the market. A simple comparison between GW's casts and any of the myriad other resin miniature producers out there selling miniatures without airbubbles and excessive flash shows that without any doubt.

And yet I'm right, and you are wrong.

It's not the case of me "sticking up" for GW, or a clearly flawed product like finecast. Read all of the comments I have made.

I said that finecast is flawed, but the way GW advertise it isn't illegal, or different from a great many companies clearly dishonest practices. You are inventing a position I have never held because it's easier to argue with.

I entered the discussion saying that as usual, people's emotionally charged response to all things GW is clouding their judgement, and that it is dishonest to claim they are alone in making ridiculous claims with their advertising.

That's it. I'm not praising them, or claiming finecast doesn't suck. I'm simply pointing out that it's ridiculous to claim they are acting illegally.

And they aren't. The advertising sector is heavily regulated. The big companies take as close a line to bs as they can get away with to flog products, if they contravene the rules, the ads get pulled.

Ergo, I'm not sticking up for GW, and I'm not saying finecast is good.. But it's not objective, it's not a matter of opinion.

GW haven't broken the law, at the time of writing, I am right and you are wrong.

 Peregrine wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
... and yet GW claims that it is. Hence the suggestion that this is a false statement. There is no 'might not be' involved. 'Fine'cast most certainly is not the best quality resin on the market. A simple comparison between GW's casts and any of the myriad other resin miniature producers out there selling miniatures without airbubbles and excessive flash shows that without any doubt.

It's the best casting quality because it's resin formed into the shape of a space marine, so all those other companies don't matter. Saying they're superior is like saying that a flawlessly cast plain cube of resin is the best model because it has the fewest casting flaws.

Anyway, the point is that "I hate it" and "grounds for a lawsuit over false advertising" are two very different things. Finecast is garbage, but you're just not living in the same reality as the rest of us if you think you can sue GW for false advertising over it.

Not really, id dare say SGs resin sculpts are a HELL of a lot more detailed than the occasional purity seal on broad expanses of totally not bubbled armour.

I will also add by the way, I can fully understand an auzzies anger at GW.

Clearly you lads get a raw deal and it sucks.. I think you'll find that you and I agree on almost every point, I'm simply saying that there is a difference between dodgy advertising and full blown fraud.

 mattyrm wrote:
[Ergo, I'm not sticking up for GW, and I'm not saying finecast is good.. But it's not objective, it's not a matter of opinion.

It can be objective. It would take a court case to determine that, however.

GW haven't broken the law, at the time of writing, I am right and you are wrong.

Can you cite one time where insaniak or I said that they had? Both of us have said that they're dangerously close to the line.
The FTC doesn't screen every ad before it goes out - it requires someone to report the issue, then investigates, then brings a civil suit. Just because it hasn't happened doesn't mean it cannot.

Report it then, let's see who wins.

Not worth my time or money. And I didn't say theynwere definitely over the line, I said they were close. Or have you found somewhere I've said differently?

rigeld2 wrote:
Not worth my time or money. And I didn't say theynwere definitely over the line, I said they were close. Or have you found somewhere I've said differently?

No mate, as I said, I entered the thread after buzz made a pretty vitriolic post a few pages back simply saying that GW are doing normal bs advertising, hugely bigging up a sub standard product.

I don't disagree with you, I was simply pointing out that anyone who thinks this is either illegal or even uncommon has not been paying attention to life/is being overzealous with their desire to slag GW.

I've been watching infomercials today actually.. Sean T's killer abs, Bosley hair restoration, with photos of blokes with rejuvenated hair even though they look feth all like the guys they are supposed to be six weeks earlier?!

Advertising is ridiculous right across the retail sector, that's the point I was making, card because the turbo rage at GW here is childish. They are acting like most big ass companies, and as I said in my initial post, it's just dishonest to claim otherwise, I'm not in any way excusing the behaviour of advertising execs am I!

 mattyrm wrote:
..., and that it is dishonest to claim they are alone in making ridiculous claims with their advertising.

Who was claiming that they were?

 insaniak wrote:

 mattyrm wrote:
..., and that it is dishonest to claim they are alone in making ridiculous claims with their advertising.

Who was claiming that they were?

Anyone who thinks that it's possible, or even close to possible, to successfully sue GW for false advertising. For that to be possible their marketing claims would have to go well beyond the general (and entirely legal) level of "our FineBurgers are the best ever!" optimism.

 mattyrm wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Not worth my time or money. And I didn't say theynwere definitely over the line, I said they were close. Or have you found somewhere I've said differently?

No mate, as I said, I entered the thread after buzz made a pretty vitriolic post a few pages back simply saying that GW are doing normal bs advertising, hugely bigging up a sub standard product.
...

No offense, but you have reached an almost comical lack of understanding of the applicable laws and standards over the course of this thread. It's rather fascinating, really, how you've consistently become more and more insistent and yet dutifully avoided even the hint of substantiating your point.

I won't say that I'm an attorney, ergo "I'm right and you're wrong", that would be... silly. Instead I will quote Professor David A Hoffman's enjoyable article on puffery (internal citations ommitted);

The purpose of false-advertising law is to ensure that consumers receive
accurate information about products and services that are being sold.Through
the media, advertisers provide information to consumers so that they can make
meaningful choices and for that reason, misleading information can be dangerous
to the consumer.When goods are praised to the point of untruth, “the result is
not informed, intelligent choice, but rather its [sic] perversion; there is no ‘choice’
when selection is a function of competing untruths, deceits, and misleading
comparisons.” Thus, the law judges deception based upon advertisements that,
on a whole, are likely to mislead the general public.

The puffery defense in false-advertising cases protects accused defendant-speakers
whose speech is not factual, i.e., is of a type capable of being falsified.The question
of falsifiability is one of law, and courts and regulators routinely
decide puffery problems by articulating a line between falsifiable and nonfalsifiable
speech....

It is a beauty of the law that of a thing that is a matter of law that has not yet be adjudicated may be said to be... anything by opinion. However, like Schrodinger's cat, until litigated, it is simultaneously everything... and nothing. I will further observe that "Only a foolish lawyer will be quick to label a seller’s statement as puffs or not puffs, and only a reckless one will label a seller’s statement at all..." and since I am neither foolish nor reckless, I shall, therefore, leave such determinations to those worthy folks who wish to bring a class action against GW and the various Hands of the internet. After all, who would dare say that GW's statements were "likely to mislead the general public"...

By happy chance this brings us back to the point which I was actually making in my original post: the shocking disconnect between the (on first impression) factual claims regarding finecast and its quality and the attitude attributed by Lorizael to retail management.

And, Hosanna! this brings us to the actual topic of the thread: why doesn't GW have a community representative?The simplest explanation is that by not having one, they avoid responsibility. A community rep, after all, would be forced to do one of two things: the first option, toe the company line, which would quickly be revealed as diverging far from reality (ultimately trending towards shades of Baghdad Bob), or second, yield to reality (as the manager Lorizael spoke to apparently has) and publicly undermine the absurd statements made by management.

You want to see a difference in corporate culture? Just look at what Privateer Press did during the debacle of the release of their WarRoom App, and compare their massive push to make things right with the... remind me, what exactly did GW do publicly as a response to the launch of finecast?

I can't make a lengthy argument via my galaxy, but as I said, the crux of what I was talking about is your vitriolic post presented above. Filled with clichés about GW making claims that would make a "politician blush"

I mean really, have you listened to a politican!?

I'm not disagreeing with some of your point, and I'm far from a GW apologist. In fact I'm the exact opposite, I have steadfastly refused to buy a FC product due to being in the loop with regards the online community.

But as I've repeated several times, the point is not that GW are being honest regards their advertising, it's that you are making lofty and inflammatory claims about GW because GW piss you off.

Because they refuse to believe that customers know what they want, just like they refuse to believe there are any other wargames/wargaming companies out there, AT ALL.

BronzeJon wrote:
Because they refuse to believe that customers know what they want, just like they refuse to believe there are any other wargames/wargaming companies out there, AT ALL.

why should they? Privateer press doesn't go out of its way to make sure customers know there are 'other' products out there... I never understand when this 'line' pops up as there is not always a reason to acknowledge competition in the marketplace. Why does GW need to 'believe' that PP exists in any capacity as long as people continue to buy space marines like it is heroin?

when your marketing pitch is "we are cheaper than product x" do you need your sales pitch to acknowledge a competing product. I don't see what value there is in GW somehow attempting to somehow internalize to their customer that there are competing products. PP sure as hell doesn't, and is totally non-supportive of third party or competing models when used in their games.

BronzeJon wrote:
Because they refuse to believe that customers know what they want, just like they refuse to believe there are any other wargames/wargaming companies out there, AT ALL.

Yeah and this is what I'm talking about john. Of course its not a case of GW "refusing to believe" that there are other gaming companies or anything else. They are well aware that people play privateer press, they just ignore that because at the moment they make a profit anyway!

I'm not a GW apologist, I just get annoyed at my fellow hobbyists acting like entitled kids. Most big corporate entities are the exact same, and I don't see why grown men act like victims because we happen to like minis. Buy them or don't buy them, sadly, that's the limit of our "entitlement "

GW are merciless mother fethers, but they know what they are doing. They don't feth people by accident do they?!

nkelsch wrote:
why should they? Privateer press doesn't go out of its way to make sure customers know there are 'other' products out there... I never understand when this 'line' pops up as there is not always a reason to acknowledge competition in the marketplace. Why does GW need to 'believe' that PP exists in any capacity as long as people continue to buy space marines like it is heroin?

Because the "we are the special GW (tm) Hobby (tm)" attitude extends to just more than marketing claims and into self-destructive behavior where GW seems to believe their own propaganda. For example, the incredible stupidity of GW not attending general gaming conventions because it would require them to admit to being part of the broader wargaming hobby instead of their own special Hobby with dedicated GW-only fans who love GW just because it's GW. As a result GW gives up on an excellent opportunity to market their games and gain new customers, which is bad for the long-term health of their games.

Peregrine wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
Who was claiming that they were?

Anyone who thinks that it's possible, or even close to possible, to successfully sue GW for false advertising. For that to be possible their marketing claims would have to go well beyond the general (and entirely legal) level of "our FineBurgers are the best ever!" optimism.

That makes no sense.

For starters, nobody would be 'suing' GW for false advertising. There are advertising regulators who take care of that if they receive enough complaints about a particular product and the way it is being promoted.

Secondly, thinking that one company is falsely representing their product in no way equates to thinking that they are the only company that is doing so.