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.

 judgedoug wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
No, you misread me.
You know the 6 pack of coke cans? They say not to be sold individually with a yellow label on them.
Coke or the suppliers to franchise chains will revoke selling to you if you do that.

Don't call it nonsense when you didn't even read what I said.

They say "not labeled for individual resale", because they don't have a label on them. As Sean O Brien succintly put it earlier:

"The vast majority of goods you can. Most soft drinks can be split and sold as single cans or bottles. Many things like crisps and chocolates are available in single serving sizes from vending machines or gas stations. They frown on opening up a big bag of chips and selling those by the handful, but even there...you can find delis that do as much with anything from chips to pickles to drinks from large containers. "

Have you never eaten at a deli and gotten a pickle that they got from a jar?

How many game stores have snacks and drinks that come from 24-packs that are "not labeled for individual retail sale"?

I hope all the White Knights who blindly support this policy also turn in their local game stores to The Coca Cola Company.

A quick googling tells me that many items labeled with "not for resale/individual sale" have identical packaging except for that note, so they DO have all the necessary labeling. The logical conclusion then is that it's because of agreements between the retailer and the distributor.

You have to make the distinction of "who is selling?". If I go to a shop and buy a 24 pack of something I have no agreement with the shop to not resell it and there's no law saying I can't resell it (as long as it's not a prohibited item). If you buy something from a distributor directly and have an agreement "I won't resell these individually", it still might not be illegal, but you risk the supplier cutting you off. I'm GUESSING this is the case with larger supermarkets and such.

It's not a universal "you can't resell things individually", hence the vending machines, chips/pickles from restaurants or going to your local gaming club and buying a single soda that they bought as a 24 pack. The question is whether the people who actually bulk purchased it from the Coca Cola Company have such an agreement.

 Miguelsan wrote:
Sorry but without a source I cannot believe this asinine policy.

M.

Will confirm. This is US/Canada policy. I just got done re-reading the new US terms of sale.

Is it true there was a non-disclosure agreement involed? I know they do it for their managers but didnt think they'd try and force retailers.

 fullheadofhair wrote:
so I am confused. GW terms of trade says you can only use a website to say you have GW inventory in your B&M store. So does this stop the whole emailing thing - like the warstore says, email your order etc

Can a company restrict a whole distribution stream like internet sales to only their website? is that actually legal - what above restraint of trade and stifling competition rules.

Can't believe i'm saying this but....You have to approach it as RAW.

GW resticts the use of a shopping cart, or other similar method to buy their merchandise on the internet. They allow you to advertise that you sell the product.

Calling the store and placing an order is not buying on the internet.

Neal is probably ok, but will not be able to sell bits any longer.

You know if GW had tried this years ago it might have had the intended effect but at this point if they did restrict bitz sales of their own models wont it just help 3rd party manufacturers?

If I can no longer by that 1 meltagun I need I'm not going to buy GWs box of 5 finecast(?) ones, I'm going to go to Anvil Industry's or something and get one of theirs.

 Sean_OBrien wrote:
It is more than that. As the document says, they can yank the account of anyone who sells to you (or someone like you). No doubt, they will have a hard time proving who is the supplier for a given bits company...but there is no shortage of white knights who will be willing to rat out a distributor or retailer who is supplying a bits seller.

If they get one or two of those and follow through with cancelling their trade accounts, then it will have a chilling effect on the remaining distributors as they pull back out of fear of loosing their own accounts.

Even if you are buying at full retail from a company, it is verbotten for them to sell to you if they know youbare in fact a bitz dealer, and it puts their trade account at risk. In theory, it would even if your supply wasnt fully aware that you were a bitz dealer.

They dont need to be all seeing in order to force the change. They just need one or two people who find out either directly or indirectly and report it back to them (see the CHS case for a few names of known white knights).

I see that running into some problems. Some of the larger distributors like Alliance in the US may push back. Having to double check every store that orders GW product is an expenditure of resources they likely don't have. It wouldn't surprise me if this is being review by their lawyers right now. Several hours of lawyer time is cheaper than having to hire a dedicated employee to review and double check all sales.

I also think you are being a bit too paranoid with so called "white knights". When CHS still posted with new releases, they were very confrontational and dismissive of those that accursed them ripping off GW. They had a "what'cha going to about it?" attitude. Talking with people in the industry, they were all surprised it took that long for GW to start messing with CHS.

 jonolikespie wrote:
You know if GW had tried this years ago it might have had the intended effect but at this point if they did restrict bitz sales of their own models wont it just help 3rd party manufacturers?

If I can no longer by that 1 meltagun I need I'm not going to buy GWs box of 5 finecast(?) ones, I'm going to go to Anvil Industry's or something and get one of theirs.

Absolutely. And with moving bunkers to closets and discouraging gaming at GW stores, as well as no longer hosting official tournaments, there's absolutely no reason anymore to avoid 3rd party companies. Unless their stuff looks terrible, of course.

I was already at the non-GW figures with GW bits for my armies. Now it will be non-GW everything and after checking how much bits cost at the local shops I think I'll be saving a lot of money.

M.

I fully expect distributors will push as much as they feel they can, and even larger retailers like The Warstore will as well...

However, I am skeptical as to whether or not GW actually will care. I am guessing that they assume all sales that were stopped by this new policy through independent dealers will go to them, or at least a large enough portion to make up any losses.

If a distributor is shut down, that is an extra 5-10% which goes to them as retailers have to purchase their goods from GW so they dont have to give Alliance their discount. If a webstore is shut down, that is an extra 40-45% which goes to them as they dont need to give the retailer a discount.

I can only imagine their calculation on bits. As opposed to a person buying $10 worth of bits for a project...they instead need to buy one or two complete boxes from GW. Figuring in the various discounts which are in play, that loss of one box to the bit dealer (maybe $20 into GW's pocket) they wouldn't have to get too many people to convert over to buying whole boxes as opposed to the hassles of finding things on the grey markets in order to make up those lost sales.

As far as the paranoia goes, could be...I trust no one. However, I know of a couple people who frequent these message boards who send off an email once a month or more often which amounts to not much more than tattling. There is also a retailer who frequents Warseer who has made it his mission to report any violations of trade terms (or percieved violation). Would be nice if I were wrong, but generally that isnt human nature, especially in the environment that exists online.

they're going to be hard pressed to enforce this one. look at how many sellers there are that sell bits alone. Its really just a pain. I was looking back through one of the old WD issues and that was when they promoted mixing different model kits with their own. Third party bits from some that I've seen are actually better then some of the stuff that GW puts out on their own. Its just stupid for them to do this.

It certainly seems odd behaviour. Bitz sellers, like 3rd party add on sellers promote the hobby.
They make it easier for people to get the cool looking army they're after. Having satisfied that urge to be creative, such people are likely to buy more related product from GW itself including its hobby supplies.
It's easier to justify more expensive items when you've got bargains and specific bitz under your belt.

This is a similar issue to file sharing and so called "illegal downloading". What seems to happen is that such sharing actually stimulates interest in certain titles, especially if they are part of a series and sales go up. On the other side rental stores lose out. That's for video content of course.

Of course advertising, free or otherwise, seems a foreign concept with GW.

cadbren wrote:
This is a similar issue to file sharing and so called "illegal downloading". What seems to happen is that such sharing actually stimulates interest in certain titles, especially if they are part of a series and sales go up. On the other side rental stores lose out. That's for video content of course.

I get the point you're making, but it's very different to file sharing. That is illegal, whereas selling bitz is decidedly not.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

cadbren wrote:
This is a similar issue to file sharing and so called "illegal downloading". What seems to happen is that such sharing actually stimulates interest in certain titles, especially if they are part of a series and sales go up. On the other side rental stores lose out. That's for video content of course.

I get the point you're making, but it's very different to file sharing. That is illegal, whereas selling bitz is decidedly not.

Also people are still paying, at no point are people getting their hands on GW products for free.

There are certainly childishly stupid GW rules that I've known my FLGS to ignore. He will tell regulars when the latest releases are expected even while they're still in the "secrecy" stage, he doesn't pretend specialist games don't exist, and I imagine he'll ignore this.

I imagine most will.

If they eo attempt to enforce any of these things GW will concentrate on on the distributors and leave the distributors to manage the retailers.

I don't imagine Alloance et al will be too keen on loosing GW supply for the sake of bits sellers. If the distributors don't comply it's not like gw do not already have distribution hubs set up. There is a director at gw somewhere rubbing his hands at what he perceives as a win-win situation.

Their imediate lose of local retailers will be replaced by the new raft of GW stores that are starting to pop up I would imagine.

Could this be GWs Death Star coming over the Yavin horizon?

I think it's probably the other way around - GW wouldn't want to lose Alliance. The US, you folks in the UK might recall, is a pretty darn big place. It's like Australia, only people live across the entirety of it ('cept a really hot bit in the south west). The methods of distribution that GW uses in the UK simply don't function in the US (as much as GW wishes they would), and so the LGS method is the only way to get saturation as if they set up enough GW stores to do it they'd go out of business from the overhead costs.

Distribution partners are key in such a broad environment, so I can't imagine GW would be willing to throw away Alliance as a distributor over a few stores selling bits.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I think it's probably the other way around - GW wouldn't want to lose Alliance. The US, you folks in the UK might recall, is a pretty darn big place. It's like Australia, only people live across the entirety of it ('cept a really hot bit in the south west). The methods of distribution that GW uses in the UK simply don't function in the US (as much as GW wishes they would), and so the LGS method is the only way to get saturation as if they set up enough GW stores to do it they'd go out of business from the overhead costs.

Distribution partners are key in such a broad environment, so I can't imagine GW would be willing to throw away Alliance as a distributor over a few stores selling bits.

That all makes perfect sense but GW doesn't see it. In the last financial report (at least I think it was that) Kirby stated he wants 7 or 8 HUNDRED stores to open up in the US in the next few years. Whether or not it works they are trying to impose the UK model on the US, which means crapping all over the FLGSs and replacing them with GW ones.

If Alliance is as big as you guys make it out to be, surely THEY (not GW) have the larger say in the setting of the terms. It's like the Wal-Mart model. "If you want us to distribute your little toys, we do business with whom we please."

Also has a boycott ever been tried?

 doktor_g wrote:

Also has a boycott ever been tried?

It's been suggested pretty much every time GW have done... Well, anything, ever.

Let us know how it goes.

Lol. I've not bought anything for months and my paint que is shrinking nicely thank you very much.
DrG

But the Tau Codex may change all that.... Damn you evil seductress!!!

The only thing I bought this year is a Codex... and even I feel kinda stupid for doing that.

 jonolikespie wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

cadbren wrote:
This is a similar issue to file sharing and so called "illegal downloading". What seems to happen is that such sharing actually stimulates interest in certain titles, especially if they are part of a series and sales go up. On the other side rental stores lose out. That's for video content of course.

I get the point you're making, but it's very different to file sharing. That is illegal, whereas selling bitz is decidedly not.

Also people are still paying, at no point are people getting their hands on GW products for free.

Which makes GWs stance on this even harder to understand. If unauthorised copying with no revenue return can stimulate growth, then how much better is it that someone is stimulating growth AND returning revenue to you.
It seems like pettiness to me. GW simply doesn't want someone making money using their product, even if that person is improving their brand.
I just don't get this corporate model they're going with. GW is essentially a toy company that makes unsophisticated toys and also sells materials to assemble and decorate them with. This is not a high end luxury product; it is kitset toys. The target audience don't give a rat's about branding, it's the product itself they're interested in and the environment in which it takes place.

The idea that bits on their own would confuse the end user or harm the brand is ridiculous. The bits market are those people already well acquainted with the product. If people new to the market saw these bits they'd ignore them not knowing what they were. Hardly a recipe for brand degradation; this micromanaging however is.
Just plain weird.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As for buying stuff, the last lot of stuff I bought was from Warstore, though no bits. Great service too.

I've spent $996 on hobby stuff since the start of the year (I decided to keep track of it this year and immediately regretted it).
Of that about $140 was GW stuff.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Aerethan wrote:
GW can demand all they want, but their ability to enforce any of these terms is laughable.

Can't they simply enforce it by not selling to a retailer who they suspect of on selling to bits sellers? I thought the right to refuse service was a pretty world wide one with only a few exceptions.

Sure, they can, but that doesn't make it a good idea. What's to stop the bitz dealer from moving on to another retailer? At some point, GW would have to stop refusing to sell or go bankrupt from destroying their distribution network.

EDIT: Even if they do manange to get their ban to work, it won't net them the benefit they expect. I've used GS to make molds of small individual pieces I needed a lot of for personal use. It's not hard at all. I'm certainly NOT going to be buying whole kits for that ONE part I need more of...

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I think it's probably the other way around - GW wouldn't want to lose Alliance. The US, you folks in the UK might recall, is a pretty darn big place. It's like Australia, only people live across the entirety of it ('cept a really hot bit in the south west). The methods of distribution that GW uses in the UK simply don't function in the US (as much as GW wishes they would), and so the LGS method is the only way to get saturation as if they set up enough GW stores to do it they'd go out of business from the overhead costs.

Distribution partners are key in such a broad environment, so I can't imagine GW would be willing to throw away Alliance as a distributor over a few stores selling bits.

I agree with your reasoning...I just haven't seen any evidence that makes me think GW is capable of such thoughts.

Like I said, it is just as likely that they assume any store who would have been supplied by a distributor would instead become supplied directly by GW at a larger percentage of the profit. It is the same reasoning that they applied when the initial embargo was put in place with online carts...and the next embargo put in place against Australia...and now these new terms.

They assume that people NEED to buy their product, and will do so from them if they cut off other routes by which people can obtain them. Whether it is a customer who doesnt have easy access to a local game store who they think will be forced into buying from their online store or a game store who they can now leverage the trade terms on (minimum stock levels, in store display rules)...I truely believe that they think the loss of any trade partner will end up benefitting them in the end.

Alliance sells GW at 60% MSRP to our store. If you buy direct from GW you get it at 45% MSRP. Alliance is making 15% so I don't think they are complaining. The nice thing about buying through alliance is it allows us to continue doing bits and selling online. The downside, margins are smaller.

It could be a very risky mistake by them considering the US is the place where other mini games seem to be on the rise much more than elsewhere in the world. If anything they could be playing right into the hands of Privateer Press etc.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I think it's probably the other way around - GW wouldn't want to lose Alliance. The US, you folks in the UK might recall, is a pretty darn big place. It's like Australia, only people live across the entirety of it ('cept a really hot bit in the south west). The methods of distribution that GW uses in the UK simply don't function in the US (as much as GW wishes they would), and so the LGS method is the only way to get saturation as if they set up enough GW stores to do it they'd go out of business from the overhead costs.

Distribution partners are key in such a broad environment, so I can't imagine GW would be willing to throw away Alliance as a distributor over a few stores selling bits.

While I appreciate the condesention, you have missed the point.

In the long term GW are seeking to expand massively in the US, their inhouse distribution infrastructure will need to be in place before this can happen, so where they supply to Flgs or GW shouldnt make a great deal of differance. Whether this works remains to be seen.

If Alliance ceased to be supplied would more FLGs directly order from the great satan to maintain supply, you would think so if they have demand there already.

Realistically I don't think that it would happen; Alliance want the product to sell, GW want the market presence and the money. They will pinch their noses and take a bite of whatever is served up. GW have options, Distributors don't.

You know, technically, selling kits to TO's that are going to use them as prizes is against the TOS.

 TBD wrote:
It could be a very risky mistake by them considering the US is the place where other mini games seem to be on the rise much more than elsewhere in the world. If anything they could be playing right into the hands of Privateer Press etc.

As a long time GW fan who has been turned away over the last couple years, I can safely tell you it's not to privateer press that I'll run. PP has been around for a while and even though they have stolen a lot of gamers from GW, from what I see most play both, but are doing less GW buying.

For me it's the look and story of the models. I don't like the look of the PP figures, just not my style. They are really nice and a solid theme, just not what I am looking for, your opinions may vary.

This anti bits sales really just make me lean more towards games that supply all the bits I'll need. Mark at dreamforge games packs his spruces so tight that you'll never run out of options. And at half the price of GW, that's where I am going. I used to buy bits from GW for years when they had the mail order trolls. They would make you deals to sell off parts like crazy. This was good for GW, I can see casting costs go up, but if they were smart they could easily recut molds to produce a sprue of mark IV helmets and sell them cheaper than bit sites. Melts guns, put 100 on a sprue, sell them a $1.00 each online and be done.

Why is there competition an bad feelings from fans? Why do the bits sellers and other third party guys exist?

Because GW is lazy, and think that they are the only option in town. Get over yourselves GW, lets get back to basics. No more super sized models to increase margin. Just get all the models for your rules out when you put out rules. Make the game affordable. And get back to customer service.