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.

Kingsley, are you playing devils advocate, living in opposite land or just wilfully ignorant?

I am too tired to dismantle your arguments now, I have no doubt a poster who lives in a different time zone will gleefully do so, but if not, I'll get around to it when I've had some sleep.

JWhex wrote:
The thing that seems to be overlooked a lot is that GW appears to have very conciously chosen as its target a younger age group that they want to churn and burn.

1. Where has that been overlooked?
2. How is it at all relevant to GW’s participation in a trade show?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 azreal13 wrote:
Kingsley, are you ... living in opposite land or just wilfully ignorant?

Why can't it be both?

 azreal13 wrote:
Kingsley, are you playing devils advocate, living in opposite land or just wilfully ignorant?

I am too tired to dismantle your arguments now, I have no doubt a poster who lives in a different time zone will gleefully do so, but if not, I'll get around to it when I've had some sleep.

No, no, leave him alone - he gave me the best laugh that I have had in days!

The Auld Grump

 heartserenade wrote:

There is no company currently producing a game with Warhammer 40k or Warhammer Fantasy's number of miniatures on the field at once and level of customizability of one's forces, though Dream Forge might be positioned to potentially do so in the future.

Because wargaming is only limited to customizability of one's forces and the number of miniatures fielded at once.

Certainly it isn't. But the Warhammer 40k experience is fundamentally different, from, say the Infinity experience. Smaller skirmish games are very different from a 40k battle with potentially 200+ models to a side. Pen-and-paper RPG experiences are qualitatively much more similar to one another than 40k is to Infinity. My point is not that GW doesn't have competitors-- it clearly does-- but rather that GW's competitors are not as easy to substitute for GW as TSR's competitors were for TSR.

Oh yes, Starcraft 2's Heart of the Swarm isn't such a huge success and the competitive scene for RTS is not really that good even though they give millions of dollars as cash prizes in tournaments and professional teams play them seriously and they have huge fanbases! RTSes are really dead in the water and a money sink!

Starcraft 2 would be successful even if it sucked, so it isn't a good example. RTSes have been unpopular for about a decade with few exceptions. It's possible that they will come back as a popular genre, but even still it's hard to see them on the same level as FPS, RPG, or MOBA games.

 Kingsley wrote:
[
Certainly it isn't. But the Warhammer 40k experience is fundamentally different, from, say the Infinity experience. Smaller skirmish games are very different from a 40k battle with potentially 200+ models to a side.

Vampire: the Masquerade is a different experience from D&D's Greyhawk universe. Eating in Burger King is a different experience from eating in Mcdonald's.

That doesn't mean they're not competitors.

Pen-and-paper RPG experiences are qualitatively much more similar to one another than 40k is to Infinity.

Have YOU played any tabletop RPG's? Setting aside, even the rules have a very different feel to it. Even 4th Ed DnD and 3/3.5 are vastly different: ruleswise 4th plays more like a videogame and 3/3.5 plays like a complicated jumble of customization (both are good in their own rights in my opinion), which offers different playing experiences

Starcraft 2 would be successful even if it sucked, so it isn't a good example.

That's like saying GW will be successful even if it sucked, so it isn't a good example.

Or saying that D&D as a tabletop RPG is unpopular before the early 90s, because all the other tabletop RPGS are unpopular back then.

If an RTS is played by huge number of gamers TODAY, then it is not dead as a genre.

But again, do not let logic bar your way.

 Kingsley wrote:
2. This perpetuated the brand dilution described earlier for TSR, where people were "Ravenloft players" or "Dark Sun players" but not "D&D players" or "TSR players." GW, like it or not, has been very, very successful at creating a lot of "GW players."

Really? you don't think it's just as fragmented between 40K players, WHFB players, LOTR players, and all of those who just play Specialist games?

I know some 40K players who also play WHFB or LOTR (less likely to be all 3)... but nobody who would identify themselves as a 'GW player'... The 'GW Hobby' is a term that is bandied about far more by GW and their employees than by the players.

Internet retailers have been restrained in the US since 2001 or 2003 and by all accounts this has increased sales.

Which accounts would those be?

 heartserenade wrote:

 Kingsley wrote:
[
Certainly it isn't. But the Warhammer 40k experience is fundamentally different, from, say the Infinity experience. Smaller skirmish games are very different from a 40k battle with potentially 200+ models to a side.

Vampire: the Masquerade is a different experience from D&D's Greyhawk universe. Eating in Burger King is a different experience from eating in Mcdonald's.

That doesn't mean they're not competitors.

Yes, but again, Burger King and McDonalds are much more similar than 40k and Infinity.

 heartserenade wrote:

Pen-and-paper RPG experiences are qualitatively much more similar to one another than 40k is to Infinity.

Have YOU played any tabletop RPG's? Setting aside, even the rules have a very different feel to it. Even 4th Ed DnD and 3/3.5 are vastly different: ruleswise 4th plays more like a videogame and 3/3.5 plays like a complicated jumble of customization (both are good in their own rights in my opinion), which offers different playing experiences

I've played three different editions of D&D, Paranoia, GI, Dark Heresy, Deathwatch, and Eclipse Phase. All of those games are far more similar to one another than 40k is to Infinity, and they comprise a huge range of settings, rules, and encouraged styles of play. I'm not talking about rules or settings but the fundamental elements of gameplay.

If an RTS is played by huge number of gamers TODAY, then it is not dead as a genre.

But again, do not let logic bar your way.

I am not exactly professing an unusual minority opinion here.

I'm grateful some people read the article and have Exalted Sean for his on point analysis but... Kingsley are you just trolling at this point?

I'm coming to this conclusion after having played in this hobby for 16 years. Granted I don't have the lauded post history but, building winning club tables for NA Gamesday, building relationships with GW staff that have come and gone from the company, talking to multiple store owners. How can i not come to the conclusion that GW is a slowly sinking ship?

If i wanted to sum up my response to everything you have said "Citation needed" would be my canned response.

Here's a question you can answer:
If FFG or any other publisher did not have the license for the 40k RPG would GW be Less popular? more popular? or no difference?

 insaniak wrote:
I know some 40K players who also play WHFB or LOTR (less likely to be all 3)... but nobody who would identify themselves as a 'GW player'... The 'GW Hobby' is a term that is bandied about far more by GW and their employees than by the players.

Very few would call themselves "GW players." Very many would be "GW players." "The GW Hobby" is a piece of marketing-speak that is often lampooned, but GW has been successful in creating a lot of people who see tabletop wargaming as just that-- the GW hobby.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Warboss Gubbinz wrote:
I'm grateful some people read the article and have Exalted Sean for his on point analysis but... Kingsley are you just trolling at this point?

Nope. Dakka (or at least Dakka Discussions) is just that far gone. Having an opinion other than "GW sucks" looks like trolling here because of the extent to which the forum culture has embraced hating GW.

 Warboss Gubbinz wrote:
I'm coming to this conclusion after having played in this hobby for 16 years. Granted I don't have the lauded post history but, building winning club tables for NA Gamesday, building relationships with GW staff that have come and gone from the company, talking to multiple store owners. How can i not come to the conclusion that GW is a slowly sinking ship?

Well, I've been in the hobby (the tabletop wargaming hobby, NOT the "GW hobby"-- for several years I was playing only non-GW games) for 15 years myself, and it just so happens that through my experiences I've drawn a different conclusion. That's fine, there's nothing wrong with disagreeing-- but saying that I'm trolling because I have a different conclusion to you isn't the way to go.

 Warboss Gubbinz wrote:
If i wanted to sum up my response to everything you have said "Citation needed" would be my canned response.

That's my response to you as well, sadly. I've provided arguments for why GW isn't as degenerate as people think. Instead of engaging with my arguments or providing evidence, you're implying that I'm a troll.

 Warboss Gubbinz wrote:
Here's a question you can answer:
If FFG or any other publisher did not have the license for the 40k RPG would GW be Less popular? more popular? or no difference?

I suspect 40k would be less popular without the RPG tie-ins, though I'm not sure by how much.

 Kingsley wrote:

Yes, but again, Burger King and McDonalds are much more similar than 40k and Infinity..

Woaw, you really speaking from a different dimension, that is like saying that mercedes and BMW are not competitors because they are not similar cars.

 Jehan-reznor wrote:

 Kingsley wrote:

Yes, but again, Burger King and McDonalds are much more similar than 40k and Infinity..

Woaw, you really speaking from a different dimension, that is like saying that mercedes and BMW are not competitors because they are not similar cars.

That's not what I said. I said that Burger King and McDonalds are competitors, and more direct competitors than 40k and Infinity.

Yes, but again, Burger King and McDonalds are much more similar than 40k and Infinity.

KFC, then? They sell mostly chicken, and yet still McDonald's competitor. Or any other fast food, for that matter.

I've played three different editions of D&D, Paranoia, GI, Dark Heresy, Deathwatch, and Eclipse Phase. All of those games are far more similar to one another than 40k is to Infinity, and they comprise a huge range of settings, rules, and encouraged styles of play. I'm not talking about rules or settings but the fundamental elements of gameplay.

Rules and setting aren't fundamental elements of gameplay?

What are the fundamental elements of gameplay in wargaming? Miniatures, terrain, a board, game rules and usually dice. Warmahordes, Malifaux, Infinity and all the others have those, too.

So what exactly constitutes a "fundamental element" of gameplay? Number of models? Surely number of models can't trump, say... having miniatures or terrain or board or rules as a fundamental element, right?

I am not exactly professing an unusual minority opinion here.

So going by that logic, when D&D hit the market, it's not popular because it's the only tabletop RPG everyone knows?

Going by that logic, that also applies to GW during the 90s. Was wargaming was considered "dead" back then because GW is the only game in town? How is that different from Starcraft 2 being the only RTS being played today (albeit being played by a horde of players)?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Nope. Dakka (or at least Dakka Discussions) is just that far gone. Having an opinion other than "GW sucks" looks like trolling here because of the extent to which the forum culture has embraced hating GW.

Nope. It's more of having stupid opinions that gets people, really.

Trying to pass off those that disagree with your points as 'GW haters' or, worse, trying to paint the forum with a big ol' "If you don't hate GW then you don't belong" brush just stinks of someone incapable of backing up their statements.

The fact that so many people gawk at the stuff you're posting Kingsley seems to indicate your detachment from reality.

So, trying to understand this properly, Kingsley, what is your vew of GW? how are they helping the "hobby" per say.

You said you couldn't see any parallels with TSR. TSR tried to enforce copyright over the word "Dragon"

Games Workshop, you may recall claimed trademark infringement on the word Space Marine.Link

How are these not similar?

 Kingsley wrote:
Very few would call themselves "GW players." Very many would be "GW players."

Fewer than once might have been, I suspect.

That sort of brand loyalty was much bigger back in the '90s, when we had the 40K crowd versus the Warzone crowd. These days? Not so much. GW have done too much to destroy the goodwill that they fostered back then.

The 'GW Hobby' marketspeak is exactly that. Nothing more.

Nope. Dakka (or at least Dakka Discussions) is just that far gone. Having an opinion other than "GW sucks" looks like trolling here because of the extent to which the forum culture has embraced hating GW.

It's really easy to just dismiss all of the 'haterz' as just doing it to be fashionable and ignore the underlying reasons for it.

My current contempt for GW has nothing to do with being one of the crowd. I've spent time on both sides of the fence, and my current distaste for GW and their business practices is something that they have earned through their own actions, not through any hivemind feeling on these or any other boards.

 heartserenade wrote:

Yes, but again, Burger King and McDonalds are much more similar than 40k and Infinity.

KFC, then? They sell mostly chicken, and yet still McDonald's competitor. Or any other fast food, for that matter.

The fundamentals of going to KFC or McDonalds (or indeed any fast food restaurant) are more similar than 40k is to Infinity.

 heartserenade wrote:
Rules and setting aren't fundamental elements of gameplay?

What are the fundamental elements of gameplay in wargaming? Miniatures, terrain, a board, game rules and usually dice. Warmahordes, Malifaux, Infinity and all the others have those, too.

The fundamental elements of gameplay are what you do when you play the game. For all those RPGs, you sit down with some character sheets and a DM and you take turns telling a story, with the DM guiding the situation and the players reacting. Dice are then rolled to determine how different planned actions influence the game world, and play continues from there.

 heartserenade wrote:
So what exactly constitutes a "fundamental element" of gameplay? Number of models? Surely number of models can't trump, say... having miniatures or terrain or board or rules as a fundamental element, right?

The key difference is that GW stresses customization, modeling, conversions, and making your army your own to a much higher degree than other manufacturers. To put it another way, a lot of companies sell games and models. GW sells the entire hobby experience, and does so to an extent that is not seen with its competitors. One critical strength that helps GW with this approach is their multi-part plastic kits, which until recently have been very difficult for rivals to compete with. Dreamforge Games is coming close, and Defiance Games would probably be there already if not for their logistical issues, but until that is cleared serious competition with GW will be very difficult.

 heartserenade wrote:
So going by that logic, when D&D hit the market, it's not popular because it's the only tabletop RPG everyone knows?

No, but tabletop RPGs weren't exactly a strong genre on the basis of D&D alone, just as RTS isn't a strong genre on the basis of Starcraft alone. There are some somewhat promising projects-- Planetary Annihilation and Company of Heroes 2, for instance-- but by and large the glory days of RTS look to be over. At the very least, the genre is in a slump.

 heartserenade wrote:
Nope. It's more of having stupid opinions that gets people, really.

This is what I mean when I say this forum is biased, The very idea that GW could be not all that bad is considered "stupid."

HBMC wrote:Trying to pass off those that disagree with your points as 'GW haters' or, worse, trying to paint the forum with a big ol' "If you don't hate GW then you don't belong" brush just stinks of someone incapable of backing up their statements.

On the contrary, I'm the one posting arguments as to why various comparisons to GW aren't valid, while others in the thread insult me and call me a troll.

HBMC wrote:The fact that so many people gawk at the stuff you're posting Kingsley seems to indicate your detachment from reality.

Only the consensus reality prevalent here on Dakka Discussions.

 Kingsley wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
I know some 40K players who also play WHFB or LOTR (less likely to be all 3)... but nobody who would identify themselves as a 'GW player'... The 'GW Hobby' is a term that is bandied about far more by GW and their employees than by the players.

Very few would call themselves "GW players." Very many would be "GW players." "The GW Hobby" is a piece of marketing-speak that is often lampooned, but GW has been successful in creating a lot of people who see tabletop wargaming as just that-- the GW hobby.

Unless their only experience is at a GW store (which, since those are no longer even gaming environments, will be exactly no one soon), this is entirely false. Even if someone's preferred game is one of the warhammers they're still going to be aware of the many alternatives to GW.

 Warboss Gubbinz wrote:
I'm grateful some people read the article and have Exalted Sean for his on point analysis but... Kingsley are you just trolling at this point?

Nope. Dakka (or at least Dakka Discussions) is just that far gone. Having an opinion other than "GW sucks" looks like trolling here because of the extent to which the forum culture has embraced hating GW.

It's because everything you say is entirely false, or is such a tenuous twisting of truth as to effectively be false. For instance: GW's prices haven't improved because some kits have switched to plastic (let's look at the plastic kits, shall we? In the past two years, some plastic kits have increased in price by nearly 50% (and codices have outright doubled)), and inflation (which they've outpaced several times over) applies to necessities, inconsistently, and almost never luxury goods, which trend towards decreasing in price on account of improved manufacturing or superior competition. GW has slashed their expenses, and is facing competitors providing vastly superior sculpts at either modestly higher prices (if comparing GW plastics, since the competitors tend to be metal) or radically lower prices (if comparing GW's finecast rubbish). Their prices should be decreasing. Instead, only their sales decrease, with the drop in profit concealed by slashing expenses and jacking up prices.

 insaniak wrote:

Internet retailers have been restrained in the US since 2001 or 2003 and by all accounts this has increased sales.

Which accounts would those be?

Obviously that North American Sales skyrocketed after the 2003 (GW FY2004) internet ban went in place...wait...nope, that didn't happen:

2001 - 31,539,000
2002 - 32,791,000 (launch of LotR game)
2003 - 32,218,000
2004 - 33,110,000 (US Internet shopping cart ban and GW global sales high point)
2005 - 29,624,000 (with the ginormous price hike)
2006 - 27,766,000
2007 - 25,534,000
2008 - 26,844,000
2009 - 29,904,000
2010 - 31,270,000
2011 - 30,250,000
2012 - 33,621,000

All in pounds of course...but, the evidence clearly shows that the internet ban has been excellent for growing sales in the US...oh, my bad again...it didn't instill growth at all.

If I facepalm much more, i'm not going to have a face left. I think we need a forum just for GW defenders. You know, the ones who see a mirage of GW Care Bears and insist they're real.

Nice sales figures there Sean, I wonder just how much of the latest figures are comprised of profit margin modifications - aka sacking staff etc.

Well that's easy to see when you compare the rising revenue to the falling sales. The difference is being made up in higher prices, cost cutting (1-man stores/closing stores) and selling out as many video game licenses as humanly possible.

 Kingsley wrote:

The fundamental elements of gameplay are what you do when you play the game.

I roll dice, push some models around and make tactical decisions and army lists when playing skirmish games. Not different from 40k, yes?

The key difference is that GW stresses customization, modeling, conversions, and making your army your own to a much higher degree than other manufacturers.

And Burger King sells mostly burgers while KFC sells mostly chicken. NEWSFLASH: burgers and chickens are vastly different. They're not even made of the same meat. Unless it's a chicken burger.

You can't convert your own army and make it your own with other games, or customize them? WHAT GAMES HAVE I BEEN PLAYING? The most basic of differences between 40k games and skirmish games is the number of models.

Number of models don't change the fact that I roll dice on some board with terrain and push miniatures around while making tactical decisions and army lists.

No, but tabletop RPGs weren't exactly a strong genre on the basis of D&D alone, just as RTS isn't a strong genre on the basis of Starcraft alone.

Notice i said when D&D is the only game in town?

Can you please explain that logic with regards to GW being the only game in town back then, thus by your logic it would be considered "dead"?

This is what I mean when I say this forum is biased, The very idea that GW could be not all that bad is considered "stupid."

No, being stupid is considered "stupid". Trying to defend a position while cherry-picking evidence (or not using evidence at all) is "stupid". Shoving opinion as facts is "stupid".

On the contrary, I'm the one posting arguments as to why various comparisons to GW aren't valid, while others in the thread insult me and call me a troll.

Trust me, it's not because you "back" your arguments, it's because your cherry-picked evidence sucks.

HBMC wrote:The fact that so many people gawk at the stuff you're posting Kingsley seems to indicate your detachment from reality.

Only the consensus reality prevalent here on Dakka Discussions.

In the reality I live in, GW pirces are going down, not up.

 Sean_OBrien wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

Internet retailers have been restrained in the US since 2001 or 2003 and by all accounts this has increased sales.

Which accounts would those be?

Obviously that North American Sales skyrocketed after the 2003 (GW FY2004) internet ban went in place...wait...nope, that didn't happen:

2001 - 31,539,000
2002 - 32,791,000 (launch of LotR game)
2003 - 32,218,000
2004 - 33,110,000 (US Internet shopping cart ban and GW global sales high point)
2005 - 29,624,000 (with the ginormous price hike)
2006 - 27,766,000
2007 - 25,534,000
2008 - 26,844,000
2009 - 29,904,000
2010 - 31,270,000
2011 - 30,250,000
2012 - 33,621,000

All in pounds of course...but, the evidence clearly shows that the internet ban has been excellent for growing sales in the US...oh, my bad again...it didn't instill growth at all.

It seems pretty clear that other elements (like the LotR boom and bust) are more important there than the Internet sales ban. GW claims the Internet sales ban and the much later rumor embargo have both increased overall sales. One might question why they are expanding these policies if they do not.

heartserenade wrote:words words words

It's pretty clear our perspectives on wargaming differ greatly, and I don't think that talking to you in this thread is productive anymore, so I'm going to stop replying.

Yes, which would be why the 2001 number (prior to the release of the LotR game) is higher than every year outside of the LotR period except for last year...

GW is very good at spinning things as "good things" - very rarely are they telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

11 years of possible growth in one of the largest consumer economies in the world and they manage to do absolutely nothing to their top end sales figure. During that time, prices have gone up on average 40% on an army build...and no change at all. So, does it make sense that what GW says about good for sales would be true? Nah...that would be crazy talk.

 Kingsley wrote:
GW claims the Internet sales ban and the much later rumor embargo have both increased overall sales. One might question why they are expanding these policies if they do not.

If that's what GW claim, the numbers Sean posted disagree with that. It took 7 years after the shopping cart ban and the price hike to get back to the level they were at pre-LOTR boom. Even before the global financial crisis they had dropped below the pre-LOTR boom values.

 Kingsley wrote:

heartserenade wrote:words words words

It's pretty clear our perspectives on wargaming differ greatly, and I don't think that talking to you in this thread is productive anymore, so I'm going to stop replying.

That, or I make sense while you... don't.

It's not a matter of perspective. If you can't refute what I said, it's better to say that instead of claim "nah, our perspectives are just different."

 heartserenade wrote:
It's not a matter of perspective. If you can't refute what I said, it's better to say that instead of claim "nah, our perspectives are just different."

I don't think you're making real arguments or trying to understand my points and you're being too insulting for me to want to interact with you. What I said was an attempt to say that politely.

 Kingsley wrote:

 heartserenade wrote:
It's not a matter of perspective. If you can't refute what I said, it's better to say that instead of claim "nah, our perspectives are just different."

I don't think you're making real arguments or trying to understand my points and you're being too insulting for me to want to interact with you. What I said was an attempt to say that politely.

I don't think you're making real arguments either because your arguments are insulting to people who think.

I tried understanding your points. They don't make sense.

Now I'm not saying that you're a stupid person. What I'm saying is that your arguments are stupid. I'm not trying to be insulting, I'm simply stating that fact, and many posters in this thread will agree.

@ Sir Pseudonymous - Yea. I've got the 2011 GW Trade Price changes. It was a nasty increase then and it will be once when the usual June price increase rolls around.

@ Kingsley - Interesting read.

Here's a chart for console gaming.

http://www.vgchartz.com/article/250880/2013-year-on-year-sales-and-market-share-update-to-march-30th/

Another chart for standard console global spikes.

http://www.vgchartz.com/tools/hw_date.php

Click on the all tab to see the cycle of the console hardware sales

Here's one in Time's web site

http://business.time.com/2013/02/11/game-over-why-video-game-console-sales-are-plummeting/


Oh and starcraft 2. Incredibly popular around the world with hundreds of thousands of dollars in prize money every year. I'm rooting for Axiom Acer in the GSTL leagues .

http://www.gomtv.net/

Enjoy.

It is also important to see how much of a bump the LotR sales gave the US...

From 2001 (before LotR) - they were at 31.5 million pounds. At the height of the "LotR bubble" they were at 33.1 million pounds. That is a change of around 5%. Normally that would not qualify as being bubble worthy. Europe saw a greater rise than the US did on LotR sales...but we are not talking about Europe or GW's global sales - just the North American segment and the US in particular (as it relates to the internet ban being "a good thing").

The drop that followed the "LotR bubble" (which I think was largely a myth...at least in the US - I don't recall seeing or hearing of a game of that ever being played even during the high point of the movies) happens to coincide with the ban and the first big price hike.

The price hike in 2005 was roughly 15% on an army build. And their sales figures plummeted. 2006 was another hike of 7% and the sales dropped some more. 2007 and 2008 prices stabilized for a bit - and sales flattened out.

Nah...GW said it is all a good thing, so it must be true.

 Kingsley wrote:
It seems pretty clear that other elements (like the LotR boom and bust) are more important there than the Internet sales ban. GW claims the Internet sales ban and the much later rumor embargo have both increased overall sales.

Yes, they keep claiming these things... but the sales figures don't appear to back them up.

One might question why they are expanding these policies if they do not.

One could postulate that it's because big businesses are incredibly political creatures, and if someone high up the food chain has an idea that these newfangled interwebs are bad for their chosen business model, those underneath who have the thankless job of making everything actually work just have to make the best of it.

I was a fill-in manaager for Kmart here in Oz around the turn of the century. We had a wage-costing system that applied specific time increments to every conceivable task that our staff had to do throughout their shifts, which we could supposedly use to build effective rosters. This had been the brainchild of someone with a degree at head office who had never worked a day in his life on a sales floor, and it simply didn't work... but nobody could say so, and whenever we had a 'surprise'* visit from head office staff, we had to get extra staff in (with those hours carefully hidden in that weeks' rostering) to get the store back into some semblence of order so that it would appear that everything was trundling along as expected.

* 'Surprise' visits were preceded by at least 24 hours notice, so that head office didn't run the risk of turning up before the store had been made ready, so that everyone on both sides of the fence could keep up the illusion that everything was fine.

This is, as should be painfully apparent, an absolutely insane way to run a business. But it's how big business works. Things happen not because they are the best thing that should happen. They happen because someone who is currently in favour with the boss (or the boss himself) had a clever idea.