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.

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
If prices went up by 5% and revenue went up by 6.5%, does that not mean that sales increased by 1.5%?

Not necessarily.

If they cut out costs by closing stores that had lost them money the previous year, then that would cause revenue to go up.

Additionally, laying off people or other reductions in cost will drive revenue up without a bump in sales.

I don't have numbers, either way, in GW's case. But I've seen previous graphs that have shown sales as flat to trailing off in these threads before.

 Aerethan wrote:
Sales= total number of transactions or number of actual product sold.

Revenue=total gross income of all sales

Profit= Revenue minus overhead.

So GW cut costs(meaning overhead) so that the profit per sale is higher. Then GW did a price hike, so that the revenue AND profit per transaction is higher.

When you compound both of those and only see the amount of growth they've had in recent years, it indicates that GW has had fewer or the same sales. Cutting costs and raising prices are not growth, and growth is what matters.

That's all based on supposition. Although their operating costs have been reduced, for many companies commodities prices - energy, petroleum-based raw materials - have shot up so it's extremely doubtful whether their cost base has reduced a huge amount overall. If they've put up prices by 10 per cent, that could well be accompanied by an increase of 5 per cent in raw material costs. That's what most businesses are going through. And however you cut it, their revenues are up. There's a good case for saying their user base is static - but in this market, that's pretty good for discretionary purchases. Look at their publicly-quoted rivals, and that's a pretty good result.

We might all hate GW and their price gouging, but the fact remains that most companies would kill for a 10 per cent rise in earnings per share, year on year. They're doing better than comparable companies, like Hornby, who've outsourced their production to China. They deserve massive credit for that alone.

GW get a lot of stick compared to newer companies who are getting a great rep, often because their prices are lower. But do we know the workers in those Chinese factories, used by those newer companies, have any employment rights? Does exporting jobs from the UK or US to China make you a good guy?

Jack_Death wrote:
Who are the "host of competitors" that are eating GW's lunch? Are any of them multi-national public companies with verifiable revenues?

Most of them are private companies with international reach and therefor no verifiable revenues but have expanding ranges and player bases, and are taking market share from GW. There are figures showing that the wargaming market grew by about 10% in the US yet GW never saw that growth so it must have gone somewhere else.

Some companies which have had significant growth lately (in terms of ranges and market share at least, but we can also assume revenue are) Privateer Press (Warmachine), Corvus Beli (Infiniti), Warlord Games (Bolt Action, Hail Ceasar, Black Powder), Gripping Beast (Saga), Battlefront (FoW, now Dust), Mantic (KoW, Warpath, Dreadball).

There are dozens (if not hundreds) of other wargaming/mini's companies appearing and enjoying good growth due to improvements in technology (design, manufacture, distribution and marketing) and things like Kickstarter.

None of those companies were really on the radar 10 years ago, but are growing in popularity, catalog and size, whilst GW appears to be shrinking. So I think it's safe to say they are eating GW's lunch without having access to their accounts.

Sorry, technical glitch...

Dakkamites, I think you totally saw where I was going with my question.

Over 6 years, on average revenue grew at only about 2% to 3%.

Same time period, on average price increased at IIRC 5%, but I trust you more on 10% to 25%.

So even if you assume no new players, no increase in volume, revenue should go up 5%, 10%, 25%.

(What you said about profitability is right, I'm just looking at the top line as that's more telling.)

You see the gap. Sales volume is NOT stagnating. It's decreasing steadily. GW's bleeding out.

They're selling less per player or losing players (customers always churn out, but you earn new ones).

---

Jack_Death wrote:
During a global recession, while headquartered in a particularly hard-hit economy. I get the hate, but really, this is a 100MM company that sells little green men. They are doing something right.

Yeah, I considered that, too. It's a fair point, IMHO.

I hope that gap between a small revenue increase vs. a large price hike is temporary.

Cost-cutting is a temporary measure, after all. You can't save your way to success.

I'm hoping that gap just means selling less per player rather than negative customer churn.

I'd expect to see some initiatives to win players back. Is the Hobbit game all they have to do that?

So GW's not growing, they're cutting costs (which will inhibit growth more), and have no growth plan?

I don't know, but from this very simple exercise, GW's business looks really unhealthy.

---

Oh, and I also retract my point about buying GW stock for the AGM's free food and swag:

If you would like more transparency on Games Workshop, come to our annual general meeting. You will see our facilities, and maybe be quite surprised by how interesting they are. You will get to meet all the people who do the important things and talk to them about their jobs. You will also get, if such is your desire, a foaming pint of Bugman’s best in our famous bar. No, shareholders do not get a discount on beer. We don’t do discounts, not even for you.

Tom Kirby
Chairman
30 July 2012

I have to pay for my food and beverage at an AGM? No way, no point buying GW stock now.

Man, to say something like that, I think Kirby's deliberately driving down stock prices for a buyback.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BryllCream wrote:oh yeah, I meant revenue. It's still valid though, revenue is up, profits are up...only on dakka does that mean it's doomed

Not when you consider the price hikes, and that it was the first real growth in FOUR years.

When growth is not even close to keeping up with price hikes, that's bad.

That's a sign of kinda price gouging, failed price gouging at that. GW's not exactly doing that, but close.

ExNoctemNacimur wrote:If prices went up by 5% and revenue went up by 6.5%, does that not mean that sales increased by 1.5%?

I'm assuming the 6.5% increase refers to the 2011 to 2012 bump, am I right?

If you look at only 1 year, you'd be about right (1.425%). Again, not when you consider other factors.

The 5% was my number, the average increase in prices year-on-year IIRC.

Others say 10%, 20%, 25%, which in retrospect is a little closer.

Since I already typed it out, here's the last 7 years again.

2012: 131m
2011: 123m
2010: 127m
2009: 125m
2008: 110m
2007: 110m
2006: 114m

So you had that price hike every year or so, but you see periods of 0 growth or negative growth.

The average revenue growth year-on-year is about 2% to 3%.

That's less than even my conservative 5% year-on-year price increase.

So it's like, you've been hiking prices every year, and after 4 years, you finally see a pay-off.

Again, that's not good. However, as before, it's more understandable considering the recession.

Why the hell does decreased volume equate to stagnation? If gw sell one box for a million pound profit, that's better than selling a hundred thousand boxes at a pound profit each

 BryllCream wrote:
Why the hell does decreased volume equate to stagnation?

I can't believe you just legitimately asked that question.

There's no law in this country that companies have to sell as many products as possible at a low margin. Selling fewer kits for more money clearly makes financial sense so where's the issue?

Ok, you can't believe it, but his point is perfectly valid. High-volume low-margin is a high risk strategy. One wrong move and your inventory is worth less than the cost of production. If we postulate that GW believe they are in a boutique industry (as they have plainly stated) it follows that maximizing profits, not revenues, is the winning play. They may believe that organic growth will be driven by local evangelical efforts on the ground (as they have plainly stated). They may believe that this strategy focuses on price-insensitive buyers (which follows, but isn't as plainly stated). So, a perfectly logical plan might focus on making higher margin sales at the expense of growing top line revenue. Is Ferrari run by idiots? They are CUTTING production to maintain exclusivity. It's a strategy.

I'm not saying you have to agree with that conclusion. I'm not saying that is definitely the GW strategy. However, waving away viewpoints that don't fit a rather narrow and poorly informed worldview (GW is doomed!) is a non-starter.

 kronk wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:
Why the hell does decreased volume equate to stagnation?

I can't believe you just legitimately asked that question.

 BryllCream wrote:
There's no law in this country that companies have to sell as many products as possible at a low margin. Selling fewer kits for more money clearly makes financial sense so where's the issue?

I have no idea what you're even talking about now...

Let's go back to your question "Why the hell does decreased volume equate to stagnation?"

You just used the text book definition of business stagnation. Flat or decreasing volume over time.

So if.my business is making a million pounds a year making pencils and I switch and start making yachts at a billion pounds a year, according to you I'm stagnating?

That's a very odd definition of stagnation. I've only ever seen it in relation to gw.

 BryllCream wrote:
So if.my business is making a million pounds a year making pencils and I switch and start making yachts at a billion pounds a year, according to you I'm stagnating?

That's a very odd definition of stagnation. I've only ever seen it in relation to gw.

That's not at all what anyone here is saying, dude.

Edit: It's almost as if you're taking one or two sentences out of context to make a point. There's a word for that...

 kronk wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:
There's no law in this country that companies have to sell as many products as possible at a low margin. Selling fewer kits for more money clearly makes financial sense so where's the issue?

I have no idea what you're even talking about now...

Let's go back to your question "Why the hell does decreased volume equate to stagnation?"

You just used the text book definition of business stagnation. Flat or decreasing volume over time.

Not at all. PLenty of companies, especially those faced with rising costs, have put more money into marketing and made the switch to becoming a premium product. Tricker's shoes in the UK, for instance, who put up their prices, went for the premium market, and sell huge amounts in Japan.

Of course, done badly, or for other reasons, this strategy often fails, and it might well do so for GW, if that is indeed their strategy. But your assertion - that lower volume equates to a textbook definition of stagnation - is plainly wrong. Stagnation would equate to falling revenues (or profits), not falling volume.

 BryllCream wrote:
So if.my business is making a million pounds a year making pencils and I switch and start making yachts at a billion pounds a year, according to you I'm stagnating?

That's a very odd definition of stagnation. I've only ever seen it in relation to gw.

Worst analogy ever. When did GW go to building yachts? They build toy soldiers, always have, always will.

And there is a massive difference between those who buy pencils and those who buy yachts.

Are you suggesting that GW's new model should be low volume high margin models for the top 1% only?

GW's prices can only go so high before EVERY customer drops them.

jonny5 wrote:
Just wondering how much is gw worth in sterling and indeed what would happen if i owned upto 49 percent of its shares-would things change in relation to prices? Also anyone know how many shares gw has available and there current price?

A cardboard box and a wet flannel to me.
It can be hard to put up a real number though.

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

 kronk wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:
There's no law in this country that companies have to sell as many products as possible at a low margin. Selling fewer kits for more money clearly makes financial sense so where's the issue?

I have no idea what you're even talking about now...

Let's go back to your question "Why the hell does decreased volume equate to stagnation?"

You just used the text book definition of business stagnation. Flat or decreasing volume over time.

Not at all. PLenty of companies, especially those faced with rising costs, have put more money into marketing and made the switch to becoming a premium product. Tricker's shoes in the UK, for instance, who put up their prices, went for the premium market, and sell huge amounts in Japan.

Of course, done badly, or for other reasons, this strategy often fails, and it might well do so for GW, if that is indeed their strategy. But your assertion - that lower volume equates to a textbook definition of stagnation - is plainly wrong. Stagnation would equate to falling revenues (or profits), not falling volume.

That's was well put, HO.

However, it is my assertion that GW is not moving their business model from a bulk product to a premium product. It *appears as though they have raised prices, have flat or declining volume, and have cut costs to show an increase in revenue.

Now, what remains to be seen is cost reductions were short term "Slash and burn" measures, or long term strategic moves. If they got rid of under performing stores, that should help in both the near and long term.

For specialist games as an example, they may have gotten rid of slow moving inventory, removed out-dated molds that they couldn't justify recasting, and reduced inventory and warehouse space. Whether or not that will have an impact on this year's revenue would depend entirely on how much manpower and/or if additional warehouse space was needed to keep up with them.


*I asterisked appears because I am not privy to their year-on-year volumes, but (as I've said before) have seen charts bandied about in previous threads showing relatively flat profits and decreasing sales. However, I can't post those here for backup as I certainly don't have them.

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
If prices went up by 5% and revenue went up by 6.5%, does that not mean that sales increased by 1.5%?

You're thinking volume or SKU sales vs. revenues. Revenues are dollars in the door. SKU or volume sales represent growth or decline in the actual volume of units sold .

 BryllCream wrote:
Why the hell does decreased volume equate to stagnation? If gw sell one box for a million pound profit, that's better than selling a hundred thousand boxes at a pound profit each

See... That's just flat out wrong for this market. The *value* of the 100k boxes over one box is that the former can build a a player base for later sales. A bit part of GW's success is that you can find players all over the place. A successful game system needs players. That one guy who got suckered into buying the million pound box ain't gonna have any friended to play with and, therefore, isn't likely to buy another box...

It's the power of networks. One telephone is useless. Ten might be handy. But when they're everywhere, you've really go something!

I'd argue that GW's "real" moat isn't so much their IP, but rather is their player base. Star Wars, Star Trek, and others have strong franchise IP. GW, like them or not, established a loyal player base early and have been able to profit from that for years. Its the player base that brings in new players. It's the player base that makes people buy GW stuff over other companies because they know there'll be someone to play against.

That is what GW is risking by selling fewer models at higher margins. At some point, your player base shrinks below the critical level needed and things can fall apart fast. GW can try to convince themselves that they're an IP company, and to a degree that's certainly true, but gaming has a innate social component and without the the critical mass needed to sustain that gaming piece, they're really just a small IP holder with a small manufacturing/distribution infrastructure that's swimming with some seriously big fish...

Valete,

JohnS

 cygnnus wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:
Why the hell does decreased volume equate to stagnation? If gw sell one box for a million pound profit, that's better than selling a hundred thousand boxes at a pound profit each

See... That's just flat out wrong for this market. The *value* of the 100k boxes over one box is that the former can build a a player base for later sales. A bit part of GW's success is that you can find players all over the place. A successful game system needs players. That one guy who got suckered into buying the million pound box ain't gonna have any friended to play with and, therefore, isn't likely to buy another box...

I mostly agree with you, cygnnus. It all comes down to finding that "sweet spot" with your price to maximize per unit profits without hurting your volume so much that over all profits decline.

If you sell 100 units for $50, that's $5000 in sales. If they cost $25 to make, then you made yourself $2500.

If you raised the price to $75, you'd have to sell 67 units to maintain your $5000 in sales. But now you net profit is 3350 on those 67 units.

But have GW gone too war with their pricing? I don't know.

Now, getting back to ExNoctemNacimur's question at the top of page 2: "If prices went up by 5% and revenue went up by 6.5%, does that not mean that sales increased by 1.5%?"

It depends. How much of this revenue was made up of short-term cost cutting measures that might later bite them in the rear end? That's the sticky wicket.

BryllCream wrote:So if.my business is making a million pounds a year making pencils and I switch and start making yachts at a billion pounds a year, according to you I'm stagnating?

That's a very odd definition of stagnation. I've only ever seen it in relation to gw.

GW has not changed from making pencils to making yachts.

GW was making miniatures and is still making pretty much the same miniatures.

---

Some of you made reasonable points about positioning the same miniatures as a premium brand.

But GW hasn't done that either. It's highly unlikely perception has changed for the last few years.

And GW doesn't seem to be doing it, as it's not spending on market creation or extra R&D.

---

There was a good point that high-volume, low-margin carry risk if costs of production changes.

That's why GW went from using tin (raw materials can fluctuate in cost) to resin before.

Now, they're introducing a new risk now by squeezing out more casual players.

And as their player base decreases, every further player they lose hurts them more.

---

The best point IMHO was network effects. I play 40k because I can find other people to play with.

That's why I didn't get into Warmachine. I liked the lore, the designs, but few people played.

And now my FLGS has stopped carrying Warmachine altogether, just to prove what happens.

 BryllCream wrote:
There's no law in this country that companies have to sell as many products as possible at a low margin. Selling fewer kits for more money clearly makes financial sense so where's the issue?

It makes perfect sense if you've got a steady stream on price-elastic customers, your product is valuable in it's own right, and is a status symbol.

People will pay a fortune for a good watch, partially for exclusivity and for status, and because on it's own it's still a nice watch.

But GW sells toys soldiers for a game, so part of it's value is derived from the game and if no-one plays it anymore because it's too expensive, it's lost most of it's instrinsic value.

As has been said, the big thing going for GW at the moment is that almost all current wargamers have an army for a GW main system, so it's easy to find an opponent. But what if the price gets to a point where Warmachine is the default starting game, and you've got more chance finding a game with it (as appears to be the case in some parts of the US)? The only thing that can happen is that GW's biggest advantage and justification for the high prices starts to deteriorate.

Herzlos wrote:
price-elastic

That's the word I've been trying to remember! Thanks.

 kronk wrote:


Now, getting back to ExNoctemNacimur's question at the top of page 2: "If prices went up by 5% and revenue went up by 6.5%, does that not mean that sales increased by 1.5%?"

It depends. How much of this revenue was made up of short-term cost cutting measures that might later bite them in the rear end? That's the sticky wicket.

Actually, it doesn't "depend". Comparing those three items alone has zero meaning. Let's take an example:

Let's say the product is sold for $10 and has a production and distribution cost of $6. This would normally mean you make $4 per unit sold. Let's say we sell 1,000 of these for $4000 total revenue as our baseline.

Now, the following year production / distribution costs go up to $9 and we raise prices to $11. In this case prices were only raised by $2 because management thought that was the most they could get out of it this year and decided to eat the difference. So, we are only making $2 per unit. Sales is odd because sometimes you sell more at a higher price point than a lower one. So, let's say we sell 1500 units for a total revenue of $3000. In this case, prices went up by 10%, revenue went down by 25% and sales increased by 50%. If sales had gone the other way and we only sold 750 of them then the results would have been prices up by 10%, revenue down by 37.5%, sales down by 25%..

A third example is prices staying the same, but production/distribution costs going down slightly while number of units sold slightly. For example, production costs drop to $5, sales drops to 950 units. Here we have a 0% price rise, an 18% revenue increase and a 5% sales drop.

Point is, there is a relationship however it's not discernible with only those numbers.

GW products are in no way a status symbol. They are not the Rolex of toy soldiers. Comparing GW to any company who sells insanely high end products is moot, as toy soldiers are not a high end product, unless perhaps they are made out of solid gold and come pre painted by Mathieu Fontaine.

Premium product = price-inelastic customers. But whatever. Elasticity is the sensitivity of demand to price, so if demand is not price sensitive, it is inelastic

 kronk wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
price-elastic

That's the word I've been trying to remember! Thanks.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nobody is comparing GW products to premium products, at least I am not. I was making a point about a profit maximizing versus revenue maximizing strategy.

 Aerethan wrote:
GW products are in no way a status symbol. They are not the Rolex of toy soldiers. Comparing GW to any company who sells insanely high end products is moot, as toy soldiers are not a high end product, unless perhaps they are made out of solid gold and come pre painted by Mathieu Fontaine.

clively wrote:

Point is, there is a relationship however it's not discernible with only those numbers.

And THAT was exactly my point in this post here.

 BryllCream wrote:
Why the hell does decreased volume equate to stagnation? If gw sell one box for a million pound profit, that's better than selling a hundred thousand boxes at a pound profit each

Because:

1) As people have said, a successful game depends on having a sufficient player base. GW's advantage in model quality is steadily declining, and their rules are utter garbage. People buy their products for two reasons: because the setting is cool, and because it's the game everyone else is playing. If everyone else is playing some other game then GW loses one of their biggest ways of getting new customers. And with much lower sales volume they probably have to start closing stores, reducing their market presence even more.

2) Decreased volume is bad for sustainable growth. It's nice to speculate about extending the supply/demand curve all the way out to absurd levels and selling one box for a million pounds profit, but the simple fact is there's a maximum price that GW can plausibly sell their products for before everyone dumps GW in favor of buying something else. Once they reach that point further price increases mean decreased profit, and their current plan for "growth" ceases to be a viable option with no apparent backup plan. This is fine if you're an investor looking to make a short-term profit (since GW seems to be below that price cap for now), but it's a really bad sign if you're thinking about GW as a long-term investment.

 Peregrine wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:
Why the hell does decreased volume equate to stagnation? If gw sell one box for a million pound profit, that's better than selling a hundred thousand boxes at a pound profit each

Because:

1) As people have said, a successful game depends on having a sufficient player base. GW's advantage in model quality is steadily declining, and their rules are utter garbage. People buy their products for two reasons: because the setting is cool, and because it's the game everyone else is playing. If everyone else is playing some other game then GW loses one of their biggest ways of getting new customers. And with much lower sales volume they probably have to start closing stores, reducing their market presence even more.

If you want to make a point, don't use your own subjective opinion as a base. You can't say "I think GW's models and rules are rubbish, therefore x". You clearly think GW is rubbish, and that they are declining as a result. Like we haven't seen that before on the internet over the past 20 years

2) Decreased volume is bad for sustainable growth. It's nice to speculate about extending the supply/demand curve all the way out to absurd levels and selling one box for a million pounds profit, but the simple fact is there's a maximum price that GW can plausibly sell their products for before everyone dumps GW in favor of buying something else. Once they reach that point further price increases mean decreased profit, and their current plan for "growth" ceases to be a viable option with no apparent backup plan. This is fine if you're an investor looking to make a short-term profit (since GW seems to be below that price cap for now), but it's a really bad sign if you're thinking about GW as a long-term investment.

And at some point, the entire earth is going to run out of resources and we'll all be boned. Regardless, saying that *at some point* GW's model will fall apart isn't very helpful - many company's long term plans look very shaky. Year on year GW have proved that they can boost revenue and cut costs - that's what's important for investors.

 BryllCream wrote:
If you want to make a point, don't use your own subjective opinion as a base. You can't say "I think GW's models and rules are rubbish, therefore x". You clearly think GW is rubbish, and that they are declining as a result. Like we haven't seen that before on the internet over the past 20 years

It's not just subjective opinion. I don't know a single person who got into 40k because of its awesome rules, and the most common opinion is that the rules are something you put up with because you love the rest of the game. Meanwhile all but the most dedicated white knights have to admit that GW's rules have laughable balance and constant problems with ambiguity/loopholes/etc compared to other game companies.

As for the models, that isn't a subjective opinion either, it's simple facts. GW used to have a huge advantage in model quality, they were the only company making a full range of large vehicle kits, and their multi-part plastic infantry were far better (both in detail and customization options) than the competition. Now both of these things are threatened: more and more companies are expanding into having a similar diversity of models, and their sculpting quality gets better and better. That doesn't mean that GW's models are horrible, just that they can no longer count on easy sales because they're the only company with tanks.

And anyway, the point was not that these things are killing sales, it's that they aren't driving sales. People buy GW games because of the setting (still doing just fine), because of the cool models (less of an advantage every year) and because it's the game all of their friends are playing (less of an advantage every year). Trying to make more profit off fewer sales is in direct opposition to one of GW's biggest advantages over their competition, and they don't really have anything to replace that advantage if they lose it.

And at some point, the entire earth is going to run out of resources and we'll all be boned. Regardless, saying that *at some point* GW's model will fall apart isn't very helpful - many company's long term plans look very shaky. Year on year GW have proved that they can boost revenue and cut costs - that's what's important for investors.

Sigh. GW's short-sighted business plan can potentially hurt them in the foreseeable future, while the entire earth running out of resources is a problem well beyond our lifetimes. Obviously nobody knows exactly when GW's policies will reach their inevitable end, but if you're looking at investing in GW you have to seriously consider the possibility that the company could start losing money at any time within the next few years, and could very easily fail to give a better return on your investment than your alternative investment options even in the immediate future.

 Peregrine wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:
If you want to make a point, don't use your own subjective opinion as a base. You can't say "I think GW's models and rules are rubbish, therefore x". You clearly think GW is rubbish, and that they are declining as a result. Like we haven't seen that before on the internet over the past 20 years

It's not just subjective opinion. I don't know a single person who got into 40k because of its awesome rules, and the most common opinion is that the rules are something you put up with because you love the rest of the game. Meanwhile all but the most dedicated white knights have to admit that GW's rules have laughable balance and constant problems with ambiguity/loopholes/etc compared to other game companies.

As for the models, that isn't a subjective opinion either, it's simple facts. GW used to have a huge advantage in model quality, they were the only company making a full range of large vehicle kits, and their multi-part plastic infantry were far better (both in detail and customization options) than the competition. Now both of these things are threatened: more and more companies are expanding into having a similar diversity of models, and their sculpting quality gets better and better. That doesn't mean that GW's models are horrible, just that they can no longer count on easy sales because they're the only company with tanks.

Please don't spam the forum by insisting that your opinions are objectively true. It's boring and adds nothing to the debate.

 Peregrine wrote:

And anyway, the point was not that these things are killing sales, it's that they aren't driving sales. People buy GW games because of the setting (still doing just fine), because of the cool models (less of an advantage every year) and because it's the game all of their friends are playing (less of an advantage every year). Trying to make more profit off fewer sales is in direct opposition to one of GW's biggest advantages over their competition, and they don't really have anything to replace that advantage if they lose it.

It's interesting you think that this is why GW is doing well. I would argue that they're successful because of the miniatures they produce, combined with the beer and pretzal ruleset that creates a more casual hobby than the more niche games that people on dakka talk about.

But if you're not free to determine how GW make their money, you can't say how they're failing at it. So feel free to continue making things up.

 Peregrine wrote:
[
Sigh. GW's short-sighted business plan can potentially hurt them in the foreseeable future, while the entire earth running out of resources is a problem well beyond our lifetimes. Obviously nobody knows exactly when GW's policies will reach their inevitable end, but if you're looking at investing in GW you have to seriously consider the possibility that the company could start losing money at any time within the next few years, and could very easily fail to give a better return on your investment than your alternative investment options even in the immediate future.

That's interesting. Name me a single company that will *definitely* grow and make money every year over the next five years.

Seriously. I've been working my ass off all week and it turns out I can just invest in these other businesses that are guarenteed to grow and make money! Stupid GW, with their business environment and variable share price