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.

Do you know what administration staff are Bryll?

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

Kroothawk 528503 5658039 wrote:]I predict a doubling of prices for most standard troops in the next 2 weeks like they just did for Dire Avengers. The price for a codex/armybook is now double the price of its predecessor at time of release. The price of new flyers is double the price of Storm Talon and Nightwing, while using the same number of sprues (in case of Stormtalon/Darktalon only slight variations of the same sprues).

If you need to double the price for the bulk of your sold products just to keep revenue flat, what does that say about the financial conditions of a company? And will it help the company's health to double prices?

Yes, they're price gouging, but don't exaggerate. Prices for most troops haven't doubled.

Yet

You can read the evidence in any way that suits your preconceptions. You can say revenues are increasing at the moment, which is a great result in recession-hit Europe, and that they're outperforming rivals like Hornby, who produce mass market plastic kits for the leisure market. Or you can say they're not doing as well as they should be doing.

Hornby are not the competition, I think I've said this to you before? Just because they make mass market plastics does not mean they are competition, they operate in a completely different niche. It's almost like comparing them to a company who make pipe work for aquariums. Similar raw material, broadly similar production method, utterly different market. (Albeit I will concede an element of crossover, but then, hobbyists could buy aquarium pipes for terrain) edit Forgot to add, GW are a global company, so Europe is only one territory. Given the global economy isn't great, one would assume they would concentrate on development in some relatively more prosperous areas, like Australia and New Ze...ah...

Your own evidence is hugely contradictory - you're simultaneously saying sales are flat, and that they're not satisfying increased demand for new product. Which is it? People like Dark Sphere are saying that the new Tau and Eldar ranges are up in sales terms. So it's quite possible that this tactic, more new models, is working, whether or not we/you/I like it.

Not hugely contradictory, no. A spike in demand when two of the most out of date ranges are updated, and it seems most popular too, is not surprising neither is it particularly significant in the broader sense.

GW is a publicly quoted company. Complaining about their concentrating on short-term profit, is like complaining that dogs bark. Focusing only on short-term profit is, unfortunately, what all Brit and most American publicly-quoted companies do.

azreal wrote:

Hornby are not the competition, I think I've said this to you before? Just because they make mass market plastics does not mean they are competition, they operate in a completely different niche. It's almost like comparing them to a company who make pipe work for aquariums. Similar raw material, broadly similar production method, utterly different market. (Albeit I will concede an element of crossover, but then, hobbyists could buy aquarium pipes for terrain) edit Forgot to add, GW are a global company, so Europe is only one territory. Given the global economy isn't great, one would assume they would concentrate on development in some relatively more prosperous areas, like Australia and New Ze...ah...

I don't believe I said they're competition; I said they're a similar company, which they are, the most similar British company on the stock market and therefore a valid comparison. It's easy to find little niche companies which are producing wargames figures; but because they're niche, the don't give us a valid comparison of how GW is doing in this economic enrvironment.

What nonsense. Sure, profit is important, but alienating your established customer base while simultaneously raising the barrier of entry while concurrently acting in a way that gets you portrayed in the popular media as a corporate bully is just a huge gakstorm. Time will tell how damaging behaviour this is in the long term, but concentrating on short term profit while sacrificing your long term viability is just crazy.

You're confusing emotions and facts. I'm not saying that being a public company is a good thing. I'm saying it's generally a bad thing. This is the nature of the beast - public quoted companies nearly all plan for the short term, because MDs care more about the share price, than customer satisfaction or building a long-term business. It's a reality, whether you like it or not. For GW to change to the kind of company people here want, it would almost certainly have to go private.

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

azreal wrote:

Hornby are not the competition, I think I've said this to you before? Just because they make mass market plastics does not mean they are competition, they operate in a completely different niche. It's almost like comparing them to a company who make pipe work for aquariums. Similar raw material, broadly similar production method, utterly different market. (Albeit I will concede an element of crossover, but then, hobbyists could buy aquarium pipes for terrain) edit Forgot to add, GW are a global company, so Europe is only one territory. Given the global economy isn't great, one would assume they would concentrate on development in some relatively more prosperous areas, like Australia and New Ze...ah...

I don't believe I said they're competition; I said they're a similar company, which they are, the most similar British company on the stock market and therefore a valid comparison. It's easy to find little niche companies which are producing wargames figures; but because they're niche, the don't give us a valid comparison of how GW is doing in this economic enrvironment.

You called them rivals. Since when does rival not infer direct competition?

What nonsense. Sure, profit is important, but alienating your established customer base while simultaneously raising the barrier of entry while concurrently acting in a way that gets you portrayed in the popular media as a corporate bully is just a huge gakstorm. Time will tell how damaging behaviour this is in the long term, but concentrating on short term profit while sacrificing your long term viability is just crazy.

You're confusing emotions and facts. I'm not saying that being a public company is a good thing. I'm saying it's generally a bad thing. This is the nature of the beast - public quoted companies nearly all plan for the short term, because MDs care more about the share price, than customer satisfaction or building a long-term business. It's a reality, whether you like it or not. For GW to change to the kind of company people here want, it would almost certainly have to go private.

No, you're confusing a well run company that acknowledges you can't utterly squeeze every last dime out of each customer without leaving them feeling violated, so sacrifices a small percentage of short term gain for better retention and loyalty in order to make more from them in the long term with GW.

Believe me, there is no emotion in what I say, it's proven that it pays a company to maintain good relation with their customers, look at Apple. Or better yet, the supermarkets, who proudly proclaim they're on the shoppers side by slashing prices and giving product away, despite the fact they rake in million upon millions in profit. GW is not run for the long term because its CEO is a major shareholder and at 61-62 is going to retire very soon.

BryllCream wrote:The fact that they also increased the number of production staff and design staff makes me think that they don't expect themselves to go under any time soon.

Let's see:
Production 2001: 359
Production 2002: 324
Production 2011: 253
Production 2012: 286

How could I miss that they increased production staff from 359 to 286

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:
You can read the evidence in any way that suits your preconceptions. You can say revenues are increasing at the moment, which is a great result in recession-hit Europe, and that they're outperforming rivals like Hornby, who produce mass market plastic kits for the leisure market. Or you can say they're not doing as well as they should be doing.

Bad luck for you that I know who Hornby is. They produce model railroads! You don't want to tell me that Model railroads are a growing prospering market like tabletop games, right? It's like saying, GW outperforms most rival typewriter companies! Nice try but you have been exposed

BTW many people here will agree that GW could easily grow revenue by 20-30% or even more by just using standard marketing wisdom.

And of course I can blame Tom Kirby for his policy, even if GW is a public company, because a.o. he made it a public company, which more than doubled his annual income BTW.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Do you know what administration staff are Bryll?

Maybe the bunch of guys in suits I saw walking around Warhammer world a couple of weeks ago...

Seriously, it looked like something was up. GW staff showing a bunch of suits around their HQ. Investors? Administrators? Who knows? Very curious regardless.

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:
Focusing only on short-term profit is, unfortunately, what all Brit and most American publicly-quoted companies do.

That's just not true.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Do you know what administration staff are Bryll?

Yes. Office staff. Gw are not *in* administration, unless I missed that.

 BryllCream wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Do you know what administration staff are Bryll?

Yes. Office staff. Gw are not *in* administration, unless I missed that.

Yes. Office Staff are rarely money-making positions.
Cutting money making positions (production) and increasing administrative positions (office staff) is usually a net loss.

Not when office staff can (and do) cause increases in production. Or do you think companies only have office staff because they love to piss away money?

A clear signal to me that they were in trouble would be if the 10 man tactical marine squad vanished from the shelves to be replaced by the 5 man combat squad, and they cost more than the 10 man squad. It would boil down to 2 options;
1) They really are short of cash.
2) Their greed knows no bounds.
I fear the the incredible rise in price/decrease in models in the box of the Dire Avengers is a really worrying omen for the future. Are all battles in 40k destined for 5 man punch ups?

 BryllCream wrote:
Not when office staff can (and do) cause increases in production. Or do you think companies only have office staff because they love to piss away money?

Pretty much, yes. Administrative departments everywhere are filled with people who don't contribute to the company's bottom line, some of those form a genuine and necessary function, but a surprising amount are there purely because they have convinced senior management that they're needed and spend most of their working life desperately trying to justify their own existence. When a company is doing well then these positions are carried, when cutbacks are necessary, its these people who get cut back on first.

Yet again, someone on a bargaining website knows more about business than,.by his own admission, most companies. Brilliant.

Azreal13 is correct.

 BryllCream wrote:
Yet again, someone on a bargaining website knows more about business than,.by his own admission, most companies. Brilliant.

I wasn't going to dignify this with a reply, but I'm really curious about what you meant by a bargaining website?

Do you have a very limited sense of what Dakka is about, or was it a typo, if so, what?

bargaining could easily have been wargaming, Bryll is probably on a phone (as I'm fairly certain I've seen Nuts and Bolts posts from him about Dakka on phones).

Being on a phone is a valid excuse for some things, but it is not a valid reason for being antagonistic and rude.

So, with that in mind, everyone should take a deep breath and think about what they're posting - before they hit 'submit'.

 Alpharius wrote:
Being on a phone is a valid excuse for some things, but it is not a valid reason for being antagonistic and rude.

So, with that in mind, everyone should take a deep breath and think about what they're posting - before they hit 'submit'.

You should have seen the reply I started to write, you would be impressed by my restraint!

 BryllCream wrote:
Not when office staff can (and do) cause increases in production. Or do you think companies only have office staff because they love to piss away money?

Office staff exist for the exact same reason IT does - a necessary evil. Most office staff do little or nothing directly for a companies bottom line, just like most IT expenditures do little or nothing directly for a companies bottom line.

Edit: this is coming from someone is has and pretty much always be in IT.

rigeld2 wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:
Not when office staff can (and do) cause increases in production. Or do you think companies only have office staff because they love to piss away money?

Office staff exist for the exact same reason IT does - a necessary evil. Most office staff do little or nothing directly for a companies bottom line, just like most IT expenditures do little or nothing directly for a companies bottom line.

Edit: this is coming from someone is has and pretty much always be in IT.

As someone who works in a factory I can tell you that's rubbish. No one in the white-collar side will be there without there being a use. Of course occasionally with restructuring and efficiency savings, some posts may become obselete, but that's a different thing entirely. The office staff exist to organise the labour of the guys on the shop floor - they book the lorries, they organise goods input, plan the line schedules. The idea of someone in there just twiddling his thumbs is laughable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 azreal13 wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:
Yet again, someone on a bargaining website knows more about business than,.by his own admission, most companies. Brilliant.

I wasn't going to dignify this with a reply, but I'm really curious about what you meant by a bargaining website?

Do you have a very limited sense of what Dakka is about, or was it a typo, if so, what?

I meant wargaming. Android phone fail.

But I do genuinely want you to explain why you're capable of judging the value of peoples' jobs that you have never met. You can also explain, if you feel like it, why most/all companies are throwing money away.

 BryllCream wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:
Not when office staff can (and do) cause increases in production. Or do you think companies only have office staff because they love to piss away money?

Office staff exist for the exact same reason IT does - a necessary evil. Most office staff do little or nothing directly for a companies bottom line, just like most IT expenditures do little or nothing directly for a companies bottom line.

Edit: this is coming from someone is has and pretty much always be in IT.

As someone who works in a factory I can tell you that's rubbish. No one in the white-collar side will be there without there being a use. Of course occasionally with restructuring and efficiency savings, some posts may become obselete, but that's a different thing entirely. The office staff exist to organise the labour of the guys on the shop floor - they book the lorries, they organise goods input, plan the line schedules. The idea of someone in there just twiddling his thumbs is laughable.

Actually, it is all too common.

 BryllCream wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:
Not when office staff can (and do) cause increases in production. Or do you think companies only have office staff because they love to piss away money?

Office staff exist for the exact same reason IT does - a necessary evil. Most office staff do little or nothing directly for a companies bottom line, just like most IT expenditures do little or nothing directly for a companies bottom line.

Edit: this is coming from someone is has and pretty much always be in IT.

As someone who works in a factory I can tell you that's rubbish. No one in the white-collar side will be there without there being a use. Of course occasionally with restructuring and efficiency savings, some posts may become obselete, but that's a different thing entirely. The office staff exist to organise the labour of the guys on the shop floor - they book the lorries, they organise goods input, plan the line schedules. The idea of someone in there just twiddling his thumbs is laughable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 azreal13 wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:
Yet again, someone on a bargaining website knows more about business than,.by his own admission, most companies. Brilliant.

I wasn't going to dignify this with a reply, but I'm really curious about what you meant by a bargaining website?

Do you have a very limited sense of what Dakka is about, or was it a typo, if so, what?

I meant wargaming. Android phone fail.

But I do genuinely want you to explain why you're capable of judging the value of peoples' jobs that you have never met. You can also explain, if you feel like it, why most/all companies are throwing money away.

Because most organisations above a certain size are remarkably similar animals. Like middle aged men, as they get older they tend to put on fat around the middle. I, and many of my friends and family have worked in these sorts of organisations and have many tales to tell supporting my assertion.

Just as an example, from my first ever job, so a similar age to you now, I was the office junior, when the office supervisor left, I was given most of her duties (with no commensurate increase in pay or authority I might add) yet it made no noticeable difference to my workload, because when it came to it, very little of what she did was of any substance.

You are young, and your posts often show a lack of life knowledge, but believe me, this is true of nearly every company of more than a couple of dozen employees to some extent.

 BryllCream wrote:
The office staff exist to organise the labour of the guys on the shop floor - they book the lorries, they organise goods input, plan the line schedules.

In GW's case logistics and product supply is not part of those figures (ref 2011/12 report), and the administration staff are specific to sales, so neither of those apply here.

I would have to agree. We just had a lot of layoffs were I work and many of those layoffs are the people that actually do the work. Nobody in Admin conveniently lost there jobs. 6 managers to manage a dozen people. Less now since we lost more. It is very frustrating to say the least.

As far as the hobbit sales, I'm not surprised. The way GW prices them there may be interest there but since nobody is on the hook with existing models to flesh our armies they probably take one look at the price and keep walking.

 BryllCream wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:
Not when office staff can (and do) cause increases in production. Or do you think companies only have office staff because they love to piss away money?

Office staff exist for the exact same reason IT does - a necessary evil. Most office staff do little or nothing directly for a companies bottom line, just like most IT expenditures do little or nothing directly for a companies bottom line.

Edit: this is coming from someone is has and pretty much always be in IT.

As someone who works in a factory I can tell you that's rubbish. No one in the white-collar side will be there without there being a use. Of course occasionally with restructuring and efficiency savings, some posts may become obselete, but that's a different thing entirely. The office staff exist to organise the labour of the guys on the shop floor - they book the lorries, they organise goods input, plan the line schedules. The idea of someone in there just twiddling his thumbs is laughable.

I would truly, truly love to live in your world where management exists simply to enable the actual workers.
In fact, management exists to justify its own existence more often than not.

If office staff are only there to assist workers, why would office staff increase while workers decreased?
In an ideal world if one shrinks, so would the other.

A great is example is the movie Office Space. In reality there are actual organizations based around sending auditors and consultants to companies and help them try to trim the fat. If companies knew everything there was to know about business, the consultants wouldn't exist.

mmmmm... Yeah.
I think every cube worker has worked in a place that mirrors OfficeSpace in one way or another. Thank goodness I'm past that now.

GW will continue to accomplish the goals of its directors. That is, to allow the directors (especially Kirby) to retire to a mega rich life style. Kirby is already a multi-millionaire and the best move he can make for his own gain is to keep on the current path, raise prices more, sell less product and thus claim to have cut expenses and made the company leaner and just let sales volume fall until he rides his golden parachute to a retirement the average person can't even dream about.

The Dire Avengers a perfect example of GW keeping on his path. A core troop choice that is down to five models for the price of ten in the previous release. GW has to sell half as many to make the same money they did before and while falling sales volume is a big read flag for any long term plan, lower volume will just be spun as savings in production costs as they had to make less of them. They can lay off some more production workers and boast about it all in their shareholders report. And then Kirby can issue himself another dividend payment and laugh and laugh.

I actually think GW has a long way to go on price hikes before things go really truly wrong. I think the UK and EU prices can be hiked up to nearly equal with Australia. More money for Kirby, less money for you

 BryllCream wrote:
As someone who works in a factory I can tell you that's rubbish. No one in the white-collar side will be there without there being a use.

Firstly, no one said the admin side of the business doesn't have a "use". What we're saying is that they don't make money.

In the company I work for - one of the largest companies in Australia - we have thousands of staff across every part of the country, and yet we have "Cost Centres" and "Profit Centres", that is to say the areas of the business that generate revenue and areas of the business that don't. Most of the "Cost Centres" are back office/administration groups. They don't make money.