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.

It's that whole "wondering if something is worthwhile" that would be a primary issue for me.

And if you believe that people are inherently selfish, I'd wager your demeanor towards them wouldn't always be the friendliest.

 Crablezworth wrote:
You can be cynical and a hell of a nice person...

Like me.

Cynical is also the opposite of naive, which is the context I used it in.

With hindsight I wish I'd chosen something different, as I've had to use about three posts explaining my meaning!

 Crablezworth wrote:
cyn·ic

/ˈsinik/

Noun

1.A person who believes that people are motivated purely by self-interest rather than acting for honorable or unselfish reasons.
2.A person who questions whether something will happen or is worthwhile.

Yea, that defined the guy I'm talking about. "Why are we doing this BS" came out of his mouth a lot. Paperwork and forms only got in his way of getting stuff done in his view. Nearly shut down the project when the safety office discovered him working on a fuel system without locking and tagging out the electrical first. Said it was late and no one was around so why bother.

I spent a couple hours in meeting with management over the crapstorm that it caused. I wanted him off the project, they felt his skill set was too valuable at the current time to lose (aka no one could replace him at the current time).

 cincydooley wrote:
It's that whole "wondering if something is worthwhile" that would be a primary issue for me.

And if you believe that people are inherently selfish, I'd wager your demeanor towards them wouldn't always be the friendliest.

I think it's that and definition 3 that was omitted.

Cynical

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cynical

1. distrusting or disparaging the motives of others; like or characteristic of a cynic.
2. showing contempt for accepted standards of honesty or morality by one's actions, especially by actions that exploit the scruples of others.
3. bitterly or sneeringly distrustful, contemptuous, or pessimistic.

Synonyms for cynical imply holding a low opinion of humanity. Cynical suggests a disbelief in the sincerity of human motives ie - cynical about honesty. Pessimistic implies a more or less habitual disposition to look on the dark side of things, and to believe that the worst will happen. Sarcastic refers to sneering or making cutting jibes. Satirical suggests expressing scorn or ridicule by saying the opposite of what one means.

I think cynical may not have been the best term to use.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 azreal13 wrote:
Cynical is also the opposite of naive, which is the context I used it in.

With hindsight I wish I'd chosen something different, as I've had to use about three posts explaining my meaning!

I think we're on the same page now.

cincydooley wrote:Jervis must own less than 3%

Even at 1% the dividend payment would be a thing of beauty.

If I was Kirby I would stay the course. I'd keep raising prices on new releases, keep moving more and more things direct and keep putting pressure on the low level employees to perform better than they did the year before. And I'd do my best to target more stores for replacement with single staff locations. I'd keep the innovation going in the Black Library and Forge World departments and keep the normal stuff as safe and time tested as possible.

I'd let the price increases make up for anyone who quits over price and then issue as much cash to myself as dividends as possible. I'd retire the instant the machine ever faltered. And what an awesome retirement it would be with that much cash in my pocket. If there are long term problems, they can be someone else's long term problems.

For all the bad things people have to say about GW, it's accomplishing Kirby's goals perfectly. Leading the management buyout and turning the company from a by-gamers-for-gamers operation into a corporate cash machine was such a smart move. It made him a multimillionaire and put him in the ranks of gaming business giants like Peter Adkison (founder of WotC who arranged the sale to Hasbro) and Lisa Stevens (ex-Wotc VP and founder of Paizo).

If reading the report correctly Australia had a net sales loss of 385,000 British Pounds.

2012 was 11,328 x 000 British Pounds
2013 was 10,944 x 000 British Pounds

But a before tax profit of 756,000 British Pounds, so just figuring this out, GW Australia slashed 1,141,000 British Pounds from their operational expenditure, this is shown as for operational expenses for Australia from.

2012 of 6,664,000 British Pounds
2013 of 5,449,000 British Pounds

This is consistant considering that many of GW Australian stores are reducing opening hours and reduction of staff, and converting some stores into one man operations. There is about 77,000 British Pounds that after reading the report that i can't locate, lost in translation.

I must add that this is the fifth straight year that sales per units has retracted in Australia.

Doom! Gloom! Repent, sinners, for I hath seen the tidings and the end is nigh!

...

In all seriousness, glad to see they're doing pretty well.

 Cryonicleech wrote:
Doom! Gloom! Repent, sinners, for I hath seen the tidings and the end is nigh!

...

In all seriousness, glad to see they're doing pretty well.

Really now. Looks like you have not read the 50+ pages of the report carefully.

Maybe they'll get so desperate they'll hold their disdain long enough to put out a Sisters of Battle codex.
Right?
Anyone?
Maybe?

Can this topic just be banned already or moved to Dakka Discussions or something?

All the people who hate GW always say these reports are just spin to hide GW's upcoming demise, all the people who love GW always say these reports are proof that GW is doing fine. It's grown to the point where the thread is entirely predictable just by looking at the avatars, and that's never a good sign.

The thread has dissolved into dictionary quotes. Might be time to nuke it and salt the earth?

 Cryonicleech wrote:
Doom! Gloom! Repent, sinners, for I hath seen the tidings and the end is nigh!

...

In all seriousness, glad to see they're doing pretty well.

I just have to ask, did you bother reading anything Kroot said? Or what anyone has said?

 Kingsley wrote:
Can this topic just be banned already or moved to Dakka Discussions or something?

Or you could just not click the thread title if the news of how GW is doing financially and the resultant discussion doesn't interest you.

All the people who hate GW always say these reports are just spin to hide GW's upcoming demise,

Where did someone say that? I only see people making fun of the idea of gloom and doom and no real prediction of demise.

all the people who love GW always say these reports are proof that GW is doing fine. It's grown to the point where the thread is entirely predictable just by looking at the avatars, and that's never a good sign.

Some people are interested in this as an ongoing discussion. I've actually found it quite remarkable watching people's opinions subtley shift. I know I've become far more respectful of the robustness of GW's approach over the years. I used to wrongly think they were circling the drain, now I think they can sustain their current approach for quite a few years.

So no, I don't think you should get to decide what is valid for discussion and what is not.

I am just wondering why people always subtract inflation from their growth as if growth to the extend of inflation was automatic.

It isn't. Quite the opposite.

You have inflation... food is more expensive, gas is more expensive, electricity is more expensive, living space is more expensive, everything is more expensive.

People's income, on the other hand, usually lags in adjusting.

In an environment like this, growing an non-necessity company like Games Workshop to stay ahead of inflation is no small task. They increased their sale during a time when, by all logic, people should be cutting back on plastic toys because of inflation.

That, to me, looks like a good sign of a healthy business (from a shareholder perspective) and not at all like doom and gloom.

If they can manage that in times of (relatively) high inflation, imagine how they'd soar if inflation was actually brought down and the price-creep of necessities wouldn't eat into peoples' disposable income.

 Kingsley wrote:
Can this topic just be banned already or moved to Dakka Discussions or something?

All the people who hate GW always say these reports are just spin to hide GW's upcoming demise, all the people who love GW always say these reports are proof that GW is doing fine. It's grown to the point where the thread is entirely predictable just by looking at the avatars, and that's never a good sign.

The same could be said of countless other discussions, a situation and discussion being similar once a year due to similar information is hardly ban worthy.

The simple reason that inflation is considered is that the value of today's GBP is lower than that of a year ago. It's nice to say they grew their revenue 2.7% but their new total revenue is worth the same as last years.

I don't think there's anything wrong with holding revenue steady. But we shouldn't pretend it's real growth when it's not.

And who said doom and gloom? Next to no one. Only those accusing others of saying it.

And since when is 2.7% inflation a period of high inflation?

 Achaylus72 wrote:

I must add that this is the fifth straight year that sales per units has retracted in Australia.

It's particularly interesting that Oz sales are down even with the regional restrictions making it harder to buy from overseas.

Next year's figures will be more interesting, now that US sales are also included in the regional limitations, and with the new Ebay rules also largely closing off that door.

 frozenwastes wrote:
The simple reason that inflation is considered is that the value of today's GBP is lower than that of a year ago. It's nice to say they grew their revenue 2.7% but their new total revenue is worth the same as last years.

I don't think there's anything wrong with holding revenue steady. But we shouldn't pretend it's real growth when it's not.

And who said doom and gloom? Next to no one. Only those accusing others of saying it.

And since when is 2.7% inflation a period of high inflation?

It's not. But growing your company by 3% isn't nothing either, especially as they did not release a greater number of products as many people keep claiming.

Is it a pity that the growth they managed to achieve is eaten by inflation? Sure.

But that doesn't mean they didn't have to put in the work to shift that many more plastic miniatures over the counter just to keep ahead of inflation.

 Zweischneid wrote:

It's not. But growing your company by 3% isn't nothing either, especially as they did not release a greater number of products as many people keep claiming.

Is it a pity that the growth they managed to achieve is eaten by inflation? Sure.

But that doesn't mean they didn't have to put in the work to shift that many more plastic miniatures over the counter just to keep ahead of inflation.

It is a bad performance when the rest of the industry is growing 15+% in the same period.

 Zweischneid wrote:

Is it a pity that the growth they managed to achieve is eaten by inflation? Sure.

But that doesn't mean they didn't have to put in the work to shift that many more plastic miniatures over the counter just to keep ahead of inflation.

In last year's report Kirby was very clear that protecting margins is a priority. So they actually don't need to shift that many more plastic figures to keep the same amount of revenue. If they raise prices slightly ahead of inflation and manage to make up the difference through aggressive sales goals for the retail staff, they can actually sell less plastic miniatures and still keep revenue up. This has the added advantage of lowering production and distribution costs. Less plastic to inject, less person-hours spent, less boxes to print. Same amount of revenue and costs get cut making them even more profitable.

However, what it doesn't do is capture market share. And if the rest of the industry is growing, then the idea of it being tough times might not be that accurate.

PhantomViper wrote:

It is a bad performance when the rest of the industry is growing 15+% in the same period.

The industry isn't growing by 15%. Not even close.

A few individual start-ups are growing by 15%, mainly because they are start-ups and thus start from an incredibly small base (when calculating %)

In the US (where GW grew by > 7%, the Toy Sector has been in decline, shrinking by about 2% annually (not the most up-to-date numbers, admittedly).

In the EU (where GW lost ground), the Toy Sector grew by about 3% - 6% last year.

 frozenwastes wrote:


However, what it doesn't do is capture market share. And if the rest of the industry is growing, then the idea of it being tough times might not be that accurate.

Except that the rest of the industry isn't growing.

 Zweischneid wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

It is a bad performance when the rest of the industry is growing 15+% in the same period.

The industry isn't growing by 15%. Not even close.

A few individual start-ups are growing by 15%, mainly because they are start-ups and thus start from an incredibly small base (when calculating %)

In the US (where GW grew by > 7%, the Toy Sector has been in decline, shrinking by about 2% annually (not the most up-to-date numbers, admittedly).

In the EU (where GW lost ground), the Toy Sector grew by about 3% - 6% last year.

Who is talking about the "toy sector" here? How about if we talk about the "hobby games" market that miniature companies are actually included in?

http://www.icv2.com/articles/news/26211.html
http://www.icv2.com/articles/news/23496.html
http://www.icv2.com/articles/news/22208.html

PhantomViper wrote:


Who is talking about the "toy sector" here? How about if we talk about the "hobby games" market that miniature companies are actually included in?

http://www.icv2.com/articles/news/26211.html
http://www.icv2.com/articles/news/23496.html
http://www.icv2.com/articles/news/22208.html

There is no "hobby games" sector in any regular financial reporting I ever found.

ICV2 is an ad- and consulting outfit for a few retail chains. Of course they'll report growth among the retail chains that pay them (otherwise, what point would there be for paying ICV2)?

Seriously, you take their spin over the financial reports of a publicly traded company audited by PWC? Good luck with that.

 Zweischneid wrote:

In the US (where GW grew by > 7%, the Toy Sector has been in decline, shrinking by about 2% annually (not the most up-to-date numbers, admittedly).

Also, and this is not a dig at you, but on page 32, the report states that Core Business profit in NA has gone from 4,211m GBP to 3,336m GBP. Either I'm badly misunderstanding these numbers (probably this since my single corporate management university discipline is WAY behind me ), or that doesn't seem like growth to me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Zweischneid wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:


Who is talking about the "toy sector" here? How about if we talk about the "hobby games" market that miniature companies are actually included in?

http://www.icv2.com/articles/news/26211.html
http://www.icv2.com/articles/news/23496.html
http://www.icv2.com/articles/news/22208.html

There is no "hobby games" sector in any regular financial reporting I ever found.

ICV2 is an ad- and consulting outfit for a few retail chains. Of course they'll report growth among the retail chains that pay them (otherwise, what point would there be for paying ICV2)?

Seriously, you take their spin over the financial reports of a publicly traded company audited by PWC? Good luck with that.

Cool, so you are now doing your usual song and dance "I refuse to acknowledge any data that doesn't support my view" routine, good to know!

Seems like we are done here.

PhantomViper wrote:


Cool, so you are now doing your usual song and dance "I refuse to acknowledge any data that doesn't support my view" routine, good to know!

Seems like we are done here.

I am not refusing the data. I cannot even see the data cause you need to pay for it (and nothing in the links mentions 15%, nor any absolute numbers for that matter).


That said, it's data reported from a selective range of stores. It doesn't report "an industry" or a "market sector". It's more akin to the reporting by a competitor to GW, albeit a loose alliance of different independents and chains, rather than one unified company. It is not, however, the reporting of an industry/market sector trend.

Finally, I said it is not any standardized market (or even company) data, because ICV2 (and their network) aren't a publicly traded company like GW. This "growth" is a claim they make in their in-house pamphlet that they distribute to their clients? Could the data be good? Sure. But I can't really tell until I see both numbers and methods. It may as well just be marketing spin? No?

How am I refusing the data by pointing that out?

And why are you (!) refusing the data from the US Chamber of Commerce that says the toy sector (which includes both GW and ICV2) is in decline of 2% annually?

PhantomViper wrote:


Also, and this is not a dig at you, but on page 32, the report states that Core Business profit in NA has gone from 4,211m GBP to 3,336m GBP. Either I'm badly misunderstanding these numbers (probably this since my single corporate management university discipline is WAY behind me ), or that doesn't seem like growth to me.

Profit is not growth. I never said all is well with GW. Just that they grew more than the average market in the US (and thus gained market share). They may or may not have achieved that at the expense of profit.

 Zweischneid wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:


Cool, so you are now doing your usual song and dance "I refuse to acknowledge any data that doesn't support my view" routine, good to know!

Seems like we are done here.

I am not refusing the data. I cannot even see the data cause you need to pay for it (and nothing in the links mentions 15%).

The first line of this one http://www.icv2.com/articles/news/22208.html
"The hobby game market grew by 20 to 25% in 2011."

There is also the other link floating around that outright states 15% last year along with listing the top 5 selling games of the year.

 jonolikespie wrote:

The first line of this one http://www.icv2.com/articles/news/22208.html
"The hobby game market grew by 20 to 25% in 2011."

There is also the other link floating around that outright states 15% last year along with listing the top 5 selling games of the year.

So how is their "hobby game market" defined? What is in it and what isn't in it compared to the "toy sector" used by everybody else (government, banks, etc..)

And more importantly, where are the absolute numbers?

For the lists of the bestselling Collectible Games in the hobby channel, in the mass channel, and over-all, click here.
For the bestselling board games in the hobby channel, click here.
For the bestselling card/building games in the hobby channel, click here.
For the bestselling RPGs, click here.
For the bestselling non-collectible miniature games, click here.

I think it's a safe bet collectible/non-collectible miniature games, RPGs, board games and card games make up the 'hobby game market' and that isn't compared to the toy sector because toys are marketed almost exclusively to children while the above are not.

As for hard numbers and all that, do you actually think the spin on that icv2 stuff is any worse than on the GW investors report? The same investors report that went on about how no one can afford the start up costs needed to challenge GW (people already are thank's to Kickstarter) and how GW's lawyers are good at defending their IP (no mention of the Chapterhouse case)?

silent25 wrote:

Yea, that defined the guy I'm talking about. "Why are we doing this BS" came out of his mouth a lot. Paperwork and forms only got in his way of getting stuff done in his view.

Why were you doing "that bs"? Maybe he was right? Big problem in todays work and leadership culture is that everything gets buried under the process which has become more important than the result. This is not a problem of a single company, or difference between private and public sector, it's everywhere. Nobody dares to make any decisions anymore, everything is done by huge committees which arrange sub-committees, projects, meetings and studies. Huge amount of people involved ensures that only lowest common denominator can be the result. If anyone proposes something radical, it gets stomped upon for being too risky or being against regulations. This is the reason we have stupid bs happening like a guy drowning in three-feet pool since the rules prevented anyone going in to save him, or why all the cars look the same nowadays.

It all can be summed by example. Observe how business decisions have been explained in different eras:
*In the long past, someone said: "I have decided this".
*In the past, some people said: "We have decided this".
*Nowadays, someone says: "This has been decided".
Note the passive. Decisionmaking and responsibility is hidden within the process, it has become faceless and inhuman. What if the decision was wrong? Well, in the long past, the guy who made the decision would have been fired. In the past, people who made the decision would have been fired. Nowadays: "Decision was made under the circumstances. Our executives have been issued $100 million bonus from their exemplary performance."

Ok, rant officially over. I mean, "It has been decided to suspend the rant".