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.

 jonolikespie wrote:


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)?

Perhaps, perhaps not.

Either way.

GW's investors report, at least, has the advantage of (needing to) report hard numbers, not just %, since it is a publicly traded company (and ICV2's network of associate retailers are not).

GW's investors report is not being cited as allegedly a better benchmark to an entire market sector that is supposedly superior than the numbers reported by Banks and the US Chamber of Commerce.

ICV2's stuff might be utterly brilliant, and contain nuggets of truth that all those investment analysts out there who rely on stock markets, auditing firms and other market analysts are missing. It is certainly a possibility. Just a possibility I cannot verify without ever seeing anything more substantive than a random (and very vague 20% to 25%.. what is it?) percentage quoted without context.

Seriously, if ICV2's stuff is genuine, I'd love to throw a few thousand quid at an index-fund that is tracking a "hobby game sector" that is growing at 25% a year. I am sure a bunch of funds out there would love the same. If ICV2 is spot on with that "hobby game sector" they've identified, it's a frikking gold mine.

 jonolikespie wrote:

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)?

Yes, absolutely. There are very strong legal limits what publicly traded company can say in their annual reports. They can of course attempt to explain why they didn't do so great, or why their performance is actually even better than the numbers say or something similar (and they usually do), but outright misleading would bring severe repercussions. ICv2 isn't bound by similar rules or guidelines.
Also, regarding ICv2's growth numbers:
-even if entire "hobby market" grew by 25% (or whatever), it tells us nothing about miniatures wargaming which forms only tiny part of it. Given very apparent decline in related scale model kit hobby during same timeframe, such an enormous growth would be surprising.
-I flat out don't believe such growth numbers are true, in an estabilished industry with estabilished titles, especially year after year. It might be true in a period when something ground-breaking is published (like MtG was), but highly dubious otherwise.

Top 5 Non-Collectible Miniature Lines – Q4 2011
Title Publisher
1 Warhammer 40k Games Workshop
2 Warmachine Privateer Press
3 Warhammer Fantasy Games Workshop
4 Hordes Privateer Press
5 Malifaux Wyrd Miniatures

Now we know WHFB has declined since 8th ed.
what is the status quo now?

 loki old fart wrote:
Top 5 Non-Collectible Miniature Lines – Q4 2011
Title Publisher
1 Warhammer 40k Games Workshop
2 Warmachine Privateer Press
3 Warhammer Fantasy Games Workshop
4 Hordes Privateer Press
5 Malifaux Wyrd Miniatures

Now we know WHFB has declined since 8th ed.
what is the status quo now?

Interesting list (I didn't realize Malifaux was that popular!) but, out of curiosity, what is the source?

edit: Hah, nevermind

And according to them, Warhammer Fantasy has dropped to number 4 with X-Wing taking number 3 - http://www.icv2.com/articles/news/26216.html

1 | Warhammer 40k |Games Workshop

2 | Warmachine | Privateer Press

3 | Star Wars X-Wing Miniatures | Fantasy Flight Games

4 | Warhammer Fantasy | Games Workshop

5 | Hordes | Privateer Press

Now that either means (a) X-Wing has shown huge growth recently (and FFG isn't a startup with a tiny start to grow from), to jump a few places in the table above a stalwart of the genre (Warhammer Fantasy), that (b) Warhammer Fantasy has completely bombed and is being out-sold by a small fry, or (c) Warhammer Fantasy sales are going through a different (direct) channel.

And from the explosion I've seen of X-Wing mentioned at clubs and being demo'd and sold at conventions, I'm assuming that a is the most likely - huge growth for X-Wing. And so it should, it's a great game for less than the cost of a 40K tank.

X-wing has managed to appeal to the wargaming and board gaming fans.

EG there will be an episode if Wil Wheaton's Tabletop featuring the game on.... Tonight?

 Scrub wrote:


Interesting list (I didn't realize Malifaux was that popular!) but, out of curiosity, what is the source?

Says so in the article.

The charts are based on interviews with retailers, distributors, and manufacturers.

In short, not actually any numbers (from what I can see)

Presumably the ' retailers, distributors, and manufacturers ' have their own numbers that they'd refer to to give them the rankings. Sure it won't be any final 100% end all be all numbers but it's probably going to ever get.

 Compel wrote:
Presumably the ' retailers, distributors, and manufacturers ' have their own numbers that they'd refer to to give them the rankings. Sure it won't be any final 100% end all be all numbers but it's probably going to ever get.

Perhaps. But it doesn't give you scope of things either.

- How much of a difference is there between place 3 and 4, say?
- How do you control for Games Workshop (who have their own stores) vs. , say, Malifaux, who don't?
- Did they interview GW-stores / GW as a manufacturer? If so, GW US only or also Nottingham?
- Is X-Wing beating Warhammer Fantasy only in WFB sales made by independent stores (surveyed by ICV2) or also if you take GW's direct sales/GW stores into account?
- How have the stores they did interview controlled their numbers for the fact that they cannot sell GW across border, but can sell other companies stuff across borders?
- Have all the stores, retailers and non-GW manufacturers controlled for these factors in the same way?
- Have they "interviewed" Amazon.com (Amazon.ca, etc..) and other large online retailers, or only the smaller chains associated with ICV2?
- How many interviews did they do in total?
- What did they do if an interviewee refused to disclose numbers?
- What methods did they use to fact-check the responses they got (especially from privately held manufacturers who won't disclose numbers, such as PP)?
- Finally, what exactly are the 2011, 2012 and 2013 numbers that are the basis of their 15% (20% to 25%) growth verdict?


Etc...

The icv figures do not include GW's own sales data, it deals with indys only.

 Zweischneid wrote:

- How do you control for Games Workshop (who have their own stores) vs. , say, Malifaux, who don't?

GW has stated before about 50% of it's sales are through distributors, so as an estimate it's safe enough to assume total GW sales are distributor sales x 2.

- Did they interview GW-stores / GW as a manufacturer? If so, GW US only or also Nottingham?

No. It's an American consortium and GW would never disclose that information. The numbers are purely from their own network.

- Is X-Wing beating Warhammer Fantasy only in WFB sales made by independent stores (surveyed by ICV2) or also if you take GW's direct sales/GW stores into account?

Independents only.



It's not an exact figure and it doesn't cover the whole industry, but it shows significant growth in those interviewed. The ratios aren't based on complete numbers either buy show a trend. In independents; Warhammer Fantasy is the 4th best selling line, down from 2nd a few years ago.

As GW's growth is tracking inflation, and sales appear to be down, and anecdotal evidence indicates that WHF is barely shifting from GW retail, then we can assume that the drop in sales (proportionally) for WHF from independents isn't being countered by an increase in sales from GW.

But we can also safely conclude than in the US (where the specified retailers are), that there's been significant growth in the card/tabletop gaming industry, as indicated by the retailers, and that Warmachine and X-Wing now sell more than WHF does.

What we can't say is by how much these have grown, or what the sales volumes for anything is.

 reds8n wrote:
The icv figures do not include GW's own sales data, it deals with indys only.

So, why can't we than agree that ICV2 figures are a representation of ICV2 (and their network) doing a good job, possibly better than GW, but are not a representation of "the industry as a whole" in which gaming companies, including both GW and ICV2, operate?

Herzlos wrote:

GW has stated before about 50% of it's sales are through distributors, so as an estimate it's safe enough to assume total GW sales are distributor sales x 2.

Cool.

But is ICV2 doing that x2 estimate you suggest. Or do they stick with the interview rankings they get without changing them?

Herzlos wrote:


It's not an exact figure and it doesn't cover the whole industry,

Great. Glad we cleared that up.

Herzlos wrote:


But we can also safely conclude than in the US (where the specified retailers are), that there's been significant growth in the card/tabletop gaming industry, as indicated by the retailers, and that Warmachine and X-Wing now sell more than WHF does.

Which is great.

By GW's (preliminary) annual results, we know that GW also grew sales in NA by > 7%. Like ICV2's network, they seem to be doing all right, no? Especially if you consider that the entire market sector they are in (by the definition of the US Chamber of Commerce) shrunk by 2%.

Congrats to both GW and ICV2 for bucking the trend.

 Zweischneid wrote:


So, why can't we than agree that ICV2 figures are a representation of ICV2 (and their network) doing a good job, possibly better than GW, but are not a representation of "the industry as a whole" in which gaming companies, including both GW and ICV2, operate?

We can. But I think we're using different terms. Table top gaming appears to be growing pretty well (apart from GW, relatively), we don't know about the whole industry, but from what we can tell many other companies are outperforming GW.

But is ICV2 doing that x2 estimate you suggest. Or do they stick with the interview rankings they get without changing them?

No. The information is basely purely on their stores, in their stores, WHF has dropped to 4th place.

By GW's (preliminary) annual results, we know that GW also grew sales by > 7%. Like ICV2's network, they seem to be doing all right, no? Especially if you consider that the entire market sector they are in (by the definition of the US Chamber of Commerce) shrunk by 2%.

Congrats to both GW and ICV2 for bucking the trend.

Indeed in NA neither are doing badly, though I wonder if the growth in NA is to do with the serious cost cutting, and the EU export ban moving Aus orders from the UK to the US, rather than local US sales.

In any case, if the median growth for that niche industry appears to be about 20-25% (based on what we know), why is the dominant company in that industry experiencing growth of 1/3rd of that? Shouldn't they be best placed to take advantage of the renaissance in gaming?


I think GW are currently looking good on paper, but I also think that many of their direct competition are doing a lot better, which leads me to have long-term concerns about GW, especially since a lot of GW's actions seem to be focussed on the short term. I don't think they are going to be going anywhere for a while though.

Herzlos wrote:


Indeed in NA neither are doing badly, though I wonder if the growth in NA is to do with the serious cost cutting, and the EU export ban moving Aus orders from the UK to the US, rather than local US sales.

Quite the opposite. GW clamped down on US/NA sales to Aus (hence Miniwargaming.com closing, etc..). And growth in sales is independent from cost cutting (indeed, profits are down). Growth in sales are just that. Growth in sales.

Herzlos wrote:

In any case, if the median growth for that niche industry appears to be about 20-25% (based on what we know), why is the dominant company in that industry experiencing growth of 1/3rd of that? Shouldn't they be best placed to take advantage of the renaissance in gaming?

Why do you think the median growth in the industry is equal to the growth reported for ICV2 network stores? (and not, for example, equal to the growth reported by GW, or equal to the (lack of) growth reported by the US Chamber of Commerce)?

From the available options, ICV2 seems the least well suited to be used as a benchmark, especially since they only report %, not numbers, and even those in vague 20% to 25% margins.

Herzlos wrote:

I think GW are currently looking good on paper, but I also think that many of their direct competition are doing a lot better, which leads me to have long-term concerns about GW, especially since a lot of GW's actions seem to be focussed on the short term. I don't think they are going to be going anywhere for a while though.

How do you know ICV2 isn't perhaps facing similar long-term issues? Perhaps even worse things, hidden behind their veil of secrecy and refusal to publish hard numbers?

 Zweischneid wrote:

Herzlos wrote:


Indeed in NA neither are doing badly, though I wonder if the growth in NA is to do with the serious cost cutting, and the EU export ban moving Aus orders from the UK to the US, rather than local US sales.

Quite the opposite. GW clamped down on US/NA sales to Aus (hence Miniwargaming.com closing, etc..). And growth in sales is independent from cost cutting (indeed, profits are down). Growth in sales are just that. Growth in sales.

Hasn't that only just taken effect in May this year, so the very end of the financial year reported? The EU Ban was the previous year, so there's still been 11-financial months of Aussies getting better deals from the US.

Herzlos wrote:

In any case, if the median growth for that niche industry appears to be about 20-25% (based on what we know), why is the dominant company in that industry experiencing growth of 1/3rd of that? Shouldn't they be best placed to take advantage of the renaissance in gaming?

Why do you think the median growth in the industry is equal to the growth reported for ICV2 network stores? (and not, for example, equal to the growth reported by GW, or equal to the (lack of) growth reported by the US Chamber of Commerce)?

Because I'm assuming the US Chamer of Commerce doesn't have a category that matches ICV2, and you're saying that "toys" have declined by 2%, all of which could have been down to power rangers dolls for all we know.

From the available options, ICV2 seems the least well suited to be used as a benchmark, especially since they only report %, not numbers, and even those in vague 20% to 25% margins.

Indeed it's not the most useful benchmark, but it gives a pretty decent reflection of the industry as seen by independents, and is the closest thing we have to numbers for the world outside GW. It is limited though.

Herzlos wrote:

I think GW are currently looking good on paper, but I also think that many of their direct competition are doing a lot better, which leads me to have long-term concerns about GW, especially since a lot of GW's actions seem to be focussed on the short term. I don't think they are going to be going anywhere for a while though.

How do you know ICV2 isn't perhaps facing similar long-term issues? Perhaps even worse things, hidden behind their veil of secrecy and refusal to publish hard numbers?

Herzlos wrote:


Because I'm assuming the US Chamer of Commerce doesn't have a category that matches ICV2, and you're saying that "toys" have declined by 2%, all of which could have been down to power rangers dolls for all we know.

Well, that is the heart of the problem. We don't know anything about this mysterious category ICV2 uses. Hence we don't know how indicative their numbers are for anything.

- What's the annual revenue in ICV2's category?
- What are the parameters they use?

Infact, how can there be an "industry category" that includes parts of the products of a company (e.g. 40K stuff sold through independents) but doesn't include the exact same product sold through other channels (GW direct, GW stores, Amazon.com)? How can anyone use this "category" as a benchmark for anything?

Maybe the other gaming companies are shrinking and ICV2 is a cover up, but the anecdotal evidence agrees with what they are saying (Warmachine and X-Wing are more popular than WHF in some places).

Well, the anecdotal evidence seems to suggest that a market niche growing by 20%+ each year for the past few years wouldn't have escaped investors and financial analysts for so long if there was any substance to it.

Someone should've told Berny Madoff. He could've turned his ship around and paid off his investors fair and square by setting up a fund invested in ICV2's secret "category".

 Kingsley wrote:
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.

This is the most unintentionally ironic thing I think anyone's ever said on this website.

ICV2 doesnt have long term issues...they are a news source. They dont have a dog in the fight to cause them to flog their numbers, they report things...good or bad.

On the claim that you keep making that growth is down in the sector...read it again. The title of the article is quite telling...Licensed toy sales down. Those are toys based on movies and what not. Sales of things like building sets are up 23%. To my eye, if you were to compare GW to something it would be closer to Legos than to Thomas the Tank. Industries like model railroading have seen nearly a 20% increase in sales by US manufacturers in recent years.

http://www.pmsa.us.com/HMA/Size_Of_Industry_Press_Release_2013.pdf

Also, probably a better analog than broad toy market information. Since 2009, hobby games have been doing great in the US market, so much so that they have been highlighted by Forbes, CNN Money and others several times in the last 4 years.I am not too sure why you are suspicious of the ICV2 source and support that suspicion with an article that doesnt apply to them or their figures.

 Zweischneid wrote:

Herzlos wrote:


Because I'm assuming the US Chamer of Commerce doesn't have a category that matches ICV2, and you're saying that "toys" have declined by 2%, all of which could have been down to power rangers dolls for all we know.

Well, that is the heart of the problem. We don't know anything about this mysterious category ICV2 uses. Hence we don't know how indicative their numbers are for anything.

- What's the annual revenue in ICV2's category?
- What are the parameters they use?

Infact, how can there be an "industry category" that includes parts of the products of a company (e.g. 40K stuff sold through independents) but doesn't include the exact same product sold through other channels (GW direct, GW stores, Amazon.com)? How can anyone use this "category" as a benchmark for anything?

I assume we're talking about different things by "industry category". I'm saying that ICV2 is a good indication that those things they claim are showing growth are showing growth in independent retailers, based on what the independent retailers say, and extrapolating out that the story will be similar for other independent retailers, therefore the companies involved in wargaming appear to be growing, and that they also appear to be taking market share away from GW. I'm not tying it to any industry segment or official growth factors.

Well, the anecdotal evidence seems to suggest that a market niche growing by 20%+ each year for the past few years wouldn't have escaped investors and financial analysts for so long if there was any substance to it.

Someone should've told Berny Madoff. He could've turned his ship around and paid off his investors fair and square by setting up a fund invested in ICV2's secret "category".

Except for the fact that all of the companies showing growth are still private, and therefore not subject to investment funds?
As far as I'm aware, GW is the only publicly funded wargames company at the moment. That's why there's so much speculation.

 Sean_OBrien wrote:
ICV2 doesnt have long term issues...they are a news source. They dont have a dog in the fight to cause them to flog their numbers, they report things...good or bad.


Also, probably a better analog than broad toy market information. Since 2009, hobby games have been doing great in the US market, so much so that they have been highlighted by Forbes, CNN Money and others several times in the last 4 years.I am not too sure why you are suspicious of the ICV2 source and support that suspicion with an article that doesnt apply to them or their figures.

I am "suspicious" of ICV2 because they don't give any numbers. They just say 25%? Of what? Why aren't they giving numbers?

Frankly, I don't mind ICV2. Nevertheless, their numbers contradict the numbers of the US Chamber of Commerce and the numbers of GW. The latter, however, give you actually solid numbers and are bound by certain legal constraints to provide accurate numbers. ICV2 has neither numbers, nor any obligation to publish numbers, nor any transparency for anyone to check their numbers.

Yet everyone here sides with ICV2 nonetheless? Why? What do you guys know that I don't?

I'd be more than happy to side with ICV2, if someone could point me to some of their numbers they used to make their estimate. But just pulling a very vague 20% to 25% out of their ass isn't very convincing to me. Perhaps I am just odd that way.

If there is a Forbes, CNN Money, etc.. article with some solid figures, especially figures that back ICV2's side of the story, I'd love a link.



Also, ICV2 certainly has a dog in this. They are an advertising and consulting network, and they publish reports that the stores that use ICV2's consulting and advertising services report 25% growth. No dog at all!

 Zweischneid wrote:

Frankly, I don't mind ICV2. Nevertheless, their numbers contradict the numbers of the US Chamber of Commerce and the numbers of GW. The latter, however, give you actually solid numbers and are bound by certain legal constraints to provide accurate numbers. ICV2 has neither numbers, nor any obligation to publish numbers, nor any transparency for anyone to check their numbers.

Where's the contradiction?

Herzlos wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

Frankly, I don't mind ICV2. Nevertheless, their numbers contradict the numbers of the US Chamber of Commerce and the numbers of GW. The latter, however, give you actually solid numbers and are bound by certain legal constraints to provide accurate numbers. ICV2 has neither numbers, nor any obligation to publish numbers, nor any transparency for anyone to check their numbers.

Where's the contradiction?

First contradiction: 20% or 25%. What is it?

Second contradiction: How can a "sub-sector" grow 25% when the largest company by far in said sub-sector only grows 7%

Third contradiction: How can a "sub-sector" grow 25% when the larger sector they belong to shrinks by 2%

Forth contradiction: How can they report percentages at all, if their rankings are based on interviews with companies that don't disclose numbers to them? If PP tells them "we grew by 10% and "Jim's Garage-Miniatures" tells them "we grew by 60%". How do they aggregate it? And how do they weight GW into the equation for the final percentage?

Fifth contradiction: How do they weigh retailers vs. manufacturers? For example, how do they account for a manufacturer going out of business (and thus no longer being stocked by a retailer, who may be booming nicely. Is there "sector" more retail or more manufacturing? Both? In what percentages?

 Zweischneid wrote:

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.

The term "growth" may mean different things to different people. Perhaps we should define what we each mean by "growth".

What I mean is an increase in volume of product going out the door. I would see selling a smaller volume of product at a higher price as negative growth, whether or not the total revenue generated was bigger or smaller than in the previous year.

"Revenue growth" (i.e. an increase in the amount of £'s coming into the business) is very important to a business of course, but what I am personally interested in as a gamer is whether or not GW are increasing the pool of gamers year on year. And the indications are that after taking account of price rises year on year, then they are not actually selling more product out there, just the same amount (or less in some cases) at a higher price.

We can discuss whether or not that is a good thing or a bad thing, and those looking at the question from an investors point of view may differ from those looking at it from a customer's. Similarly those thinking shorter term will have a different point of view from those thinking longer term. But that is beside the point.

Discounting the published numbers by inflation, is the closest we will get using publically availalble information, to an answer about whether more people or less people are buying their stuff year on year. And that is why it is relevant and how an increase in turnover (or even profit) doesn't necessarily indicate "growth" to me.

In my own business we saw 7% increase in turnover last financial year. The 2.9% of that that was due to an inflationary price rise at the start of the year across the range is one source, and a matter for discussion on its own. The 4.1% volume growth we saw is due to entirely different factors and worth a second discussion. The 29% increase in PAT we saw is a result of these factors and also a whole different set of issues around costs. None of the questions are irrelevant, but we need to be careful not to confuse the answers to one question with the answers to another.

 Zweischneid wrote:


First contradiction: 20% or 25%. What is it?

They say 20 to 25%, so I'd imagine it varies depending on sub-sub-sectors. (CCGs, Board games, Non card collectibles, non-collectibles).

Second contradiction: How can a "sub-sector" grow 25% when the largest company by far in said sub-sector only grows 7%

Because the sub-sector outperformed the largest company 3-fold.

Third contradiction: How can a "sub-sector" grow 25% when the larger sector they belong to shrinks by 2%

Because that sub-sector outperformed the rest of the larger sector.

Forth contradiction: How can they report percentages at all, if their rankings are based on interviews with companies that don't disclose numbers to them? If PP tells them "we grew by 10% and "Jim's Garage-Miniatures" tells them "we grew by 60%". How do they aggregate it? And how do they weight GW into the equation for the final percentage?

We don't know what information they get from the sales or how the weight the numbers. They may give approximate dollar figures for each line in the interviews and it's aggregated that way, or they may just give percentages and it's weighted by company turnover, or they may just use the percentages (because it doesn't matter that much if you're only looking at ratios).

Without knowing how they come to the numbers, we can't assume any contradiction in their ability to publish a percentage.

Herzlos wrote:

They say 20 to 25%, so I'd imagine it varies depending on sub-sub-sectors. (CCGs, Board games, Non card collectibles, non-collectibles).

You imagine? I'd love to have a definite answer from ICV2.

Assuming you're "imagination" is spot on, how do you know it wasn't < GW's growth for the sub-sub-sector relevant to GW?

Herzlos wrote:

Because the sub-sector outperformed the largest company 3-fold.

A bold claim. I would like to see the absolute number of turn over in this sub-sector, including GW, for the years 2011, 2012, 2013 to confirm. We already do have GW's numbers to compare them against. Only ICV2's numbers are missing.

Herzlos wrote:

Because that sub-sector outperformed the rest of the larger sector.

A bold claim. I would like to see the absolute number of turn over in this sub-sector, including GW, for the years 2011, 2012, 2013 to confirm. We already do have the Chamber of Commerce's numbers to compare them against. Only ICV2's numbers are missing.

Herzlos wrote:

Without knowing how they come to the numbers, we can't assume any contradiction in their ability to publish a percentage.

Perhaps. But without any transparency to ICV2's method, it seems ill advised to rely on their numbers, especially if they so blatantly contradict both the larger market-sector their "sub-sector" is in and the largest single company that is part of this sub-sector.

1. Toys/Games-sector (decline by 2% in NA, numbers confirmed by Chamber of Commerce)
2. Sub-sector "hobby games", part of 1) (grew by 20%-25% in NA, numbers unconfirmed by ICV2)
3. GW, largest company in "hobby games" sub-sector (grew by 7% in NA, numbers confirmed by GW)

There is a hefty "anomaly" in the middle there if you take ICV2's numbers at face value, and without at least some sort of grounding or confirmation from a secondary source, that doesn't seem like a prudent thing to do, given the lack of transparency and insight we have into ICV2's numbers and methods..

We can discuss whether or not that is a good thing or a bad thing, and those looking at the question from an investors point of view may differ from those looking at it from a customer's. Similarly those thinking shorter term will have a different point of view from those thinking longer term. But that is beside the point.

This is a good comment overall on how investors do think and to add how old those investors are. Generally speaking these view points are different from people who are 20's and who are in their 70's. Different mindsets from different generations.

 Zweischneid wrote:

1. Toys/Games-sector (decline by 2% in NA, numbers confirmed by Chamber of Commerce)

This is false. Please read what you post...

The article that you posted is for licensed toys only. With the probable exception of X-Wing none of the other games even enters this category...

PhantomViper wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

1. Toys/Games-sector (decline by 2% in NA, numbers confirmed by Chamber of Commerce)

This is false. Please read what you post...

The article that you posted is for licensed toys only. With the probable exception of X-Wing none of the other games even enters this category...

Good spot.

I wish we had similarly detailed information on what ICV2 includes (or excludes) in the "sector" they report on.

 Zweischneid wrote:

Herzlos wrote:

They say 20 to 25%, so I'd imagine it varies depending on sub-sub-sectors. (CCGs, Board games, Non card collectibles, non-collectibles).

You imagine? I'd love to have a definite answer from ICV2.

Me too.

Assuming you're "imagination" is spot on, how do you know it wasn't < GW's growth for the sub-sub-sector relevant to GW?

Because if the growth was purely down to GW's sales via independents GW's figures would show growth closer to ICV2's numbers.

Herzlos wrote:

Because the sub-sector outperformed the largest company 3-fold.

A bold claim. I would like to see the absolute number of turn over in this sub-sector, including GW, for the years 2011, 2012, 2013 to confirm. We already do have GW's numbers to compare them against. Only ICV2's numbers are missing.

I'm not talking absolute numbers, I'm talking percentages. GW's revenue is easily more than the entire competition, so in absolute numbers I have no doubt that GW claims the most growth.

Herzlos wrote:

Because that sub-sector outperformed the rest of the larger sector.

A bold claim. I would like to see the absolute number of turn over in this sub-sector, including GW, for the years 2011, 2012, 2013 to confirm. We already do have the Chamber of Commerce's numbers to compare them against. Only ICV2's numbers are missing.

Again, I'm talking percentages. It's certainly for a company in a market to grow by a huge percentage whilst the market shrinks. You also appear to be comparing with the wrong USCoC category (Licensed toys, i.e. power rangers) and not whatever board/table top gaming comes under.

Herzlos wrote:

Without knowing how they come to the numbers, we can't assume any contradiction in their ability to publish a percentage.

Perhaps. But without any transparency to ICV2's method, it seems ill advised to rely on their numbers, especially if they so blatantly contradict both the larger market-sector their "sub-sector" is in and the largest single company that is part of this sub-sector.

1. Toys/Games-sector (decline by 2% in NA, numbers confirmed by Chamber of Commerce)
2. Sub-sector "hobby games", part of 1) (grew by 20%-25% in NA, numbers unconfirmed by ICV2)
3. GW, largest company in "hobby games" sub-sector (grew by 7% in NA, numbers confirmed by GW)

There is a hefty "anomaly" in the middle there if you take ICV2's numbers at face value, and without at least some sort of grounding or confirmation from a secondary source, that doesn't seem like a prudent thing to do, given the lack of transparency and insight we have into ICV2's numbers and methods..

I still don't see an anomaly. It may not coincide with the growth of GW, but that seems reasonable as GW appears to be focusing on consolidation and not growth, and it doesn't coincide with the growth of an unrelated toy category, which again is reasonable because they aren't related.

All the information out there, anecdotal or not, as well as the plethora of new companies appearing, points to a growth in the board/tabletop gaming industry. A growth that doesn't appear to be happening at GW. No?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Zweischneid wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

1. Toys/Games-sector (decline by 2% in NA, numbers confirmed by Chamber of Commerce)

This is false. Please read what you post...

The article that you posted is for licensed toys only. With the probable exception of X-Wing none of the other games even enters this category...

Good spot.

I wish we had similarly detailed information on what ICV2 includes (or excludes) in the "sector" they report on.

The categories they cover, based on information from their retailers, are:

"Collectible Games in the hobby channel","board games","card/dice games","RPGs"," non-collectible miniature games".

With no mention or relation to any CoC "sectors".

Herzlos wrote:


The categories they cover, based on information from their retailers, are:

"Collectible Games in the hobby channel","board games","card/dice games","RPGs"," non-collectible miniature games".

That's the point.

How representative are their retailers for all retailers? Probably not a lot.

Sure, going the "entire toy sector" with Power Rangers and Barbies in the mix isn't perfect. But it's not any worse than a rather arbitrary collection of stores that pay advertising fees to ICV2 (who in turn, surprise, report that those paying for advertising with them make bank).