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.

Yup, it's only their retailers. But that information must be closer to other games retailers than the figures for Power Rangers and Barbie.

If the trends were vastly different in terms of GW's performance (since that is essentially what we're talking about here), then it'd be reflected in GW's figures. As it isn't we can assume GW's performance has been lower (up to about 7%) than other games at a group of retailers exhibiting growth of (20-25%).


That's essentially all we can take from this information, but that should be enough for what we're discussing here. GW doing alright, Gaming in general doing better.

Herzlos wrote:
Yup, it's only their retailers. But that information must be closer to other games retailers than the figures for Power Rangers and Barbie.

No. It may be. But there is no reason it must be. And we have no way to confirm or assess it. Given the outrageous number of 25%, I would guess it isn't.

Fair enough. Based on the excitement I've witnessed for other games, and the change in what's been going on at clubs & conventions, I'd happily believe the icv2 figures.

It is becoming a bit of an echo chamber in here.

Is there a way to get this back on topic vs. a "I am right!" declaration thread?

Hate to tell you this, Z, but you are making the same rather pointed arguments about ICV2 that others have made many times. You will not make a dent. It's PROOF, don't you see ;->

 Zweischneid wrote:

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..

Jack_Death wrote:
Hate to tell you this, Z, but you are making the same rather pointed arguments about ICV2 that others have made many times. You will not make a dent. It's PROOF, don't you see ;->

Hey, look over here mommy, its an actual living strawman!

Herzlos wrote:
Fair enough. Based on the excitement I've witnessed for other games, and the change in what's been going on at clubs & conventions, I'd happily believe the icv2 figures.

Well, that's sort of the problem, isn't it? icv2 doesn't really have any 'figures' to speak of.

Personally, I'd LOVE to see some of the $$ for the other companies. But being as they're all private and under no obligation to release them, it's unlikely to happen. What we do have is good old Steve Jackson, who bless his Munchkiny heart, releases his numbers:

Steve Jackson 2013 Stakeholders

Here, Steve notes that he had a Record Gross of $7MM, a $2.5MM increase over 2011, with around $1MM of that coming from the KS. That would put the non-KS gross up around $1.5MM, or an approximate 33% growth. I think this is important for two reasons: 1) it gives us an idea that (while I agree that 25% for the industry at large seems RIDICULOUSLY high) perhaps it's not THAT unreasonable; and 2) We get an idea of how much a smallish private hobby company with a large retail footprint brings in a year.

I don't know if we can extrapolate a ton from it, quite honestly, in regards to the gross #s for companies like FFG or Privateer Press; I doubt we can.

 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.

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.

Sean to the rescue. I was on the verge of pissing away half of my work day to look into this, now I know where to look.

Interesting, these 5 Major Themes:

1. Hobbyists are aging and the industry is not attracting a younger demographic.
2. The economy impacted the industry as hobbyists cut back on their hobby expenditures.
3. Internet sales and direct sales to retailers are hurting the traditional distribution channels.
4. Cheaper and lesser quality products from sources outside the U.S. are costing hobbyists more in the long run.
5. The decline in hobby retail stores has made it more difficult for consumers to find products and to try and learn
more about them

 Zweischneid wrote:

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%

Second point: The point that most people seem to be making is that all of the small companies are growing much, much faster than GW, and assuming that's true, or it's at least moving in that direction we would expect to see these results.

Third point: I think you are being disingenuous on this one. The category that you keep referring to as the larger sector, and Chamber of Commerce numbers includes "toys" which is Hasbro and Mattel. Hasbro's revenue last year was 4.06 Billion and Mattel's was 6.80 billion. So of course the "gaming" sub sector could grow 25% (as an example) while the overall toy sector decreases 2%. A $50 million increase in gaming is easily off set by Mattel taking a $200 million hit.

Ashitaka wrote:
Third point: I think you are being disingenuous on this one. The category that you keep referring to as the larger sector, and Chamber of Commerce numbers includes "toys" which is Hasbro and Mattel. Hasbro's revenue last year was 4.06 Billion and Mattel's was 6.80 billion. So of course the "gaming" sub sector could grow 25% (as an example) while the overall toy sector decreases 2%. A $50 million increase in gaming is easily off set by Mattel taking a $200 million hit.

In that same vein, isn't it much easier for a company that made $4MM in 2012 to grow 25% than a company that made $140MM?

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

If it includes board games, I don't think GW is the biggest company in the sub-sector. They certainly have the largest range, but board games appeal to a far wider market. Certainly GW is among the larger companies in the sector, but some of the larger board game companies likely have comparable sales. I also would imagine that board gaming is where the largest part of the growth is occurring, but that's pretty close to pure guesswork from me.

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

I'd be shocked if wargames were 1% of the toy games sector, and there isn't really any reason why board games, baby toys, GI Joes and warhammer miniatures should be particularly linked to each other in sales. Recessions don't really just drop sales in all areas. For example did you know that bad market conditions tend to increase movie ticket sales? People need escapes in recessions more than when times are good, and warhammer is a good fit for an escape for a certain segment of the population.

Overall, you're right to question the weight that should be attributed to ICV2 numbers. GW has huge direct sales that aren't factored in. How much of X-Wing sales are direct? Probably not nearly as much. But to a degree, you can rely on it to recognize trends. I think we can all agree that in the miniature wargaming world, Privateer Press has grown and is clearly in the #2 spot after GW. There's also some other smaller companies which have been growing a market share in ames like Malifaux, Flames of War, and the support companies that are getting more established, like Mantic and Plastic Soldiers Company. If we jump back 5 years, it's clear that there's been a ton of growth in the competitors (at least it is to me). And I've lived in two very different markets where Warhammer Fantasy now is as strong as ever - but other companies/products have grown considerably over that time. There's a much bigger pie now, with GW's slice being the same size as it's ever been.

Now...that's not overtly a bad thing for GW's future. They're in a situation where they could continue to keep essentially level sales and pay out dividends to their shareholders indefinitely. For sure there's some issues, but the company isn't unhealthy. Most importantly, GW's IP is strong as ever, meaning there's a huge potential for licensing to continue (it was low this year, but there were no major computer game releases and there was the turmoil with that license which is now dealt with for the better in GW's mind).

Backfire wrote:

/rant

Did you miss the part about where I mentioned he didn't lock out a live electrical source on a flammable fuel system? Electricity plus fuel equals boom. On a 1000 gallon fuel tank, that equals a very big boom. That is the type of "bs" I'm talking about. Stuff that by ignoring it endangers the safety and livelihood of multiple people. The old timers said his type of attitude normally lead to being fired at best, worst, dead or crippled.

Back on topic. Has icv2 stated where it gets it's numbers from? I always assumed it was from Alliance and Diamond distribution. Also, that talk of 20 - 25% growth article seemed to be fueled by CCG games. It doesn't mention RPGs or miniature games contributing to it. There aren't any numbers there to actually show how GW is doing relative to the rest of the miniature games in terms of growth. WHFB may be the #4 selling game, but is it because its sales are declining or other games are growing faster?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Sean_OBrien: I wouldn't be crowing too hard about the state of the industry with what you linked. That shows plastic/die cast kits down 15% and "General Hobby" down 28% in the same period. It is clear certain fields are doing better, others worse. Your article states "sales up 3%" but it clearly only due to one segment soaring while others are clearly dropping.

Herzlos wrote:
Yup, it's only their retailers. But that information must be closer to other games retailers than the figures for Power Rangers and Barbie.

If the trends were vastly different in terms of GW's performance (since that is essentially what we're talking about here), then it'd be reflected in GW's figures. As it isn't we can assume GW's performance has been lower (up to about 7%) than other games at a group of retailers exhibiting growth of (20-25%).


That's essentially all we can take from this information, but that should be enough for what we're discussing here. GW doing alright, Gaming in general doing better.

The problem is that these companies are in different stages in terms of life cycle. GW is more mature wheras some of the other newer game companies are emerging. Emerging companies tend to have more growth because they are smaller. Growth is great for the short term, sustainability is the next step. One bad month or mediocre response to something new they do and they could be gone. GW's "meager" 3% growth is more than a good chunk of most of the total sales of most of these emerging companies. It will be interesting to see as PP matures how they handle their growth - I think they are a growing Company but I still think GW is leaps and bounds ahead of them in terms of production, quality, and visibility (there are things that PP does better than GW so don't get your panties in a bunch). PP is creeping up there - heck it took GW a good 15 -20 years to leave the middle of the pack and get where they are today. PP has been around for nearly 10 years? Its in roughly the same place GW was about 5-8 years ago - they are converting a large chunk of their core to plastic. Its much easier to grow when you are trailing behind someone and can see the risk and reward for doing certain things. While I am invested in GW, I will say I do think PP will catch up. I don't necessarily think they will over take them in the next several years but I think they will catch up and rattle their food dish.

Herzlos wrote:

If the trends were vastly different in terms of GW's performance (since that is essentially what we're talking about here), then it'd be reflected in GW's figures. As it isn't we can assume GW's performance has been lower (up to about 7%) than other games at a group of retailers exhibiting growth of (20-25%).

The article in question, in fact, said the following:
Hobby game growth was led by the CCG category, where the Big Three, Magic: The Gathering, Yu-Gi-Oh!, and Pokemon, all had strong years, with Magic continuing an incredible multi-year run, Pokemon rejuvenated with the new Black and White series, and Yu-Gi-Oh! especially strong in the hobby. HeroClix and World of Warcraft rounded out a strong Top Five in collectible games.

The two boxed game categories both did well in 2011, although deckbuilding and card games are starting to suck some of the energy from board games. A ton of new board game titles were absorbed by the market last year, although it seems to be getting harder to develop long-term hits.


No mention of the growth of tabletop miniatures industry.

As for Warmachine vs WHFB, it was reported:
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

Their newest listing:

Top 5 Non-Collectible Miniature Lines – Spring 2013
Title Publisher
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

So according to this listing, relative position of WHFB has not changed much in several years, it's not a new thing (though absolute position might be, but ICv2 does not mention it*). I think people are overplaying "but now GW has competition!!" line: It's not that many years when Confrontation, AT-43 and Helldorado were pretty popular, back in the '90s there were companies like Ral Partha which were quite big, etc. This is not to say that this time it couldn't be different, but listening to some people you'd think that GW has been a lone dinosaur for 30 years with no one else around, until shining knight in guise of Warmachine rose to challenge it.

*apparently, ICv2's subscribed issues have more complete information "with size estimates", anyone has access to those?

I'll say that I found the GW report surprising in that they reported good growth in North America, and weak sales in Europe. I would have expected it to be other way around. There is lot of anecdotes about GW games disappearing locally and getting replaced by Privateer Press and/or Malifaux, whilst in Europe those games don't appear to be anywhere as popular. I'd have expected it to show in the financials at least somewhat, but opposite seems to be true.

PhantomViper wrote:

Jack_Death wrote:
Hate to tell you this, Z, but you are making the same rather pointed arguments about ICV2 that others have made many times. You will not make a dent. It's PROOF, don't you see ;->

Hey, look over here mommy, its an actual living strawman!

I don't think that means what you think it means.

boyd wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
While I am invested in GW, I will say I do think PP will catch up. I don't necessarily think they will over take them in the next several years but I think they will catch up and rattle their food dish.

I agree. And I think at that point GW will then be forced to act.

But today is not that day.

Backfire wrote:

I'll say that I found the GW report surprising in that they reported good growth in North America, and weak sales in Europe. I would have expected it to be other way around. There is lot of anecdotes about GW games disappearing locally and getting replaced by Privateer Press and/or Malifaux, whilst in Europe those games don't appear to be anywhere as popular. I'd have expected it to show in the financials at least somewhat, but opposite seems to be true.

I agree at your surprise--but I'm still curious about the 2nd half of the year. The 1st half was very likely propped up by (arguably) what should be their biggest release (New 40K). The 2nd half of the year however, was down from previous years--which is the 1st time of that happening since the LOTR bubble.

 AgeOfEgos wrote:


I agree at your surprise--but I'm still curious about the 2nd half of the year. The 1st half was very likely propped up by (arguably) what should be their biggest release (New 40K). The 2nd half of the year however, was down from previous years--which is the 1st time of that happening since the LOTR bubble.

Couldn't that have direct correlation with them losing their asses on the Hobbit stuff?

 cincydooley wrote:

 AgeOfEgos wrote:


I agree at your surprise--but I'm still curious about the 2nd half of the year. The 1st half was very likely propped up by (arguably) what should be their biggest release (New 40K). The 2nd half of the year however, was down from previous years--which is the 1st time of that happening since the LOTR bubble.

Couldn't that have direct correlation with them losing their asses on the Hobbit stuff?

Could very well be--I'm not sure on the Hobbit release date--and when the operational cost to launch was figured in.

First half June-November, second half December to May (including most of Xmas sales). Hobbit box release December, followed by 6 Codices/armybooks in 5 months.

 Kroothawk wrote:
First half June-November, second half December to May (including most of Xmas sales). Hobbit box release December, followed by 6 Codices/armybooks in 5 months.

Well that shows where that giant turd landed then. Think this is as close as GW is going to come to saying the Hobbit game was a bomb.

And we don't need to reiterate why it bombed. There are a couple hundred pages spread across several threads that already explained that.

Grab the limited edition Hobbit starter box while it is still available

 Ouze wrote:

 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.

Much the reverse-- that's my entire point. Is there even any point to me posting my analysis? No, because people already know what my thoughts will be. The same goes for most of the "usual suspects." Threads like this really just aren't interesting anymore-- it's all been done to death.

TBH the real bad news for GW isn't that they're growing slower than the rest of the miniatures industry (if they are). All that establishes is that growth is possible, we aren't dealing with an overall decline in gaming where even avoiding a decline in profit is a praise-worthy accomplishment.

What really matters is that GW barely grew following major price increases and cost cutting. That means that sales volume is down, threatening GW's biggest asset: their status as the "default" game for new players to enter the hobby with. Keeping their current position depends on having a critical mass of players, and right now they're losing it. Meanwhile price increase and cost cutting aren't sustainable in the long run, eventually GW is going to reach the point where increasing prices no longer makes up for the lost sales and there are no more expenses left to cut without sacrificing product quality. So I'm sure they're a solid investment in the immediate future (all their shareholders care about), but it's a worrying sign for the long-term health of the game we love.

TL;DR: GW isn't showing true growth, they're just squeezing the last bit of profit out of what they already have.

 Peregrine wrote:
TBH the real bad news for GW isn't that they're growing slower than the rest of the miniatures industry (if they are). All that establishes is that growth is possible, we aren't dealing with an overall decline in gaming where even avoiding a decline in profit is a praise-worthy accomplishment.

What really matters is that GW barely grew following major price increases and cost cutting. That means that sales volume is down, threatening GW's biggest asset: their status as the "default" game for new players to enter the hobby with. Keeping their current position depends on having a critical mass of players, and right now they're losing it. Meanwhile price increase and cost cutting aren't sustainable in the long run, eventually GW is going to reach the point where increasing prices no longer makes up for the lost sales and there are no more expenses left to cut without sacrificing product quality. So I'm sure they're a solid investment in the immediate future (all their shareholders care about), but it's a worrying sign for the long-term health of the game we love.

TL;DR: GW isn't showing true growth, they're just squeezing the last bit of profit out of what they already have.

This is my point exactly.

And then whats left for us

 AgeOfEgos wrote:

I agree at your surprise--but I'm still curious about the 2nd half of the year. The 1st half was very likely propped up by (arguably) what should be their biggest release (New 40K). The 2nd half of the year however, was down from previous years--which is the 1st time of that happening since the LOTR bubble.

However, maybe that was to be expected since they've not have had as big release since 2008 and 5th edition 40k (which pretty saved GW's ass after LotR bubble had burst). That said, Kirby does sound mildly disapppointed with the result in his comments, admitting it was "a mixed year" with sales slightly dropping in 2013 and sorta sandbags that eventually they're going to have a bad year.. Since they made good profit even with their royalties collapsing this was not a bad year, but it seems obvious they expected bit more from such a big year of releases.

One thing which struck me was how little they make from FFG licenses, despite large number of GW licensed titles offered by FFG. It's all positive, of course, but probably partly explains why they still want to make occasional boxed game set of their own.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

What really matters is that GW barely grew following major price increases and cost cutting. That means that sales volume is down.

This is often repeated, however we do not know to which extent this is true since we don't have any real numbers of how much exactly price increases feature in their revenue growth. And we have no way of knowing, since we don't have required numbers. Just because some individual item has a 10% price increase does not mean that it should turn to 10% increase in revenue, everything else staying equal. Even calculating the average increase over their entire catalogue (as some people have done) tells us very little.

Kirby claimed in the report that they had a small growth in sales, though apparently mostly because of good performance from BL and FW. Which would seemingly imply that their core business sales are essentially flat.

Backfire wrote:
This is often repeated, however we do not know to which extent this is true since we don't have any real numbers of how much exactly price increases feature in their revenue growth. And we have no way of knowing, since we don't have required numbers. Just because some individual item has a 10% price increase does not mean that it should turn to 10% increase in revenue, everything else staying equal. Even calculating the average increase over their entire catalogue (as some people have done) tells us very little.

Kirby claimed in the report that they had a small growth in sales, though apparently mostly because of good performance from BL and FW. Which would seemingly imply that their core business sales are essentially flat.

Actually, we have those numbers. We have them in spades really. While we don't have individual product sales, the have numerous accounts of the price changes over the years for some time. The averages paint a picture that is supposed to be close to results. If you dilute a price increase over the entire range by using averages, then that is what you should look for in terms of approximate revenue growth. The problem is, they've never come close to their average increase in price even when spiking core products like starters and troops/core.

decker_cky wrote:
Most importantly, GW's IP is strong as ever, meaning there's a huge potential for licensing to continue (it was low this year, but there were no major computer game releases and there was the turmoil with that license which is now dealt with for the better in GW's mind).

I'd say it's never been weaker; the CHS lawsuit has highlighted several things GW claimed to own but hasn't, and has set fairly firm boundaries on what other companies can do without stepping on their toes. The 3rd party market will be exploding fairly soon.

In terms of computer gaming licenses they are in a fairly good place, as they've got some series and mindshare, but in terms of tabletop gaming a lot of their IP protection has vanished.

Herzlos wrote:
I'd say it's never been weaker; the CHS lawsuit has highlighted several things GW claimed to own but hasn't, and has set fairly firm boundaries on what other companies can do without stepping on their toes. The 3rd party market will be exploding fairly soon.

I doubt it. The 3rd party market is already past saturation point. How many more sources for Ork heads do we actually need? If anything, we're going to see a significant reduction once the novelty wears off.