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.

This conversation started when you disagreed with a poster's statement that GW was moving less volume

I never said this once.

I said, repeatedly, it doesn't matter whatsoever.

GW may serve pepsi in their soda machines instead of coke. It doesn't matter if you are a stockholder.

DukeRustfield wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:
And their lack of volume is 100% related to their dramatic increase in prices.

Please post their volumes vs. past volumes so we can evaluate this for ourselves.

Or are you just making something up on the internet?

You mean when you said this? You called Vulcan out on his statement, I responded that he was in fact correct but in a general way as evidenced by GW's financials. I did not quote the rest of your post because I never contested that portion of your statement; I only stated that the portion of Vulcan's statement that you quoted was at least based upon fact and referred you to where it was derived from.

Anyway, I'm done here; please continue to be contrary.

It's not contrary. It's correcting people who have no understanding of financials and are pretending to.

You are saying something akin to, "Ford isn't ever going to reach a 43% return on capital employed until the vending machines in their plants serve pepsi and coke. As an investor and car enthusiast, that is the #1 concern for Ford."

I.e., you were making a statement:
-they have less volume
-which hasn't been verified at all
-which you assume is negative

Yet the company has been more and more profitable each year. So clearly your suppositions are incorrect. There is some hocus pocus going on here where even if they are (don't know) having less volume, they are making more money. As I look at the subject of this thread, I cannot help to wonder what it could be.

DukeRustfield wrote:

 agnosto wrote:
That's actually posted in another thread about GW financials and appears to be an accurate if general statement.

Well, their financials have risen year-on-year for like the last 4 or so years. That is from their required by law, not just internet nonsense, financial statements. Do a google search and go to any investor site. It will break out all their expenses and revenue.

Oh, certainly, they do bring in more $$$ this year than last. But that increase is due soley to increases in price-per-unit. They are selling LESS units now than ever before and only those price increases are allowing the company to 'grow'.

 Vulcan wrote:
Oh, certainly, they do bring in more $$$ this year than last. But that increase is due soley to increases in price-per-unit. They are selling LESS units now than ever before and only those price increases are allowing the company to 'grow'.

Um. Duh? How many times did I already say this?

Again.

Listen.

Read.

No. One. Cares.

How they make money is irrelevant. That is their business model. It is to increase costs to increase profits. And..wait for it...

THEY SUCCEEDED!

Do you know which major investors are angry at them?

NONE!

If their business model is unsustainable, then people will care. It clearly isn't.

DukeRustfield wrote:
It clearly isn't.

Weeeeell... that's still debatable. You can print money and say that you made an increased amount this year from last. Do that a little every year and show a steady incline in profits, but I think anyone that has ever heard of post world war germany knows it is not sustainable.

 Purifier wrote:

DukeRustfield wrote:
It clearly isn't.

Weeeeell... that's still debatable. You can print money and say that you made an increased amount this year from last. Do that a little every year and show a steady incline in profits, but I think anyone that has ever heard of post world war germany knows it is not sustainable.

To get an accurate representation of their business model you can't just assume they raised prices and that's where all their money came from.
Cut backs through staff, retail stores, materials, packaging, shipping, employees benefits, etc. then add purchasing, futures, business deals.the lists go on and and are highly complex especially on the global market that GW deals in.
To grasp it fully you would have to read the entire financial report and view each counties specifics to gain a full understanding ..

All of which I have no desire to do.

I look at it this way...
GW makes products I want to buy..and I will until they make products I don't want to buy.

Peasant wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

DukeRustfield wrote:
It clearly isn't.

Weeeeell... that's still debatable. You can print money and say that you made an increased amount this year from last. Do that a little every year and show a steady incline in profits, but I think anyone that has ever heard of post world war germany knows it is not sustainable.

To get an accurate representation of their business model you can't just assume they raised prices and that's where all their money came from.
Cut backs through staff, retail stores, materials, packaging, shipping, employees benefits, etc. then add purchasing, futures, business deals.the lists go on and and are highly complex especially on the global market that GW deals in.
To grasp it fully you would have to read the entire financial report and view each counties specifics to gain a full understanding ..

All of which I have no desire to do.

I look at it this way...
GW makes products I want to buy..and I will until they make products I don't want to buy.

all I was saying was that this sentence:
"If their business model is unsustainable, then people will care. It clearly isn't."
Was saying that it was crystal clear that what they are doing is sustainable. I'm just saying it isn't all that clear just because it worked for a little while

DukeRustfield wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:
Oh, certainly, they do bring in more $$$ this year than last. But that increase is due soley to increases in price-per-unit. They are selling LESS units now than ever before and only those price increases are allowing the company to 'grow'.

Um. Duh? How many times did I already say this?

Again.

Listen.

Read.

No. One. Cares.

How they make money is irrelevant. That is their business model. It is to increase costs to increase profits. And..wait for it...

THEY SUCCEEDED!

Do you know which major investors are angry at them?

NONE!

If their business model is unsustainable, then people will care. It clearly isn't.

/thread

Kinda funny how people still think GW cared about their customer's opinion. lmao.

Peasant wrote:
To get an accurate representation of their business model you can't just assume they raised prices and that's where all their money came from.
Cut backs through staff, retail stores, materials, packaging, shipping, employees benefits, etc. then add purchasing, futures, business deals.the lists go on and and are highly complex especially on the global market that GW deals in.
To grasp it fully you would have to read the entire financial report and view each counties specifics to gain a full understanding ..

I glanced at it. It's not that big. Though what you want to find is like an analysis of the last 5 years to track the differences.

http://investor.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Half-year-press-statement.pdf
http://investor.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Final-group-accounts-3-June-2012.pdf

 More Dakka wrote:
I agree the big kits are crazy pricey, but GW sets their retail high partially because they have to set an MSRP for their dealers, many of whom are still selling online at 30-40% less than this.

Who is selling at these prices? Serious question. Every time I google about cheaper Warhammer Fantasy, it all leads to threads of people talking about a series of websites who now all have notices up that they aren't selling GW anymore b/c they can't discount it like they used to. Even most of the Ebay stores are only selling at a 10% discount and those are, like as not, "box not included". PM me instead if you like. Planning to start some army buying in the (hopefully) neat future and money counts

DukeRustfield wrote:
If their business model is unsustainable, then people will care. It clearly isn't.

If their financial statements for the last 3 or 4 years all show that volume is on the decline but profits are up and oh, BTW, we raised prices AGAIN this year, that has not proven sustainability yet. We need a longer timeline to verify that. What you see is a tourniquet on a wound, but one that isn't on very tightly. Will it work? Maybe. They aren't selling as much tho so they have been forced to raise prices to make the profit continue. "Everybody has a price" -Ted DiBiase. Also, every consumer item has a certain amount of flex in the cost that its target market will accept. Look at what happens when gas prices go up. If it's just a bit, not a lot happens, but when you see things like (here in the US) gas at $4 a gallon, you see a lot of people stop driving their cars or only drive them just enough to get by, thereby buying LESS of the product in question. Those high prices of gasoline are unsustainable and eventually OPEC will start releasing more barrels per day again and drive the supply up to lower the demand and the cost per gallon and get people buying the product again.

I really don't see why this is much of a debate honestly. So far, GW has been able to increase prices. How many old players have ceased buying b/c of the prices? How many never started playing b/c of the prices? Volume DOES matter, but it is not the end all be all of the discussion.

SSquirrel wrote:
gas at $4 a gallon

Haha, oh wow. If we had those prices in Europe, people would think you were trying to sell them water as gas. in Sweden we're at just above 7 of your dollars for one of your gallons.
(of course we call it 13 swedish kronor for one litre... although we're getting closer to 14 than 13 now.)

 Purifier wrote:

SSquirrel wrote:
gas at $4 a gallon

Haha, oh wow. If we had those prices in Europe, people would think you were trying to sell them water as gas. in Sweden we're at just above 7 of your dollars for one of your gallons.
(of course we call it 13 swedish kronor for one litre... although we're getting closer to 14 than 13 now.)

Yeah when i went to Denmark a decade ago as a kid I thought GAs prices were high and I didn't realize that was by the liter.

In anycase as long as GW can show a significant return for investors nothing of significance will change

SSquirrel wrote:
Look at what happens when gas prices go up. If it's just a bit, not a lot happens, but when you see things like (here in the US) gas at $4 a gallon, you see a lot of people stop driving their cars or only drive them just enough to get by, thereby buying LESS of the product in question. Those high prices of gasoline are unsustainable and eventually OPEC will start releasing more barrels per day again and drive the supply up to lower the demand and the cost per gallon and get people buying the product again.

About 15 years ago gas was ~$1 a gallon in US.

Supply/demand. If the cost goes up too much alternative supplies spring up because it becomes cost-effective. Like North Dakota oil shale and Canada. But again, GW isn't oil. Ogre models exist because there is a GW game. GW is the road builder, the car builder, the oil driller, the refiner, the distributor.

If there was no Lizardman book put out, there would be like 1/10th the interest in Lizardman models at any cost.

The cost of WFB is what stops people from starting it , with 2500 being the starting range for armies the only people I see playing WFB are those who either bought their armies two editions ago or those who have half of their models recast

If it's just a bit, not a lot happens, but when you see things like (here in the US) gas at $4 a gallon, you see a lot of people stop driving their cars

Just checked how much a galon is in liters . 4$ per galon seems like free gas

Makumba wrote:
Just checked how much a galon is in liters . 4$ per galon seems like free gas

Yeah I'm aware of how much per liter gas is in Europe. Outside of major US cities, the US doesn't really have much in the way of good alternatives to driving. Following this further will be off topic tho, so I'll just chalk it up to an analogy I shouldn't have brought up The point was that if the price of gas goes beyond a certain price that people will pay, they reduce their consumption if they can and prices trend back downward. I suspect that if GW keeps having less people buy and just prices things higher, they will speed the volume loss and have to readjust somehow.

 Purifier wrote:

SSquirrel wrote:
gas at $4 a gallon

Haha, oh wow. If we had those prices in Europe, people would think you were trying to sell them water as gas. in Sweden we're at just above 7 of your dollars for one of your gallons.
(of course we call it 13 swedish kronor for one litre... although we're getting closer to 14 than 13 now.)

The thing to remember is the distance people travel is much greater in the US. Ma y people drive 40+miles just one way to work. $5 a gallon is going to be about the highest price possible let for the US.

Edit to apologize for drifting off topic..


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Makumba wrote:
The cost of WFB is what stops people from starting it , with 2500 being the starting range for armies the only people I see playing WFB are those who either bought their armies two editions ago or those who have half of their models recast

If it's just a bit, not a lot happens, but when you see things like (here in the US) gas at $4 a gallon, you see a lot of people stop driving their cars

Just checked how much a galon is in liters . 4$ per galon seems like free gas

I'd disagree. Average start up for a fantasy army is about $450 US which is on par with most other hobbies out there. When starting a hobby most people are prepared for the startup costs. And wargaming is a niche hobby as well..

Average starting price is FAR, FAR below 450$. If you're a lazy pants and buy from GW, sure, that might be true, but for ~200$, you can easily get a full 2000 pts second hand army.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Average starting price is FAR, FAR below 450$. If you're a lazy pants and buy from GW, sure, that might be true, but for ~200$, you can easily get a full 2000 pts second hand army.

Yes, we all know that you might get lucky and find a decent army in the swap shop here or on Ebay, but let's not pretend that is how everyone who is looking to start the hobby starts. I don't see an issue w/quoting what standard retail starting would be and that's reasonably accurate. I also still haven't seen any evidence of these magical places people shop online and buy Warhammer for 20-40% off retail. The War Store is the only one of the commonly referred to ones who still carry Warhammer, but you have to contact them about pricing and to order.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Average starting price is FAR, FAR below 450$. If you're a lazy pants and buy from GW, sure, that might be true, but for ~200$, you can easily get a full 2000 pts second hand army.

Although this can be true I think it is mostly veterans that look to the discount sellers and second hand market.
I have found incredible deals on eBay, just being there at the right time. but I have been doing this for 20 years.
New players will shop in the stores or where their friends shop most of the time.

Back on topic profits are not solely based upon price increases.
Futures and better contract pricing on materials play important roles.
The belief that the only reason GW is making more money is because they have high prices is naive.

Their financial reports tell in pretty good detail how they make money.

Their revenue went up
131,009 from 123,052 [gain] 7957 greater

Cost of sales went up
(30,118) from (28,288) [LOSS] 1830 greater

Operating expenses went up
(85,288) from (81,975) [LOSS] 3313 greater

So their total expenses went up about 4.6% and their revenue went up about 6% (excluding stuff like taxes, loans, etc). If they had kept prices the same in all lines and sold exactly what they did last year, they would have eaten that 4.6% hike.

I mean, inflation alone means stuff is going cost more each year. If inflation is ~2% the $1 you had last year has $0.98 of buying power this year. That's just economics. And why you don't put your money under your mattress, because it's worth less each year.

DukeRustfield wrote:
And why you don't put your money under your mattress, because it's worth less each year.

But then where would we put all the bodies?

Backyard. Someone else's.

Peasant wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

SSquirrel wrote:
gas at $4 a gallon

Haha, oh wow. If we had those prices in Europe, people would think you were trying to sell them water as gas. in Sweden we're at just above 7 of your dollars for one of your gallons.
(of course we call it 13 swedish kronor for one litre... although we're getting closer to 14 than 13 now.)

The thing to remember is the distance people travel is much greater in the US. Ma y people drive 40+miles just one way to work. $5 a gallon is going to be about the highest price possible let for the US.

Edit to apologize for drifting off topic..

I don't know why you think that's a "much greater distance to travel."
I travel well beyond 50 miles a day to get to work each way. Most people here choose to use public transportation, because the gas gets much much too expensive for it. But most of my friends travel 40 or more miles each way every day.