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.

Didn't they have original Space Hulk sold through other companies like Toys 'R' Us?

I know I've seen a few of the older players say that is how they got into the hobby, after having seen the game in the much more widely circulated chains of toy shops.

GW's biggest issues:

1) High barriers to entry. GW's business strategy depends on younger "three purchase" customers (initial, birthday, christmas), with a constant supply of new customers to replace the ones that drop out. The reasoning on this is that new customers make big purchases to start the game, while older players take a lot of work to retain but don't buy as much stuff. This is a problem now because prices keep going up and that makes GW games look a lot less appealing even to people who might like the idea of playing them. The two-player starter set is a good deal, but only if you're willing to play those armies and only play with a friend so you can play the starter missions. If you want to join in random pickup games on 40k night you're looking at $500+ before you can play. And that's just way too much money for a lot of people, which means lost customers aren't being replaced by new ones and sales volume is declining.

Note that this is NOT the same thing as price increases. A game can survive having a high cost to keep playing once you're invested in it (see MTG, or constant price whine forum threads where most of the people are still buying), GW's much bigger problem is the up-front costs to a potential new customer.

2) Lack of marketing. Other than their retail stores (which don't work in their biggest market) GW is entirely dependent on word of mouth to attract new customers. Potential customers never hear about GW, and even the ones that do never get the needed persuasion to get them into a store and buying stuff. Meanwhile they don't even market effectively to their existing customers. While other game companies (WOTC, for example) use previews of upcoming products to build hype well in advance of release day GW seems to be terrified of the possibility of losing impulse buys if their customers have time to think about their purchases. The problem here is obvious (so obvious that the sheer idiocy of GW's choices makes it hard to believe that any of their upper management still have jobs): it's very hard to sell stuff if you don't convince people to buy it.

So far this has mostly "worked" because GW has dominated the miniature wargaming market so thoroughly in the past. If you had any interest in the hobby you either played a GW game or struggled to find another player for some obscure 1980s game you found in a dusty corner of a comic book store. And if you walked into a store and asked what everyone else was playing (because you want to have people to play with) the answer was inevitably a GW game. But that's no longer the case. The miniatures market as a whole is growing, while GW's sales volume is declining. As GW loses market share and stops being the "default" game they need to actually work to get people to buy their products over the competition. And they aren't doing it.

3) Obsessive focus on a single target market. GW has decided that their target market is young men who play "beer and pretzels" games and completely ignored other target markets (tournament players, for example). Meanwhile smarter game companies (WOTC, again) research ALL potential target markets and try to make sure that their products appeal to as wide an audience as possible. For example, MTG obviously appeals to hardcore competitive players by offering everything from weekly local tournaments to pro tour events with tens of thousands of dollars in cash prizes. But they also make sure that casual players get plenty of support with every set getting "fun" cards, special expansion products aimed at casual multiplayer games, etc. GW's refusal to do this is a big liability for them, I can't imagine that properly supporting tournaments (even with just balanced rules that don't need constant FAQing) would cost more than they lose in potential sales to tournament players who go elsewhere for their miniature games.

4) Obsessive focus on the UK market. GW is a UK-based company that doesn't seem to understand how international markets work. For example, GW's retail store strategy works great in the UK where the geographical distribution of everything is much denser, but in the US it leads to opening GW stores in middle of nowhere locations where FLGS have already saturated the market. So they get the high overhead of running a retail store without any of the benefits of people walking by and taking a look. Or consider GW's "need" to maintain prices way above exchange rates for Australia even at the expense of losing customers to other games. They seem to be out of touch with how things work outside of the UK, and that means that GW will not run their overseas operations efficiently. And it's really bad to be out of touch when the (very slowly) growing US sales are compensating for declining sales in the UK.

5) The Hobbit. This is a huge problem for GW. Obviously we don't know exactly how much they're paying for the license, but sales of the game are pretty much nonexistent and GW is likely committed to it for the next few years. The next movies are unlikely to generate better sales than the first one, and GW's management of the Hobbit game is, amazingly, even worse than their other games. The Hobbit starts with a huge barrier to entry in an expensive (and IMO mediocre) starter set, expensive rulebooks, and expensive character models. And now, after the initial release, news about new Hobbit stuff is little more than a footnote at the end of release articles about 40k stuff. GW has apparently taken the unbelievably stupid approach of not trying to sell the game to anyone but still spending money to produce new models. Unless GW is willing to make a complete 180* in how they handle the Hobbit it is almost guaranteed to be a drain on the company until the last movie is forgotten and they can quietly dump it like they did with the specialist games.


And I'll add a 6th one as speculation:

6) Believing their own propaganda. Yes, it's almost impossible to believe that real people could really be that far into delusions that only a complete idiot could fail to avoid. GW's management can't believe their own statements about how they don't have any competition, or how RPGs/Pokemon/etc are dead (the latest Pokemon game alone made more revenue than GW's entire annual sales). They can't possibly think that finecast is "fine" by any sane definition. But when you look at their actions you kind of have to wonder...

Hi Lovepug, when I did my MBA at the American University of Notre Dame, I did a small thesis on a similar topic regarding the video gaming industry. So this is very close to home and I hope to help. I'm going to put evidence behind my points because I think that's the purpose behind your task. I'm going to drill the data a bit.

---

STRATEGIC ISSUES NOW

Games Workshop's customer base is shrinking (or buying less)

Consider the Year On Year price increases for its full package products. Many estimate it to be 10% to 20%. (I'm afraid you may have to check with a FLGS for actual price data over time, pls let us know the real data. EDIT - pls note below that Silver MK2 suggests it's 7% on average). If GW is still moving the same number of FPPs, its revenue should increase that same 10% to 20%. GW's recent Compound Annual Growth Rate in terms of revenue, IIRC, is about 2%.

2012: 131m
2011: 123m
2010: 127m
2009: 125m
2008: 110m
2007: 110m
2006: 114m

It's a big gap, which suggests there's fewer players or players are buying less. And this decline has been going on for years. Why? Well, let's look at...

Direct AND Indirect Competition, with Licensing Income

Direct Competition here, IMHO, means other military miniature-based tabletop games. Even with that narrow a definition, we're seeing increased competition right now. To cite just 1 example, there's Warlord Games with Bolt Action, a WWII game. The reason I mention that is it was founded by Rick Priestly, who was a GW founder. (To use a crazy parallel, it's like if Bill Gates left Microsoft to work for Apple.)

Then there's Indirect Competition, which are tabletop RPGs, console games, MMOs. These industries all go for the same psychographic audience (i.e. nerds). So they've always been competing for the same share of wallet. Andy Chambers, another huge GW writer, actually went to Blizzard to make StarCraft 2. In recent years, you've heard of video game publishers/studios closing. Does that mean there's less competition? Or it's so intense even they can't deal with it? This one is up to your interpretation, but either way, it's a strategic issue now.

On that note, there's also GW IP-related RPGs, console games, MMOs...and that means Licensing! I'm talking about Fantasy Flight Games, THQ's games, Warhammer: Age of Reckoning. This has been a huge area of growth for GW. How much? Pretty big, check out page 36 of here: http://investor.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Final-group-accounts-3-June-2012.pdf In that time period, Licensing accounted for about 2 million, and that's all profit. That's about half the 4 million profit of the UK, the US, or all of Europe regions. (Australia actually LOST and CONTINUES to lose money for GW...sorry my Australian friends.) GW does minimal work for Licensing income. No shops to rent, no redshirts, no sales, just letting people say "Space Marine." Licensing is awesome. It's clearly the most profitable aspect of the GW business. But the risk is...if you bought Dawn of War 2, you might not want to buy that real tabletop army anymore. So is GW just feeding its own competition, again? I don't know, your call.

Why is there no Video Game Division inside GW?

So far, I looked at real data...financial figures, real people, real licensees, as evidence. However, to demonstrate you really understand an annual report...you got to read what's NOT there. Such as, if Licensing to other mediums is so successful...why doesn't GW enter it themselves? Remember, Licensing is easy money, but it's only a small slice of the total pie GW could eat.

The same break-up of video game publishers/studios was a great opportunity for GW. GW could have borrowed cheap money and bought Relic, maker of its Wh40k games. Let's say GW couldn't buy the whole company...how about just a few devs to make Wh40k App games? Everyone is making games on smart devices...everyone. Except GAMES Workshop. That seems strange.

---

STRATEGIC ISSUES 5 YEARS FROM NOW

Retaining and Recruiting Customers

Earlier, I mentioned GW is losing customers or the lifetime value per customer is decreasing. Customer churn is a thing. There's always old customers leaving. Usually there's new ones coming in. The Hobby has higher barriers to entry than, say, video games. By that, I mean it's harder to buy, plan, and paint an army than it is to simply buy a Xbox. Previously, GW licensed the Lord of the Ring IP to bring in a new wave of customers. The Hobbit series haven't really achieved that, probably failed to bring back the LotR crowd, too. So GW must plan to create some new entry-level product to bring new customers.

This isn't necessary just for growth...it's necessary just to stem the bleeding it's experiencing.

Yeah, 3D Printers AND Chinese Recaster Online Shops Will Be An Issue

Technology advances...but so do people.

Yes, 3D Printers will be a thing. GW could embrace this by selling designs, but I doubt it will.

But also Chinese Recaster Online Shops will also be an issue (many in my FLGS use them now). They're learning to recast more, faster, better detailed...and they're reaching out to English-speaking customers. About a year ago, it used to be you needed to read Chinese to order. Or you find a Chinese friend. (That's kind of how I knew about this, a friend found a good shop online with pictures, but needed me to read for him.) In recent months, they're starting to put instructions on how to order in English, with an English speaking salesperson. A Chinese Recaster, for the bulk productions for a 40k game, is cheaper and better than any 3D Printer. In 5 years, you'll likely go to your FLGS to look at a model, then go home to buy online from China at only 10% of the price.

I know it sounds crazy for some Communist Chinese company to have such a large effect on Western gaming. I thought so, too. However, about a year ago a Chinese company called Perfect World bought Star Trek Online and D&D Neverwinter Online.

GW Going Digital

Will GW finally have its own in-house video game development studio? Or is it going to be just Licensing? Will there be clever ways to do both? Example - you buy a Sternguard FPP. It has a code that, for the 40k MMO, unlocks Sternguard armour pieces for your character. But unless GW can prevent its slowly dwindling player base in the face of so much indirect competition, it's gotta do something.

---

Just some ideas. Sorry for the long post, no time to write a short one.

 Kommissar Waaaghrick wrote:
Andy Chambers, another huge GW writer, actually went to Blizzard to make StarCraft 2.

I believe that this is not true and the name was a complete coincidence. There just happened to be another Andy Chambers at Blizzard. I'll do a quick bit of google fu to check this out

EDIT: Nope a quick google confirms I am completely incorrect. Andy did move to Bliazzard as confirmed by his linked-in profile.

 Kommissar Waaaghrick wrote:
In 5 years, you'll likely go to your FLGS to look at a model, then go home to buy online from China at only 10% of the price.

I don't think this is a very big issue. Chinese recasters are only relevant to veteran adult players. A parent isn't going to go looking on Chinese ebay for recasts when their kid asks to buy space marines, and even most new adult customers are going to want to buy stuff off the shelf instead of taking the risk of dealing with recasters and waiting weeks to get their models. This is especially true for adults with significant amounts of disposable income (the best kind of customer), why bother with recasters when either one is a small purchase compared to your overall budget? And that's on top of the moral issues, a lot of people aren't going to buy recasts because they believe it's wrong.

Really it's not going to be much different than books. Can you get a pdf of any GW book you want with 30 seconds of searching on google? Yes. Does GW still sell lots of books? Yes.

 Kommissar Waaaghrick wrote:
Consider the Year On Year price increases for its full package products. Many estimate it to be 10% to 20%. (I'm afraid you may have to check with a FLGS for actual price data over time, pls let us know the real data.) If GW is still moving the same number of FPPs, its revenue should increase that same 10% to 20%.

10-20% increase per year is massively too much. I'm not GW's biggest fan but I think you are way off here. Some products do increase in price quite significantly but some only increase a little or remain the same. I think the average price increase last time was around 7%, which does not take into account how much some things are purchased. In order to look at something like that you would have to have some kind of sales data, or look at "typical" lists for armies, and how common those armies are and kind of fudge the numbers together as to how much a new army would have costed under the old prices, and how much it would cost with the new and look at how this affects the bottom line in your projected senarios of static, increased and declining sales volume, etc.

Really, analysing data like this without GW's sales data is going to be next to impossible.

You might be able to get sales data from a FLGS (and I don't know if the people who now own what was Maelstrom Games after it tanked - ie the same people - would give/sell you their sales data). Of course this would not reflect the overall market but only the subsection that the store catered to.

 Koppo wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:
Games Workshop has targeted the school to young teen market, as its main selling area. Often ignoring the older more established gamer, collector.
Priced it's kits/models in the upper price bracket.
But it's target market has very little income.

Most finding it hard to gain employment.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19997182

http://www.newsday.com/business/teens-struggle-to-find-summer-jobs-1.5622854

http://www.thenation.com/article/154478/sorry-kids-no-jobs-here#

Wrong models aimed at the wrong people, at the wrong prices.

And we all know three wrongs don't make a right.

The problem with this analysis is that it assumes that the traget is the money in the pocket of the "school to young teen market", as you put it. You state that these people have very little money because they cannot find jobs.

However the "school to young teen market" is aged 11 to around 14 (15-17 being mid teen and 18-19 late teens). The news stories you quote relate to the mid to late teens. In fact "school to young teen market" is almost by definition not counted as unemployed, because they are at school, and actually too young to be employed. I'm sorry but your analysis does not add up.

The target is actually the £ in the pocket of said school kids parents, which has taken a knock but is now on the road to recovery (albeit a shaky and tentative one). This upper price bracket is only of importance in relation to other products and services that may target that same £. For this don't compare infinity or Warmahords as these are hidden from the market due to the targets naivety, rather compare a PS4 (£350) or a PS4 game (around £50). Once you do that the entry price of a Dark Vengeance box plus (£61.50) and a tac squad (£23) starts looking very reasonable. Add in that a PS4 game is pretty much dead once the last boss is dead but 40k is possibly forever the actual long term cost looks less.

I remember the 90's with the horrible garish bright boxes made to appeal to the kids. It was the right market for GW then (same business model as now) as proved by their rapid growth and I don't see why it would be the wrong market now. The problem is that I no longer fall in to that market and so feel abused and ignored by a company that seemed to love me so much when I was a young lad with no mortgage. [Insert dodgy priest/scout leader/choir master/PE Teacher joke here]

This does not mean the market GW targets is the wrong one. I'd go as far to say that GW targets the right market, at the correct prices against the competing products and the models appeal to that market (Termitubbies anyone? Actually that is a joke, but Marines do appeal to the 14 year old in me).

Like I said wrong market.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23655605
"Wages in the UK have seen one of the largest falls in the European Union during the economic downturn, according to official figures.

The figures, which were requested by the Labour Party and collated by the House of Commons library, show average hourly wages have fallen 5.5% since mid-2010, adjusted for inflation.

That is the fourth-worst decline among the 27 EU nations ."
And the others are not much better.

Which market are you saying is the wrong one, and which market are you saying that GW are going for?

That last link just describes wages in general, not any segment. In any case the people that have been affected least are those older people with the more stable jobs and tracker mortgages. The mothers and fathers of the "school to young teen market".

As your link in the preceding post indicates the buying power of everybody (on average) has gone down and therefore is true (in general) of any segment you choose as that article does not differentiate nor identify a segment that has more money.

Yes most have taken a knock, but your original point was that GW was going for "the wrong market" and then defined that market as "school to young teen market" and then linked to 3 articles describing the impact on wages of the economic downturn on a different market segment and one which, in my opinion, is not the market that GW are going for.

I think that the market I believe GW are going for has proved to be in the past (though previous recessions) the right one for them.

That may not be in the best interests of older gamers like myself (or I guess your self) but my intrests are not that important to GW as the kiddies spend more of mum and dad's cash on GW's products than I do and so the kids win.

Families with children have seen their disposable income fall far further than those without children. So if GW are "marketing" to children, then they are marketing to a segment of the market with less money to spend on their products than others.

@SilverMK2 Fair point. Although I would say that they are better off than young people (with and without kids) and pensioners (where the .5% interest rate is really hitting them) but worse off than home owning couples in their 30's with no kids and a tracker mortgage.

Of these groups the one that contains the most possible purchasers of GW's products are still older couples with kids.

 Koppo wrote:
@SilverMK2 Fair point. Although I would say that they are better off than young people (with and without kids) and pensioners (where the .5% interest rate is really hitting them) but worse off than home owning couples in their 30's with no kids and a tracker mortgage.

Of these groups the one that contains the most possible purchasers of GW's products are still older couples with kids.

And no money
While home owning couples in their 30's with no kids and a tracker mortgage. are not not the target market.
And which demographic do adult gamers mostly fall into. home owning professionals in there 20s to 30s perhaps, mortgage no kids?.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Kommissar Waaaghrick wrote:
Consider the Year On Year price increases for its full package products. Many estimate it to be 10% to 20%. (I'm afraid you may have to check with a FLGS for actual price data over time, pls let us know the real data.) If GW is still moving the same number of FPPs, its revenue should increase that same 10% to 20%.

10-20% increase per year is massively too much. I'm not GW's biggest fan but I think you are way off here. Some products do increase in price quite significantly but some only increase a little or remain the same. I think the average price increase last time was around 7%, which does not take into account how much some things are purchased. In order to look at something like that you would have to have some kind of sales data, or look at "typical" lists for armies, and how common those armies are and kind of fudge the numbers together as to how much a new army would have costed under the old prices, and how much it would cost with the new and look at how this affects the bottom line in your projected senarios of static, increased and declining sales volume, etc.

Really, analysing data like this without GW's sales data is going to be next to impossible.

You might be able to get sales data from a FLGS (and I don't know if the people who now own what was Maelstrom Games after it tanked - ie the same people - would give/sell you their sales data). Of course this would not reflect the overall market but only the subsection that the store catered to.

I agree that these figures seem odd. even if you extrapolate to 10-20% uplift ( which is way to high) this doesnt take into account the increase in costs ( you cannot just take the level of inflation as certain sectors are hit in differant ways). Surely it would be more usefull to look at net profit vs gross profit to find out the year on year performance

cammy wrote:
I agree that these figures seem odd. even if you extrapolate to 10-20% uplift ( which is way to high) this doesnt take into account the increase in costs ( you cannot just take the level of inflation as certain sectors are hit in differant ways). Surely it would be more usefull to look at net profit vs gross profit to find out the year on year performance

Cost of tooling new moulds and so on should actually have decreased significantly compared to the old days. The stated aim of switching to "finecast" was to use a cheaper material (even though they then put all the prices up ). So all in all, the cost of manufacture should probably not have changed too much. It is the drain of their retail stores and lack of investment in generating new customers and retaining old ones that is, IMO, causing their sales volume to fall (obviously combined with price rises causing people to purchase less).

 SilverMK2 wrote:

cammy wrote:
I agree that these figures seem odd. even if you extrapolate to 10-20% uplift ( which is way to high) this doesnt take into account the increase in costs ( you cannot just take the level of inflation as certain sectors are hit in differant ways). Surely it would be more usefull to look at net profit vs gross profit to find out the year on year performance

Cost of tooling new moulds and so on should actually have decreased significantly compared to the old days. The stated aim of switching to "finecast" was to use a cheaper material (even though they then put all the prices up ). So all in all, the cost of manufacture should probably not have changed too much. It is the drain of their retail stores and lack of investment in generating new customers and retaining old ones that is, IMO, causing their sales volume to fall (obviously combined with price rises causing people to purchase less).

The cost of manufacturing, may have decreased. But all things considered I think you got it spot on.

Koppo wrote:

 Kommissar Waaaghrick wrote:
Andy Chambers, another huge GW writer, actually went to Blizzard to make StarCraft 2.

I believe that this is not true and the name was a complete coincidence. There just happened to be another Andy Chambers at Blizzard. I'll do a quick bit of google fu to check this out

EDIT: Nope a quick google confirms I am completely incorrect. Andy did move to Bliazzard as confirmed by his linked-in profile.

No worries, I know it seemed like a complete coincidence, but thanks for checking and confirming anyway. He was the Creative Director IIRC. About a decade ago, he (and awesome sculptor Mark Bedford, super nice guy) took time to talk with me, very cool guys, shared some of their experiences with me. I actually asked him how he felt about StarCraft 1, since I found it very similar to Wh40k. He actually told me he didn't mind. He was very gracious about it, I thought. I don't remember his exact words, but he mentioned everyone borrowed from fantasy settings, which borrowed from Tolkien, which borrowed from mythology. What he did mind was if they did nothing new with it, if they didn't take it further. So when I saw him in a Blizzard panel, I just nodded to myself...it just seemed obvious.

Peregrine wrote:

 Kommissar Waaaghrick wrote:
In 5 years, you'll likely go to your FLGS to look at a model, then go home to buy online from China at only 10% of the price.

I don't think this is a very big issue. Chinese recasters are only relevant to veteran adult players. A parent isn't going to go looking on Chinese ebay for recasts when their kid asks to buy space marines, and even most new adult customers are going to want to buy stuff off the shelf instead of taking the risk of dealing with recasters and waiting weeks to get their models. This is especially true for adults with significant amounts of disposable income (the best kind of customer), why bother with recasters when either one is a small purchase compared to your overall budget? And that's on top of the moral issues, a lot of people aren't going to buy recasts because they believe it's wrong.

Really it's not going to be much different than books. Can you get a pdf of any GW book you want with 30 seconds of searching on google? Yes. Does GW still sell lots of books? Yes.

I'd agree with you, but the person that introduced me to it was a young kid from Canada. He didn't read Chinese or have a credit card at the time.

I didn't help him out, but I heard from a mutual friend he's ordering bulk purchases of a hundred US dollars a pop...and he's ordering more and more. He'd buy big ticket items, like Forgeworld stuff, cut it from the recast sprues, basecoat them, then re-sell them at twice the price he paid. He'd tell people he bought them 2nd-hand off a friend who was no longer interested in the Hobby. His customers are everyone at his FLGS. EDIT - I just checked the site. I said it costs only 10% of the GW's normal price. I was off...it's about a quarter of the normal price. But I guess even doubling it as he's doing now, that's half-off almost any product, plus the option of just buying bitz, a good deal.

It's not Chinese eBay. It's Chinese Amazon. More user-friendly than the GW site, full stock, including bits like just plasma guns or those limited edition Space Hulk Terminators.

I'm not contradicting you, and you make some good points, but to answer: does GW still sell lots of books? Not as many as they would if it wasn't so easy to pirate.

SilverMK2 wrote:

 Kommissar Waaaghrick wrote:
Consider the Year On Year price increases for its full package products. Many estimate it to be 10% to 20%. (I'm afraid you may have to check with a FLGS for actual price data over time, pls let us know the real data.) If GW is still moving the same number of FPPs, its revenue should increase that same 10% to 20%.

10-20% increase per year is massively too much. I'm not GW's biggest fan but I think you are way off here. Some products do increase in price quite significantly but some only increase a little or remain the same. I think the average price increase last time was around 7%, which does not take into account how much some things are purchased. In order to look at something like that you would have to have some kind of sales data, or look at "typical" lists for armies, and how common those armies are and kind of fudge the numbers together as to how much a new army would have costed under the old prices, and how much it would cost with the new and look at how this affects the bottom line in your projected senarios of static, increased and declining sales volume, etc.

Really, analysing data like this without GW's sales data is going to be next to impossible.

You might be able to get sales data from a FLGS (and I don't know if the people who now own what was Maelstrom Games after it tanked - ie the same people - would give/sell you their sales data). Of course this would not reflect the overall market but only the subsection that the store catered to.

Yeah, SilverMK2, maybe 7%. The person that told me it was roughly 10% to 20% Y-on-Y was the gut feel of a guy working at my FLGS. Maybe he's thinking of the most popular items. And whether you're right or he's right, I think we all agree that 7% or 10% to 20% is much larger than the 2% CAGR if you looked at GW over the years (like if you just took the snapshot of the year they 1st introduced the LotR game, it might be more than that).

Lovepug, as I suggested before, talk to your FLGS shopkeeper, casual-like, about the PRICES. You don't have to mention it's for a MBA paper. Chances are he'll tell you the average Y-on-Y price hikes (which he'll tell you as it explains why he himself has to charge more, but please DON'T push for sales data, that's kinda more sensitive). As a MBA candidate, remember you're being groomed to be a decision maker, so you have to make judgments even when you don't have perfect information (for knowledge is power, guard it well). You'll have to extrapolate, interpret, make assumptions, state assumptions, but you got to draw that line otherwise your presentation is going to be too fluffy. Don't be afraid to do that.

 loki old fart wrote:

And which demographic do adult gamers mostly fall into. home owning professionals in there 20s to 30s perhaps, mortgage no kids?.

You know I'm not sure. Taking my local club as an example there seems to be around a split between youngish people (early 20's) with no kids or home, those in their 30's with homes and kids and those in their 40's. Thinking about it I may be the only person in the group who falls in to the Home owning couple with no kids and a tracker (although I note you've added the word "professional" in there for some reason) This could be a representative sample of adult wargamers meaning that, no most do not fall into this category.


But you are assuming that these adult wargamers form a large enough market for GW to target. (Ok, well it seems from your posts that you think adult gamers are the "right" market and kids are not, although I think you have so far not articulated that outright. A group I also presume you belong to, like myself.) I personally don't think this is true as GW have managed to ride out at least 1 recession using this business model and have successfully deployed it for the last, what 20 years or so? That and competition is fiercer for adult gamers than for school kids, or at least there are fewer to go around.

Oh and this point

And no money

Really, I thought it was actually "less money than they had a few years ago" but I'd wager more than they did 25 years ago. The data, as far as I can understand it show that people have less money than they did compared to the times when the government was spending cash like it was going out of fashion and many businesses (and individuals) were fuelling a boom on credit. I wonder how the figures compare against the recessions in the 70's and late 80's early 90's.

 Koppo wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:

And which demographic do adult gamers mostly fall into. home owning professionals in there 20s to 30s perhaps, mortgage no kids?.

 Koppo wrote:

You know I'm not sure. Taking my local club as an example there seems to be around a split between youngish people (early 20's) with no kids or home, those in their 30's with homes and kids and those in their 40's. Thinking about it I may be the only person in the group who falls in to the Home owning couple with no kids and a tracker (although I note you've added the word "professional" in there for some reason) This could be a representative sample of adult wargamers meaning that, no most do not fall into this category.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/545689.page#5939394

 Koppo wrote:

But you are assuming that these adult wargamers form a large enough market for GW to target. (Ok, well it seems from your posts that you think adult gamers are the "right" market and kids are not, although I think you have so far not articulated that outright. Correct I never said that.

Oh and this point

And no money

Really, I thought it was actually "less money than they had a few years ago" but I'd wager more than they did 25 years ago. The data, as far as I can understand it show that people have less money than they did compared to the times when the government was spending cash like it was going out of fashion and many businesses (and individuals) were fuelling a boom on credit. I wonder how the figures compare against the recessions in the 70's and late 80's early 90's.

The parents have less money, the children have no income other than gifts.

"but I'd wager more than they did 25 years ago." I had more disposable income then.
The 300pounds + per week,I was earning then was worth more than 300+ now.
There is more money about, but it is worth less.

GW should be widening its focus, if you target one social group. Your fortunes rise and fall with that group.

 loki old fart wrote:




http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/545689.page#5939394

This link is to some dakka thread around 20odd posts long where some dakka member state their occupations and other comment on those that have. I rather miss your point. So far every link you have provided seems to have been, at best, slightly related to whatever point it is your attempting to make and not a single one has actually provided any backing to any one of your claims of wrong market, wrong models and wrong price.

Koppo, commented by loki old fart wrote:
But you are assuming that these adult wargamers form a large enough market for GW to target. (Ok, well it seems from your posts that you think adult gamers are the "right" market and kids are not, although I think you have so far not articulated that outright. Correct I never said that.

Are you saying I have surmised incorrectly or not? Are you saying that the "adult" market is the correct one and that GW are incorrect for not targeting that one? Are you merely stating that Kids are the wrong market based upon some news stories that actually relate to a different group of people? Are you actually saying something different to either of these and I've just failed to understand you?

 loki old fart wrote:

The parents have less money, the children have no income other than gifts.

But so does everybody (as you pointed out earlier). Again, how does this equate to wrong market, wrong models, wrong prices.

 loki old fart wrote:

I had more disposable income then.
The 300pounds + per week,I was earning then was worth more than 300+ now.
There is more money about, but it is worth less.

I was assuming based on inflation adjustment. Well, that is good for you but a single data point is not really evidence. Also what year are you talking here?

 loki old fart wrote:

GW should be widening its focus, if you target one social group. Your fortunes rise and fall with that group.

Indeed, however if you widen your target you may end up making no impact anywhere, GW is just sticking with the program that has proved itself to work time and time again, year after year. There are a few companies that did not target GW's demographic (I'd guess out of not wanting to take GW on where it is strongest) and who are no longer here, giving GW further evidence of the wisdom of their plan.

Basically I still think your wrong market, wrong models, wrong prices analysis is incorrect and supplying news stories about how people who are not in that group have not got jobs is not really going to convince anybody of your argument. Neither will linking to an article about how everybody is affected without differentiation or some random thread on Dakka.

I personally think the subtext of your analysis is more that its the wrong market (because it's not the one you are in), wrong models (because you don't like them) wrong price (for you). That is you think GW are wrong not because of some definable problem in their strategy but because they are failing you personally.

Now I admit that I may be wrong in that personal analysis about how you have reached your conclusions and there may be a bit of proxy going on as I'd be tempted to feel the same but I cannot see any evidence for your conclusions in the information you have provided.

OP, you have picked a much talked about topic.
First some links since I had written my fingers off on a few of these:
Note, too many had to use spoiler button:
Summary:
GW a long time ago was the first and unique company to offer an "immersive" customer experience or "culture".
- They own their own stores with their product you could pursue all elements of "the hobby": assemble, paint, play.
- They have their own fiction describing in large detail the universe of their "intellectual property": IP.
- They used to have articles beyond counting of hobby tips, used to have their own forums, used to support local hobby store GW competitions.
- They have their own magazine to promote their product and up-coming events.
- They hold their own "Games Day" in key cities around the world.
- They have their own awards for modeling and painting: The Golden Demon.
- They now have "full service" products for all elements of the hobby: paint, glue, tools, brushes, terrain, buildings, books and ebooks. Now, no "outside" crafting is promoted since it would compete with salable items, which is too bad, since they used to be very creative hobby ideas were promoted.

Prices have been increased to keep up revenue until the time they determine they had gone as far as the market will bear.
Increased competition from Privateer Press and Fantasy Flight is reducing what was once a monopoly.
Computers, Netflicks, portable devices, consoles all compete for people's free time and money so would also reduce the piece of the pie (time/money) for recreation.

They are no-longer maintaining the immersive experience that set them apart and charge a premium for their product like their name-brand retained value (as they reflect in their financial statements) while they are not investing in higher public awareness.

Good short term financial measures like spending cash for dividends has been good for shareholders but development and production equipment purchases have shrunk which leads people to question what is the plan management has for the next 3 years.

Their IP of 40k has been utilized in the past for computer games and they missed an opportunity to purchase/hire some elements of "Relic Entertainment" to develop their own software "in-house", which the loss of the licensing was noted in the prior financial statement (2012).

They need more "Voice of customer" and the decision making level to further their brand name appeal.
If at least half the board played the games they produce they would have the mindset of what is needed.

 Talizvar wrote:
OP, you have picked a much talked about topic.
First some links since I had written my fingers off on a few of these:
Note, too many had to use spoiler button:

Spoiler:

Miniwargaming store closing[b] Note: Some good statements from the viewpoint of a retailer and on-line store.
http://www.miniwargaming.com/content/the-miniwargaming-store-closing

[b]Subject: The Future of the Game
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/544639.page

Subject: The end times for our hobby
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/544931.page

Subject: GW Annual Report for 2012-2013
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/543013.page

Subject: The Games Workshop Hobby, I gotta admit it, I'm out. The prices got to me.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/541941.page

Subject: Is GW changing their business model again?
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/539085.page

Subject: The Combat Company considering legal action against GW due to mistreatment of wholesale customers.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/529143.page

Subject: I'd like to make a challenge...GW standard prices are not insane.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/527641.page

Subject: White dwarf delivery
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/525888.page#5606290

Subject: What could "save" GW?
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/524703.page

Subject: Impressions of the new Citadel paints?
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/524874.page#5577862

Subject: Specialist games are gone, what will GW cut next?
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/524168.page

Subject: So GW are completely removing in-store open gaming now?
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/516952.page

Subject: Has GW finally hit that magic number that will price people out of the hobby?
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/497907.page

Subject: Why does GW not have a community representative?
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/495775.page

Summary:
GW a long time ago was the first and unique company to offer an "immersive" customer experience or "culture".
- They own their own stores with their product you could pursue all elements of "the hobby": assemble, paint, play.
- They have their own fiction describing in large detail the universe of their "intellectual property": IP.
- They used to have articles beyond counting of hobby tips, used to have their own forums, used to support local hobby store GW competitions.
- They have their own magazine to promote their product and up-coming events.
- They hold their own "Games Day" in key cities around the world.
- They have their own awards for modeling and painting: The Golden Demon.
- They now have "full service" products for all elements of the hobby: paint, glue, tools, brushes, terrain, buildings, books and ebooks. Now, no "outside" crafting is promoted since it would compete with salable items, which is too bad, since they used to be very creative hobby ideas were promoted.

Prices have been increased to keep up revenue until the time they determine they had gone as far as the market will bear.
Increased competition from Privateer Press and Fantasy Flight is reducing what was once a monopoly.
Computers, Netflicks, portable devices, consoles all compete for people's free time and money so would also reduce the piece of the pie (time/money) for recreation.

They are no-longer maintaining the immersive experience that set them apart and charge a premium for their product like their name-brand retained value (as they reflect in their financial statements) while they are not investing in higher public awareness.

Good short term financial measures like spending cash for dividends has been good for shareholders but development and production equipment purchases have shrunk which leads people to question what is the plan management has for the next 3 years.

Their IP of 40k has been utilized in the past for computer games and they missed an opportunity to purchase/hire some elements of "Relic Entertainment" to develop their own software "in-house", which the loss of the licensing was noted in the prior financial statement (2012).

They need more "Voice of customer" and the decision making level to further their brand name appeal.
If at least half the board played the games they produce they would have the mindset of what is needed.

The executive board i have on good authority that about 70% of them activly play the game, and i know people who have played against the CEO. Maybe the Non -exec board dont play the game? however all a voice of the customer woudl do woud be to give views to a group that isn't their core demographic. They may have more players in the older group but the money comes from the youngsters, a group which doesnt need a voice of the customer as they are new, and do not know what they want.

If GW decided to expand their focus to more demogrpahics then yes it may be worth it, however the cost expended on targeting this other demographic may actually not pay back on their finacial model.

 Koppo wrote:


Are you saying I have surmised incorrectly or not? Are you saying that the "adult" market is the correct one and that GW are incorrect for not targeting that one? Are you merely stating that Kids are the wrong market based upon some news stories that actually relate to a different group of people? Are you actually saying something different to either of these and I've just failed to understand you?

Yes I'm saying you misunderstood

 Koppo wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:

The parents have less money, the children have no income other than gifts.

But so does everybody (as you pointed out earlier). Again, how does this equate to wrong market, wrong models, wrong prices.

Your post isn't clear, are you suggesting, we all have no income other than gifts ?

 Koppo wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:

GW should be widening its focus, if you target one social group. Your fortunes rise and fall with that group.

Indeed, however if you widen your target you may end up making no impact anywhere, GW is just sticking with the program that has proved itself to work time and time again, year after year. There are a few companies that did not target GW's demographic (I'd guess out of not wanting to take GW on where it is strongest) and who are no longer here, giving GW further evidence of the wisdom of their plan.

Basically I still think your wrong market, wrong models, wrong prices analysis is incorrect and supplying news stories about how people who are not in that group have not got jobs is not really going to convince anybody of your argument. Neither will linking to an article about how everybody is affected without differentiation or some random thread on Dakka.

The larger the net, the more fish your able to catch.
GW is just treading water, loosing sales and cost cutting, hardly a success story.
There are a few companies that are targeting that demographic, that are successful as well.

 Koppo wrote:

I personally think the subtext of your analysis is more that its the wrong market (because it's not the one you are in), wrong models (because you don't like them) wrong price (for you). That is you think GW are wrong not because of some definable problem in their strategy but because they are failing you personally.

Now I admit that I may be wrong in that personal analysis about how you have reached your conclusions and there may be a bit of proxy going on as I'd be tempted to feel the same but I cannot see any evidence for your conclusions in the information you have provided.

Quite an assumption to make. And like most of your post wrong.

I will just add one point that no one has brought up. In a 40k Radio interview with Rick Priestly, former lead game designer for GW, he stated that GW's main competition was itself. They put out a product (miniatures) that do not have a limited shelf life. That dwarf figure from 1986 is still as good today as it was a quarter century ago. Miniatures do not suddenly stop working or fall apart. And a lot of those old figures make it onto the used market. Kid gets into a game, plays for a couple years and gets out after discovering girls and cars. Mom sells off figs cluttering up the house.

Secondly, GW is facing market saturation to a degree. You can only get so many people to buy a product. After that, you are dependent on new generations of kids coming in and that is limited by the population growth of a country. As a result, you have to try to squeeze more revenue out of a smaller new players.

Thanks guys......

I am conducting my own research outside of this thread, but I am clearly seeing the benefits of my Dakka connection :-)

Some good thoughts...

 Koppo wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:
Games Workshop has targeted the school to young teen market, as its main selling area. Often ignoring the older more established gamer, collector.
Priced it's kits/models in the upper price bracket.
But it's target market has very little income.

Most finding it hard to gain employment.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19997182

http://www.newsday.com/business/teens-struggle-to-find-summer-jobs-1.5622854

http://www.thenation.com/article/154478/sorry-kids-no-jobs-here#

Wrong models aimed at the wrong people, at the wrong prices.

And we all know three wrongs don't make a right.

The problem with this analysis is that it assumes that the traget is the money in the pocket of the "school to young teen market", as you put it. You state that these people have very little money because they cannot find jobs.

However the "school to young teen market" is aged 11 to around 14 (15-17 being mid teen and 18-19 late teens). The news stories you quote relate to the mid to late teens. In fact "school to young teen market" is almost by definition not counted as unemployed, because they are at school, and actually too young to be employed. I'm sorry but your analysis does not add up.

The target is actually the £ in the pocket of said school kids parents, which has taken a knock but is now on the road to recovery (albeit a shaky and tentative one). This upper price bracket is only of importance in relation to other products and services that may target that same £. For this don't compare infinity or Warmahords as these are hidden from the market due to the targets naivety, rather compare a PS4 (£350) or a PS4 game (around £50). Once you do that the entry price of a Dark Vengeance box plus (£61.50) and a tac squad (£23) starts looking very reasonable. Add in that a PS4 game is pretty much dead once the last boss is dead but 40k is possibly forever the actual long term cost looks less.

I remember the 90's with the horrible garish bright boxes made to appeal to the kids. It was the right market for GW then (same business model as now) as proved by their rapid growth and I don't see why it would be the wrong market now. The problem is that I no longer fall in to that market and so feel abused and ignored by a company that seemed to love me so much when I was a young lad with no mortgage. [Insert dodgy priest/scout leader/choir master/PE Teacher joke here]

This does not mean the market GW targets is the wrong one. I'd go as far to say that GW targets the right market, at the correct prices against the competing products and the models appeal to that market (Termitubbies anyone? Actually that is a joke, but Marines do appeal to the 14 year old in me).

The key difference is that during their long period of growth from the 90's through to the LotR crash, they did not exclusively target kiddies, and they did not rely on a churn&burn sales strategy. They had skirmish games, a spaceship combat game, a borderline-RPG game, a fantasy football game, and small-scale mass-battle tactics-heavy versions of their main lines. They hooked you as a wee kiddy, with shiny boxes and SPHEZ MURINZ and big beginner games on Sundays where everyone yelled WAAAAAAGH! a lot, but they recognised the value in keeping you around after that by teaching you how to paint and sculpt, how to make your own terrain, and they understood that having different styles of games in different scales contributed to the long-term strength of the brand and the company by ensuring that people who got bored of SPHEZ MURINZ stayed within the GW ecosystem rather than wandering off into the arms of videogames or competing miniature companies.

Their current strategy is doubtless effective at achieving it's primary goal; keep the dividends flowing until Kirby is ready to retire. In that context focusing exclusively on the kids market, ignoring customer retention in favour of one-off sales, and using a combination of price increases and cost reduction via cutting staff levels & dumping any part of the business extraneous to the core objective(pay dividends to Kirby) all makes perfect sense. So yes, it is a right way, the question is; is it the only right way, and could they be doing better by doing things differently?

 silent25 wrote:
I will just add one point that no one has brought up. In a 40k Radio interview with Rick Priestly, former lead game designer for GW, he stated that GW's main competition was itself. They put out a product (miniatures) that do not have a limited shelf life. That dwarf figure from 1986 is still as good today as it was a quarter century ago. Miniatures do not suddenly stop working or fall apart. And a lot of those old figures make it onto the used market. Kid gets into a game, plays for a couple years and gets out after discovering girls and cars. Mom sells off figs cluttering up the house.

Secondly, GW is facing market saturation to a degree. You can only get so many people to buy a product. After that, you are dependent on new generations of kids coming in and that is limited by the population growth of a country. As a result, you have to try to squeeze more revenue out of a smaller new players.

Good point. But the use of bigger armies will offset that slightly. As will the models that get broken, or just end up in a landfill.
Saying that I do have some metal terminators in my chaos army.

 loki old fart wrote:

 silent25 wrote:
I will just add one point that no one has brought up. In a 40k Radio interview with Rick Priestly, former lead game designer for GW, he stated that GW's main competition was itself. They put out a product (miniatures) that do not have a limited shelf life. That dwarf figure from 1986 is still as good today as it was a quarter century ago. Miniatures do not suddenly stop working or fall apart. And a lot of those old figures make it onto the used market. Kid gets into a game, plays for a couple years and gets out after discovering girls and cars. Mom sells off figs cluttering up the house.

Secondly, GW is facing market saturation to a degree. You can only get so many people to buy a product. After that, you are dependent on new generations of kids coming in and that is limited by the population growth of a country. As a result, you have to try to squeeze more revenue out of a smaller new players.

Good point. But the use of bigger armies will offset that slightly. As will the models that get broken, or just end up in a landfill.
Saying that I do have some metal terminators in my chaos army.

Thsi is a good point, also to note though that the UK is the 3rd fasting growing population in the UK ( based on birthrates not immigration) and should pass France soon to be the second largest population in Europe behind Germany. If the figures carry on in the same vane for the next 10 years then might even pass the German population.

so soon there will be even more little timmys to buy the game

 Yodhrin wrote:

 Koppo wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:
Games Workshop has targeted the school to young teen market, as its main selling area. Often ignoring the older more established gamer, collector.
Priced it's kits/models in the upper price bracket.
But it's target market has very little income.

Most finding it hard to gain employment.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19997182

http://www.newsday.com/business/teens-struggle-to-find-summer-jobs-1.5622854

http://www.thenation.com/article/154478/sorry-kids-no-jobs-here#

Wrong models aimed at the wrong people, at the wrong prices.

And we all know three wrongs don't make a right.

The problem with this analysis is that it assumes that the traget is the money in the pocket of the "school to young teen market", as you put it. You state that these people have very little money because they cannot find jobs.

However the "school to young teen market" is aged 11 to around 14 (15-17 being mid teen and 18-19 late teens). The news stories you quote relate to the mid to late teens. In fact "school to young teen market" is almost by definition not counted as unemployed, because they are at school, and actually too young to be employed. I'm sorry but your analysis does not add up.

The target is actually the £ in the pocket of said school kids parents, which has taken a knock but is now on the road to recovery (albeit a shaky and tentative one). This upper price bracket is only of importance in relation to other products and services that may target that same £. For this don't compare infinity or Warmahords as these are hidden from the market due to the targets naivety, rather compare a PS4 (£350) or a PS4 game (around £50). Once you do that the entry price of a Dark Vengeance box plus (£61.50) and a tac squad (£23) starts looking very reasonable. Add in that a PS4 game is pretty much dead once the last boss is dead but 40k is possibly forever the actual long term cost looks less.

I remember the 90's with the horrible garish bright boxes made to appeal to the kids. It was the right market for GW then (same business model as now) as proved by their rapid growth and I don't see why it would be the wrong market now. The problem is that I no longer fall in to that market and so feel abused and ignored by a company that seemed to love me so much when I was a young lad with no mortgage. [Insert dodgy priest/scout leader/choir master/PE Teacher joke here]

This does not mean the market GW targets is the wrong one. I'd go as far to say that GW targets the right market, at the correct prices against the competing products and the models appeal to that market (Termitubbies anyone? Actually that is a joke, but Marines do appeal to the 14 year old in me).

The key difference is that during their long period of growth from the 90's through to the LotR crash, they did not exclusively target kiddies, and they did not rely on a churn&burn sales strategy. They had skirmish games, a spaceship combat game, a borderline-RPG game, a fantasy football game, and small-scale mass-battle tactics-heavy versions of their main lines. They hooked you as a wee kiddy, with shiny boxes and SPHEZ MURINZ and big beginner games on Sundays where everyone yelled WAAAAAAGH! a lot, but they recognised the value in keeping you around after that by teaching you how to paint and sculpt, how to make your own terrain, and they understood that having different styles of games in different scales contributed to the long-term strength of the brand and the company by ensuring that people who got bored of SPHEZ MURINZ stayed within the GW ecosystem rather than wandering off into the arms of videogames or competing miniature companies.

Their current strategy is doubtless effective at achieving it's primary goal; keep the dividends flowing until Kirby is ready to retire. In that context focusing exclusively on the kids market, ignoring customer retention in favour of one-off sales, and using a combination of price increases and cost reduction via cutting staff levels & dumping any part of the business extraneous to the core objective(pay dividends to Kirby) all makes perfect sense. So yes, it is a right way, the question is; is it the only right way, and could they be doing better by doing things differently?

I want GW to have more of a long term strategy, not short term profits. I want GW to be here when my grandsons can afford to buy their own models.
BTW Yodhrin very good post. exalted

 Koppo wrote:

snip.....
The larger the net, the more fish your able to catch.

The analagy doesnt actually tie in well with buisness, with a wider net you may be able to increase revenue, however you margins will most likly be lower to offset the additional costs, clearly at this moment in time the buisness model and financial models they are using clearly doesnt give enough ROI ( even if possitive) to make the effort worthwhile.

 loki old fart wrote:

 Koppo wrote:


Are you saying I have surmised incorrectly or not? Are you saying that the "adult" market is the correct one and that GW are incorrect for not targeting that one? Are you merely stating that Kids are the wrong market based upon some news stories that actually relate to a different group of people? Are you actually saying something different to either of these and I've just failed to understand you?

Yes I'm saying you misunderstood

OK, right. You said Wrong models aimed at the wrong people, at the wrong prices as a summary.

You started with "Games Workshop has targeted the school to young teen market, as its main selling area. Often ignoring the older more established gamer, collector. "

With which I agree,outside of forgeworld, they do and have done for many years, particularly with 40k

Then "Priced it's kits/models in the upper price bracket. "

Which I also agree with, as do GW themselves.

The following I thought incorrect, badly argued and inconsistent.

"But it's target market has very little income.

Most finding it hard to gain employment. "

[3 links to stories on youth unemployment]

Assuming that the 3 links were to back up your argument, you are saying that the" young teen market" are out of work so don't have the money to buy the toys. But the links talk about a different age group (older teens) so providing no actual facts. Further it implies that the market GW are aiming at are buying the toys themselves (otherwise why link to youth unemployment at all?), which I think untrue as the money actually comes from their parents who are not covered at all by the stories you linked to.

I therefore think you have not correctly identified the market GW target or where that segment get the money from or provided any background as to why this market segment is a problem.

Based on this you then give your summary of "Wrong models aimed at the wrong people, at the wrong prices." Nothing you wrote backs up any one of these three wrongs. Nothing about models or prices is substantiated and the people you claim are being targeted are defined in one way initially but in another way in the sources you link to. You further mischaracterise the people by implying with the phase "But it's target market has very little income. Most finding it hard to gain employment" that those people purchase the toys with the money they earn themselves without any recourse to their parents.

It is was primarily you IDing one group (youg teens) as being the market and then talking a out how older teens cannot find jobs (and therefore money) that I thought your analysis unsound.


In response you wrote "Like I said wrong market.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23655605
"Wages in the UK have seen one of the largest falls in the European Union during the economic downturn, according to official figures.

The figures, which were requested by the Labour Party and collated by the House of Commons library, show average hourly wages have fallen 5.5% since mid-2010, adjusted for inflation.

That is the fourth-worst decline among the 27 EU nations ."
And the others are not much better. "

The story linked to was about wages have fallen. The story did not back up any one of your three points as it was based on Wages in differing European nations, not age groups. If your point had been that GW should have been going after the German market you'd have had a point.

I'm not sure what your next post was attempting to point out, other than people have less money. It did not address nor back up any of your three points.


So what did I misunderstand and what were you trying to say?

The larger the net, the more fish your able to catch.

And the more that net cost. Also the analogy does not hold all that well in this context, a differne t analogly would be using canons and a barrel of gunpowder. You can kill one person at a time if you use that gunpowder to fire one cannon, two if you use the same barrel to fire two canons, but the ball will only go half as far. But there comes a point where you have too many cannons and your using so little powder per cannon that you kill nobody at all because the ball falls uselessly on the ground.

Of to use the fishing analogy, your net may be massive but if your boat sinks attepting to cast it you catch no fish, you wasted the money on the net and you have to buy a new boat.

GW is just treading water, loosing sales and cost cutting, hardly a success story.

This I can agree with, the dividend and lack of internal investment is testament to that. However their market target may be correct (I think it is, from GW's perspective), they may just be bad at it or using the wrong tactics (which I believe to be true).

There are a few companies that are targeting that demographic, that are successful as well.

Such as? And what constitutes successfully in this context?

 Koppo wrote:

I personally think the subtext of your analysis is more that its the wrong market (because it's not the one you are in), wrong models (because you don't like them) wrong price (for you). That is you think GW are wrong not because of some definable problem in their strategy but because they are failing you personally.

Now I admit that I may be wrong in that personal analysis about how you have reached your conclusions and there may be a bit of proxy going on as I'd be tempted to feel the same but I cannot see any evidence for your conclusions in the information you have provided.

cammy wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:

 silent25 wrote:
I will just add one point that no one has brought up. In a 40k Radio interview with Rick Priestly, former lead game designer for GW, he stated that GW's main competition was itself. They put out a product (miniatures) that do not have a limited shelf life. That dwarf figure from 1986 is still as good today as it was a quarter century ago. Miniatures do not suddenly stop working or fall apart. And a lot of those old figures make it onto the used market. Kid gets into a game, plays for a couple years and gets out after discovering girls and cars. Mom sells off figs cluttering up the house.

Secondly, GW is facing market saturation to a degree. You can only get so many people to buy a product. After that, you are dependent on new generations of kids coming in and that is limited by the population growth of a country. As a result, you have to try to squeeze more revenue out of a smaller new players.

Good point. But the use of bigger armies will offset that slightly. As will the models that get broken, or just end up in a landfill.
Saying that I do have some metal terminators in my chaos army.

Thsi is a good point, also to note though that the UK is the 3rd fasting growing population in the UK ( based on birthrates not immigration) and should pass France soon to be the second largest population in Europe behind Germany. If the figures carry on in the same vane for the next 10 years then might even pass the German population.

so soon there will be even more little timmys to buy the game

True, but it is still less than 1% and thus less than inflation. So you still can't rely on new players to sustain revenues, let alone grow them. You still need to rely on existing players to make additional purchases and price hikes. For players that are content with their army, this means having to change/add and force them to buy additional and new troops. And we know there are a number of vocal people on this board who are not happy with that scenario.