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.

 Bull0 wrote:
As it stands I don't believe even 1% of their customers read forums or are thus aware of the dodgy goings-on with trade accounts, or have put the pieces together enough to be mad about it.

The issue isn't just people ragequitting over GW's business policies, it's that those policies are inherently bad. Bullying people who promote and sell GW products is a sign that GW is in desperation mode and lashing out at anyone they can find to blame. Insisting on keeping everything secret until pre-orders go up is a sign that GW lacks confidence in their products and is afraid that people won't buy them if they have time to think about it. Treating their retail partners as competition is a sign that GW needs every bit of short-term revenue, even when it comes at the cost of damaging their sales network in the long run. The overall picture is a company that can't grow through legitimate improvement and has to settle for extracting every bit of profit they can from their shrinking customer base.

Also, don't forget that the 1% are far more important than their raw numbers suggest. A lot of that 99% is kids buying a box of space marines and abandoning the hobby a week later, if you look at the actual community that GW depends on you'll probably find that a lot more than 1% either read forums or listen to people who do.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Bull0 wrote:
As it stands I don't believe even 1% of their customers read forums or are thus aware of the dodgy goings-on with trade accounts, or have put the pieces together enough to be mad about it.

The issue isn't just people ragequitting over GW's business policies, it's that those policies are inherently bad. Bullying people who promote and sell GW products is a sign that GW is in desperation mode and lashing out at anyone they can find to blame. Insisting on keeping everything secret until pre-orders go up is a sign that GW lacks confidence in their products and is afraid that people won't buy them if they have time to think about it. Treating their retail partners as competition is a sign that GW needs every bit of short-term revenue, even when it comes at the cost of damaging their sales network in the long run. The overall picture is a company that can't grow through legitimate improvement and has to settle for extracting every bit of profit they can from their shrinking customer base.

Also, don't forget that the 1% are far more important than their raw numbers suggest. A lot of that 99% is kids buying a box of space marines and abandoning the hobby a week later, if you look at the actual community that GW depends on you'll probably find that a lot more than 1% either read forums or listen to people who do.

OK, so substitute 1% of customers for 1% of sales, bump it up to 2% or 5% or whatever, either way, I believe it's a minority of overall custom that's related to people reading forums (you're all going on about how much you hate GW already anyway, right? So what difference has this actually made? You were already alienated).

I don't want to indulge in that level of speculation regarding what the policies mean for the health of the business as I'm not really a business guy, but I do know that they believe what they're doing is shrewd and will make them more money - that's why they're doing it. It's this idea of getting hobbyists to buy what's coming out today, not save for what's coming out in two months. You can disagree with that (I sure do) but it's a pretty clear money-making scheme. If they completely exhaust us (and I know I'm going that way, particularly if the rumours re the Nid supplements are to be believed) and the business starts doing very badly, they'll change tack. It won't be because it's "morally good" to do that, it'll be because they think they can make more money that way.

 Bull0 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Bull0 wrote:
As it stands I don't believe even 1% of their customers read forums or are thus aware of the dodgy goings-on with trade accounts, or have put the pieces together enough to be mad about it.

The issue isn't just people ragequitting over GW's business policies, it's that those policies are inherently bad. Bullying people who promote and sell GW products is a sign that GW is in desperation mode and lashing out at anyone they can find to blame. Insisting on keeping everything secret until pre-orders go up is a sign that GW lacks confidence in their products and is afraid that people won't buy them if they have time to think about it. Treating their retail partners as competition is a sign that GW needs every bit of short-term revenue, even when it comes at the cost of damaging their sales network in the long run. The overall picture is a company that can't grow through legitimate improvement and has to settle for extracting every bit of profit they can from their shrinking customer base.

Also, don't forget that the 1% are far more important than their raw numbers suggest. A lot of that 99% is kids buying a box of space marines and abandoning the hobby a week later, if you look at the actual community that GW depends on you'll probably find that a lot more than 1% either read forums or listen to people who do.

OK, so substitute 1% of customers for 1% of sales, bump it up to 2% or 5% or whatever, either way, I believe it's a minority of overall custom that's related to people reading forums (you're all going on about how much you hate GW already anyway, right? So what difference has this actually made? You were already alienated).

I don't want to indulge in that level of speculation regarding what the policies mean for the health of the business as I'm not really a business guy, but I do know that they believe what they're doing is shrewd and will make them more money - that's why they're doing it. It's this idea of getting hobbyists to buy what's coming out today, not save for what's coming out in two months. You can disagree with that (I sure do) but it's a pretty clear money-making scheme. If they completely exhaust us (and I know I'm going that way, particularly if the rumours re the Nid supplements are to be believed) and the business starts doing very badly, they'll change tack. It won't be because it's "morally good" to do that, it'll be because they think they can make more money that way.

You keep saying "you're not a business guy" and at the same time keep saying that negative online-vibes don't impact their bottom line.

I am not sure how these two mix up (unless you ARE a business guy with some hands-on evidence that supports your point).

Internet forums and blogs might be more 2003 than 2013, but people today, especially GW's core target group live on social media.

Bigger companies than GW, such as Starbucks and their "drip feeder", have been (almost) brought to their knees by a social media shitstorm and customer boycott. Politicians and CEO careers have ended due to Twitter and/or Facebook backlash. In early 2011, governments south of the Mediterranean toppled not in small parts thanks to Twitter.

Saying that an online backlash is irrelevant for ... all things considered ... a small-to-medium-sized company like GW is ludicrous.

I wouldn't use the term ludicrous to describe comparing GW to Starbucks, but I don't think they compare at all. Everybody's heard of Starbucks, the ubiquitousness of their brand makes them particularly vulnerable to social media outcries. Go and tweet about what GW are doing, start a hashtag, see if it goes viral. It definitely, definitely won't.

 Bull0 wrote:
I wouldn't use the term ludicrous to describe comparing GW to Starbucks, but I don't think they compare at all. Everybody's heard of Starbucks, the ubiquitousness of their brand makes them particularly vulnerable to social media outcries. Go and tweet about what GW are doing, start a hashtag, see if it goes viral. It definitely, definitely won't.

So doesn't that mean it is potentially MORE damaging to GW since they have such a small market to sell to?

Starbucks can shake off a PR hit much easier (no small thanks to the fact that they actually have a PR department) than GW can because everyone has heard of them.

 insaniak wrote:

 DarthOvious wrote:
The reason why companies don't like leaks is because its gives their competitors an idea on what direction they are taking and they could lose a market advantage from doing so. For instance the news in regards to the leaked flyers could have influenced other wargame miniature companies to start making flyers of their own. So the development advantage of releasing these models is cut down a bit as it takes less time for competitors to catch up. I am not saying here that GW came up with the first flyers for a wargame, but I am just stating that their ideas (design wise & model wise) could influence competitors.

The thing is, while this certainly happens in other industries (yes, phone developers don't like their competitors seeing what features they are building into their new phones, so that other phones currently in development don't have those same features and more added in to trump them) this really doesn't apply to GW. GW's main competitors aren't even in the same genre. Privateer isn't going to decide to add flyers to their game just because they see that GW is working on one. Battlefront isn't suddenly going to rush out a 28mm scale scifi game with skinny, pointy eared aliens in it just because we see a blurry photo of Eldar models due out in a month's time.

Added to which, GW deny that they even have any competition. Competing minature companies just aren't on their radar.

They have stated publicly why they try to clamp down on rumours and advance showing of their product, and it's nothing to do with competitors stealing their thunder. It's because despite all rational evidence to the contrary (including sales from their own subsidiaries), they believe that not knowing that something is coming makes people more excited about it (and this more likely to buy it) when it is released.

It's lunacy, plain and simple.

Well however GW does it, it is up to them how to market there product. The only thing you can do is write a letter detailing what you think.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Battlesong wrote:

 DarthOvious wrote:
I am not going to argue right or wrong here, but I think there are a lot of companies out there who don't like their pre-releases being leaked all over the internet. I suppose we could argue about the way in which GW is implementing it but GW have decided their current course and thats up to them to decide. A good example of what I am talking about is the leak of the Sony Ericsson Xperia Z1.

http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2013/09/sonys-mobile-teams-anti-leaks-poster-campaign-leaks/

The reason why companies don't like leaks is because its gives their competitors an idea on what direction they are taking and they could lose a market advantage from doing so. For instance the news in regards to the leaked flyers could have influenced other wargame miniature companies to start making flyers of their own. So the development advantage of releasing these models is cut down a bit as it takes less time for competitors to catch up. I am not saying here that GW came up with the first flyers for a wargame, but I am just stating that their ideas (design wise & model wise) could influence competitors.

Some people do use alternatives sometimes to represent the models in their army so it is not unthinkable that this could result in a loss of sales. I am not saying that it does, but I am just saying its not an unreasonable claim to make.

However much can be said that GW should just focus more on stopping leaks from their company to begin with. It could also be argued if this is a realistic thing for GW to accomplish considering that their stuff gets playtested in advance before release. Perhaps they should change their playtesting policy instead to insure less leaks in the future. Many things can be argued here.

Don't even suggest that. Most likely if they think it's the playtesting method that's causing the leaks, they'll just stop playtesting altogether.

I wouldn't want them to do that either. They may have to just playtest in house with staff but perhaps that wouldn't be a good idea either.

 jonolikespie wrote:

 Bull0 wrote:
I wouldn't use the term ludicrous to describe comparing GW to Starbucks, but I don't think they compare at all. Everybody's heard of Starbucks, the ubiquitousness of their brand makes them particularly vulnerable to social media outcries. Go and tweet about what GW are doing, start a hashtag, see if it goes viral. It definitely, definitely won't.

So doesn't that mean it is potentially MORE damaging to GW since they have such a small market to sell to?

Starbucks can shake off a PR hit much easier (no small thanks to the fact that they actually have a PR department) than GW can because everyone has heard of them.

No, I'm saying the opposite is true. The story propagates a lot faster for a bigger company with better brand awareness, and it gets picked up by news media (Starbucks' behaviour ended up national news in the UK alone, I assume other countries too), the story becomes totally unavoidable even for light users of social media or people that don't use social media at all. That just isn't going to happen with GW, like it or not.

 Bull0 wrote:
I wouldn't use the term ludicrous to describe comparing GW to Starbucks, but I don't think they compare at all. Everybody's heard of Starbucks, the ubiquitousness of their brand makes them particularly vulnerable to social media outcries. Go and tweet about what GW are doing, start a hashtag, see if it goes viral. It definitely, definitely won't.

Whether you want to compare Starbucks with GW or not is irrelevant.

What is important is to note that negative online-reactions do affect the bottom lines of companies, large or small. Splitting hairs over differences between different companies does not affect this basic insight. There are surely more commonalities between Starbucks and GW than between Starbucks and the government or Tunisia or former US presidential candidate Rick Santorum, all of which have been slammed hard by negative online vibes.

The assumption that GW - for some miraculous reason - is "just perfectly" in the middle of not-too-big and not-too-small to be exactly not affected (financially) by social media backlash is a highly specific hypothesis for which no evidence has been put forward.

The default assumption therefore should be that... like virtually everyone else, business, politics, private people ... Games Workshop can potentially be hurt - even and especially financially - by a social media backlash.

And the thing about a social media backlash is - it can be mercurial. It doesn't need to be on a company that is well known. United Airlines (that is, their shareholders) lost an estimated 180 Million ! to United Breaks Guitars. Breaking a Guitar probably isn't the worst thing United (much less any airline) has done. But it's the one that went viral. And United Airlines was "vulnerable" because they've refused to go into social media and had no ground-work laid out to do "damage control".

Beasts of War may not be the one that goes "viral" for GW, but something might at some point... and a generally "negatively pre-disposed" online community won't be an asset for them then.

 Peregrine wrote:

Brother Weasel wrote:
whats to stop a larger non garage company from doing the same thing?

Two things:

1) A larger company generally has a business plan that doesn't involve making "not GW" kits. PP isn't going to put the next Warmachine release on hold so they can make a not-centurion kit, especially since problem #2 almost guarantees that GW will get most of the potential sales for that kit.

2) The production methods used by garage kit companies don't scale up to mass production. Some random guy can throw together a sculpt and make a hundred resin casts of it pretty easily, but a larger company trying to make large-company-scale production runs needs to spend a lot more time on the design to justify making it, spend even more time on mold and production engineering, get it into their sales network, etc. You just can't do that kind of stuff fast enough to beat GW to market when they've already got the kits manufactured and sitting in the warehouse by the time the first pictures leak.

Excuse me but I don't how many times I have read posts by people who buy Mantic models to represent their Warhammer Fantasy army. I lost count.

Saying its not a problem so GW doesn't need to worry about it is not true. There are big companies out there who make their own games but are very similar to GW and a crossover can be achieved. There are posts on this very site that show this. Heck my friend with his Imperial Guard army used heads from Pig Iron in order to complete them. Now granted he usually buys from GW so its not a common thing for him but the point is I am merely showing it is possible to do such a thing and pleanty of people do for one reason or another. Sometimes people use other companies models because they don't want to supply GW anymore but still want to play the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:
Don't Mantic also have a fairly established history of missing release dates by now?

That would seem to somewhat lessen the fear of them rushing something out to beat GW to the punch, I would think...

It doesn't work like that in buisness. A buisness does not rely on its competitors messing things up. The buisness I work doesn't do that and I don't think any other buisness would.

Dreadfleet was a disaster because it wasn't marketed. GW allowed the internet to speculate on what the mystery game was going to be, and then when it was finally announced it was something that very few people were interested in. Instead of working on that by announcing it earlier and using their big, expensive, flashy website and big, glossy 'hobby' magazine to promote this upcoming game, they left it to the last minute, dropped it on stores and said 'Here you go'... and the thoroughly underwhelmed masses voted with their wallets.

Dreadfleet could have been a successful splash release. But GW didn't do their homework first, and got burnt.

It was a disaster, but it was a disaster for the simple fact that noone wanted to buy it. It still didn't seel after being on the selves for a few months so I don't know what any pre-marketing would have done. If it was a good game then the lack of pre-marketing might have meant slow sales to begin with but people would have eventually bought it once word of mouth made its round.

Dreadfleet was simply a game that nobody wanted. It was more of a fantasy release, so it was more inline with their less popular game and even then it didn't quite match up anyway with the setting for it.

Spoiling Space Hulk wouldn't have hurt it in the slightest, because other than the botched marketting it was an example of GW doing it right. They re-released a game that people had been asking for, and they re-released it in a format that was just drop-dead gorgeous. Whether people were buying it just for the models or for the game, they were buying it. And they still would have bought it if they had known about it 3 months in advance.

And we know this because we did know about it 3 months in advance, despite GW trying to keep it quiet.

I honestly don't think anything would have made Dreadfleet sell. It just wasn't an interesting game. Space Hulk has a lot more history behind it with a larger core of die hard fans, so it sold like hot cakes.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 Bull0 wrote:
I wouldn't use the term ludicrous to describe comparing GW to Starbucks, but I don't think they compare at all. Everybody's heard of Starbucks, the ubiquitousness of their brand makes them particularly vulnerable to social media outcries. Go and tweet about what GW are doing, start a hashtag, see if it goes viral. It definitely, definitely won't.

Whether you want to compare Starbucks with GW or not is irrelevant.

What is important is to note that negative online-reactions do affect the bottom lines of companies, large or small. Splitting hairs over differences between different companies does not affect this basic insight. There are surely more commonalities between Starbucks and GW than between Starbucks and the government or Tunisia or former US presidential candidate Rick Santorum, all of which have been slammed hard by negative online vibes.

So you compared Starbucks to GW, but any discussion of how relevant or valid that comparison is isn't relevant? Gotcha.

Zweischneid wrote:

The assumption that GW - for some miraculous reason - is "just perfectly" in the middle of not-too-big and not-too-small to be exactly not affected (financially) by social media backlash is a highly specific hypothesis for which no evidence has been put forward.

I didn't put that hypothesis forward. I said GW are a lot smaller and less well-known than Starbucks. Do I have to cite evidence to prove GW is smaller than Starbucks?

Zweischneid wrote:

The default assumption therefore should be that... like virtually everyone else, business, politics, private people ... Games Workshop can potentially be hurt - even and especially financially - by a social media backlash.

Right, because I said that they're totally invulnerable to it, just like I said that it's because they're exactly the right size to be invulnerable and not that they're just significantly smaller and less well-known than Starbucks. You know, I'd be a lot more inclined to engage with you on this if you argued with what I actually said instead of putting significantly stupider words in my mouth so you can argue with those instead.

 Bull0 wrote:


So you compared Starbucks to GW, but any discussion of how relevant or valid that comparison is isn't relevant? Gotcha.

No. I named one well known example of a company hurt (financially) by a social media backlash, because you claimed online opinions are irrelevant to the bottom line.

You do understand the differences between an example and a comparison?

 Zweischneid wrote:

Beasts of War may not be the one that goes "viral" for GW, but something might at some point... and a generally "negatively pre-disposed" online community won't be an asset for them then.

I think the Spots the Space Marine debacle came close.

 Bull0 wrote:
Right, because I said that they're totally invulnerable to it, just like I said that it's because they're exactly the right size to be invulnerable and not that they're just significantly smaller and less well-known than Starbucks. You know, I'd be a lot more inclined to engage with you on this if you argued with what I actually said instead of putting significantly stupider words in my mouth so you can argue with those instead.

Sure thing... here is what you said

 Bull0 wrote:

I believe it's a minority of overall custom that's related to people reading forums

To which I said, while technically true for forums, this is not true for social media in general and companies are often, repeatedly and regularly hurt be social media backlash. Because a sufficiently large percentage of the customer base of any company these days use social media, and certainly so for companies focusing on "young people" (I guess a company selling bedpans and hearing aids might be less vulnerable).

Example: Starbucks. Or United Airlines if you prefer. Or "NMAWorldEdition" if you prefer small, unknown companies. All of them just examples (not comparisons... ya know, as in what I actually said instead of the significantly stupider words you've been putting in my mouth so you can argue with those instead.).

 Bull0 wrote:

OK, so substitute 1% of customers for 1% of sales, bump it up to 2% or 5% or whatever, either way, I believe it's a minority of overall custom that's related to people reading forums (you're all going on about how much you hate GW already anyway, right? So what difference has this actually made? You were already alienated).

Forum users are undoubtedly a very minor part of the overall sales numbers. But, I think to then say that they are irrelevant is a different thing altogether, conversely I think the hardcore fans can be viewed as an indicator for customer reaction to products and policies, almost as a kind of litmus test. To use one example, consider that so many of the more dedicated fans are bemoaning the prices, how much more of an affect is that likely to have on the casual purchaser? The lack of marketing, the difficulty that independent stores have when dealing with GW, the lack of communication with fans.. all of it is reducing the impact of the company for what is already a niche product, and is serving to alienate all but the most thick-skinned of fans.

And it doesn't seem to matter how well-intentioned a fan you are. We've seen several really dedicated fansites be shut down, guys that really love their pastime to the point where they put a fair chunk of their lives into making that community. Others, previously fun places to hang out and discuss shared interest, get turned into timid little groups of fearful sycophants, where the mods are forced to rule with an iron fist lest that C&D letter find its way in the post to you. Quite often, it's because these groups have used the word 'Warhammer' or 'Bloodbowl' in their web URL, or they had the audacity to post some pics of a forthcoming release that had found its way to the internet (because they were excited, and wanted to talk about it). What has happened with BoW is one example of this.

I would say this kind of behaviour makes a massive difference - the 'core' of forum users, those for whom it's a major pastime, are the driving force at the heart of it. When you don't have any external advertising (other than an increasingly minor high street presence), you rely on word of mouth and for those hardcore fans to do the legwork for you, helping organise tournaments, campaigns, events - people like the Beasts of War team who enthusiastically promote GW's new releases. I can completely understand the need for legal framework, for controlling your IP and information, but it is a very dangerous game that GW are playing - they are actually stymieing their most fervent supporters. They have already gone some way to eroding the masses of good will they have built up over the years, and this is another step in that direction.

The upper-middle class kid (so it has become) whose parent spends £200-300 at Christmas for them on GW products is undoubtedly the bulk revenue spinner, but that is driven in part by the fan communities - the places like Beasts of War and Dakka, that help create the awesome material that people see when they type a search into google images. If you start dictating terms to those places in such harsh terms, you start to lose the endearment of your core fanbase, you create a negative atmosphere, destroy the enthusiasm of your conscientious fans (Dakka I think is relatively good-willed and prosaic compared to a lot of places) and you help drive customers towards competitors.

And this isn't just postulating about cause/effect of things yet to happen, this is taking place right now; there is hard data, and something you will no doubt pick up on as you spend more time here and read around; the year on year reduced unit sales (especially in the core markets), the continual cost-cuttings and lack of expansion, reduced internet traffic and searches, the reduction in official events and input into those events. More importantly, looking at the wider picture, this is taking place in an industry that has grown an estimated 15-20% in each of the past few years, indicating GW is controlling a smaller piece of the pie.

Finally though, I will concede that a lot of the posters here probably are alienated, and most likely not the target demographic for GW any more. But, it's the fact that so many of us have seen the transformation take place, of small, personable company that cared about its fans, to transnational behemoth (and all of the things that brings with it) - you pine for the things you have lost, and what you would like to see again, much more than if you had never had those things in the first place. It's not about 'hating', it's about wanting GW to be a better company, understanding the score, and having the backbone to say something about it.

 Bull0 wrote:
I wouldn't use the term ludicrous to describe comparing GW to Starbucks, but I don't think they compare at all. Everybody's heard of Starbucks, the ubiquitousness of their brand makes them particularly vulnerable to social media outcries. Go and tweet about what GW are doing, start a hashtag, see if it goes viral. It definitely, definitely won't.

Assuming, of course, that none of the twitter followers are aware of GW. But since the original tweeter is on a wargaming forum it's fairly likely that some reasonable percentage of social links are to other wargamers, there's a pretty high chance of it making a difference.

If none of the followers knew what GW was, then it'd make no difference, but the odds are it'd spread like wildfire, particularly since GW already has a pretty bad reputation amongst longer term gamers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DarthOvious wrote:

Don't even suggest that. Most likely if they think it's the playtesting method that's causing the leaks, they'll just stop playtesting altogether.

I wouldn't want them to do that either. They may have to just playtest in house with staff but perhaps that wouldn't be a good idea either.

They already stopped external playtesting to avoid leaks. Couldn't you tell?

I broadly concur with Pacific's hypothesis.

TLR version:

Veteran forum users are a minority of the overall GW user base but their influence is much greater than their number, due to being older brothers, club members and evangelists for the company's games.

Pissing off the veterans dilutes the valuable, "earned" marketing that GW partly depend on for sales growth.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 Bull0 wrote:
Right, because I said that they're totally invulnerable to it, just like I said that it's because they're exactly the right size to be invulnerable and not that they're just significantly smaller and less well-known than Starbucks. You know, I'd be a lot more inclined to engage with you on this if you argued with what I actually said instead of putting significantly stupider words in my mouth so you can argue with those instead.

Sure thing... here is what you said

 Bull0 wrote:

I believe it's a minority of overall custom that's related to people reading forums

To which I said, while technically true for forums, this is not true for social media in general and companies are often, repeatedly and regularly hurt be social media backlash. Because a sufficiently large percentage of the customer base of any company these days use social media, and certainly so for companies focusing on "young people" (I guess a company selling bedpans and hearing aids might be less vulnerable).

Example: Starbucks. Or United Airlines if you prefer. Or "NMAWorldEdition" if you prefer small, unknown companies. All of them just examples (not comparisons... ya know, as in what I actually said instead of the significantly stupider words you've been putting in my mouth so you can argue with those instead.).

At the end of the day it depends on whether the media care enough to report it. I don't think the media will care that GW is telling companies how they want their products sold on. Its just not a big deal and I don't think the public would even care.

Think of it this way. Many food companies produce food items and then sell those items through the use of supermarkets. For all intents and purposes the food items belong to the food company and the supermarkets sell it on their behalf for a profit. Mostly because suppermarkets are smart enough to know that certain people like to buy certain brands. Now lets take an example, lets say Walkers Crisps. Now lets say that Walkers Crisps change their trade agreement with the Supermarkets and tell them they wanted certain parameters to be maintained while selling on their products, otherwise they wouldn't stock them in future. Would anybody really care? Would anybody look at Walkers and say "What an evil bunch of whatsits". They might look on and think its a weird thing to do. They might think "Well how are they going to sell their items otherwise?" but in the long run I don't think people would really care.

At the end of the day, its GWs product to sell and they can do whatever they want with it as long as they don't break any rules. People can look on and think they are a bully, some might consider it weird and think its a suicide move and some others might think its an unethical thing to do. However not enough people are going to care either way or another. Idon't think its the type of thing that would really hit the headlines.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Herzlos wrote:

They already stopped external playtesting to avoid leaks. Couldn't you tell?

Is this the reason that their current codex releases are not a balanced article? It would make sense.

 DarthOvious wrote:


At the end of the day it depends on whether the media care enough to report it. I don't think the media will care that GW is telling companies how they want their products sold on. Its just not a big deal and I don't think the public would even care.

But that is the fun with social media.

You don't need to go through a central media hub to have the news spread. It spreads to the people concerned / interested via "social" "networks". If / when mainstream media picks these things up, it's usually after the fact. To report that a shitstorm happened, not to instigate it.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 DarthOvious wrote:


At the end of the day it depends on whether the media care enough to report it. I don't think the media will care that GW is telling companies how they want their products sold on. Its just not a big deal and I don't think the public would even care.

But that is the fun with social media.

You don't need to go through a central media hub to have the news spread. It spreads to the people concerned / interested via "social" "networks". If / when mainstream media picks these things up, it's usually after the fact. To report that a shitstorm happened, not to instigate it.

I agree that GWs profit margins can be hit with social media like Daka and various other internet outlets but I just don't think that the large media cooperations will take notice. I'm not expecting The Sun or The Daily Star to do an article on it if you know what I mean and report a national scandal.

Unfortunately, the powers that be want to treat GW like a buiness, like a big buiness but in reality I don't think they are. Its all to easy for them to lose sales and suffer from customer dissatifaction and also bad economy. The tactics they are using are more suitable for the big guns who won't lose many loss of sales for what they do and not for GW.

I mean, I want to make it clear that I don't agree with what GW are doing, and I agree it's sad. I just read a lot of posts that threw terms like "illogical" "nonsensical" and the like out there, in regards to what they're doing, and wanted to be sure that you understood that what they're doing makes perfect sense if taken purely as a heartless business decision. Sure, it might not work for them - we'll see, in time. I've said that too.

I'd still be very wary of taking forum communities as some kind of clear litmus test for overall public perception of the brand, and definitely don't agree that you're ever likely to be able to create a "social media shitstorm" that GW need to take seriously over this, but I do concede that there's probably some limited correlation there, on specific issues such as price, quality, etc. If we were going to see some people power pressure going on, it would've been one of the annual price gouges, or finecast, or the Spots thing, or the CHS lawsuit, or whatever. The way they treat trade partners? Come on, that's niche. I'd be willing to bet there's a good chunk of people, even on Dakka, that don't really care much.

Well, if the forum mirrors the paying publics opinion as closely as some on here say, we should probably start buying up GW stuff before it closes for good.

Or it's a business with a limited customer base, and it actually makes sense to restrict the third party aspect of sales. the more direct sales traffic, the more profit.

No company should stand for their IP being leaked out before they want. concept artists, sculpture artists, painters, graphic designers all work hard to bring a product to life and all want it to be displayed in all it's glory. I know that GW are the conduit that all evil flows through on here, but it's worth looking at things from the other side sometimes

The Division Of Joy wrote:
Well, if the forum mirrors the paying publics opinion as closely as some on here say, we should probably start buying up GW stuff before it closes for good.

Or it's a business with a limited customer base, and it actually makes sense to restrict the third party aspect of sales. the more direct sales traffic, the more profit.

No company should stand for their IP being leaked out before they want. concept artists, sculpture artists, painters, graphic designers all work hard to bring a product to life and all want it to be displayed in all it's glory. I know that GW are the conduit that all evil flows through on here, but it's worth looking at things from the other side sometimes

From a personal perspective from the two GW stores I go to, the people there don't have a anti-GW attitude. I understand that some people are unhappy with them and their buisness decisions and I know some people who also display that down at my local gaming group who don't play in store. So I see both sides of the coin.

 DarthOvious wrote:
. I'm not expecting The Sun or The Daily Star to do an article on it if you know what I mean and report a national scandal.

About the Beasts of War thing in particular? Probably not.

About some potential hick-up that goes to GW's detriment? Sure they would, if the angle is interesting.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21380003

 Zweischneid wrote:

 DarthOvious wrote:
. I'm not expecting The Sun or The Daily Star to do an article on it if you know what I mean and report a national scandal.

About the Beasts of War thing in particular? Probably not.

About some potential hick-up that goes to GW's detriment? Sure they would, if the angle is interesting.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21380003

Yeah, remember how that brought down the company?

 Bull0 wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

 DarthOvious wrote:
. I'm not expecting The Sun or The Daily Star to do an article on it if you know what I mean and report a national scandal.

About the Beasts of War thing in particular? Probably not.

About some potential hick-up that goes to GW's detriment? Sure they would, if the angle is interesting.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21380003

Yeah, remember how that brought down the company?

It generated a great deal of ill-will among the people I know who previously had never heard of GW. Even those that did know who they were and may have enjoyed the video games revised their opinions sharply downwards. That's not going to hit their bottom line initially, but the impression of GW in the public's eye is now "greedy idiot bullies." While some on Dakka will tell you this impression is 100% accurate, it's probably not what GW wanted to go for. These are people who are now not at all interested in becoming GW customers, and likely if any of their friends mention looking into the hobby they will be told about this incident. That is the insidious nature of social media; you don't actually see the viper that bites you.

GW shut down their corporate Facebook presence in the wake of that kerfuffle, and became even more insular as they were hit by actual public backlash. It undoubtedly displeased their investors as well, and likely had a bigger effect on what GW does than any amount of forum threads.

 DarthOvious wrote:

Is this the reason that their current codex releases are not a balanced article? It would make sense.

It's more like the reason that the books are filled with obvious mistakes like the DA codex not having rules for the LE interrogator chaplain, or the wargear entries being plain wrong. Things that the customers spot/ask almost immediately, and would have been caught by an external* play test.


* i.e. not tested by the guys that wrote it. It needs to be tested by people who don't know much about it; that's a universal. In my job, I can't review my own stuff and get much better results if I get a non-invested party to look at it. It's just human nature.

 Bull0 wrote:

Yeah, remember how that brought down the company?

GW stocks fell quite significantly January and February, hitting the annual low in early March. Not as clear a correlation as the United Airlines stock-drop, but it may well have contributed.

It didn't "bring the company down", but it did (!) cost their shareholders a few hundred-thousand GBP.

GW is a publicly traded company. Bad publicity does hit the shareholders where it hurts.... in the wallet.

Darth,

Wouldn't it be, given GW's recent reported behaviour, like Walkers saying "Supermarket 'A' can select enough of our product that they can freely choose which varieties they stock, and how much, because they are ordering way over our self-imposed minimum quantities. Supermarket 'A' will be told of upcoming competitions, promotions, and other product changes up to 3 months ahead of release date. Corner shop 'Z', however, does not order enough so the following conditions must be met.

1. Corner shop 'Z' is not allowed to sell any "Roast Chicken" flavour, our most popular, until they have sold x packets of "Cheese and Onion" as that is the flavour we want to push.
2. On release of a new flavour, corner shop 'Z' will be required to place an order within 2 weeks of flavour notification, but will not be suppled with advertising until 2 weeks before release date, and may not use this advertising or otherwise notify potential customers until 5 days before release date. Minimum order quantity applies, but orders may not be fulfilled in their entirety. (Order 6 cases, we may drop off 4 bags.)
3. No corner shop will sell multipacks to people suspected of splitting these down for re-sale, nor will they sell single packs to persons suspected of selling on single crisps. (condition not enforcable for supermarkets)
4. Any corner shop found to be in breach of these conditions wil forfeit status and will be required to buy product at higher cost for a period not less than 6 months


P.S. That goes double for corner shops tenously connected to pidgeon fanciers who can use homing pidgeons to send messages to other areas about rumored new flavours, pack designs, ad campaigns, etc. - added mid-year to stomp down on imagined problemI find it inexplicable that GW seem to be doing all they can to destroy their own reputation, margin, market share, etc. I'm certainly moving over to Kettle Chips in future!

When I started, they used to print the order codes for the latest models in the back of the WD every month. Not just of the whole models, but of the pieces. Converting stuff was just a matter of phoning them, giving them the codes for the bits you wanted, paying them, and they turned up in the post. Now whilst I am fully aware of the problems that caused them, and the fact that you just can't do that with Styrene frames unless you sell the entire frame, how many people are seriously going to buy 'x' number of packs to get the 'y' number of parts they need? So bits sites sprang up. Not content with having people outside of GW taking the risk that certain bits won't sell, GW wants to stop all this trade - oblivious that whilst people may be prepared to buy a set or two of Valk engines for a completely unrelated modelling project, £40-£80 for three or four engines and a load of (to them) useless bits is way out of reality.

And how many GD winners in the last 10 years have been Out-Of-Box models with standard posing? Not many, I bet. (OK, maybe a glut from this year's Warhammer Skink, but in general I believe you need a converted model to stand much of a chance.)

The reality of the situation GW are seeming to want to put themselves in, seems counter-productive to me. Allow bits sellers and you encourage imagination and creativity whilst expanding your target demographic through social media sites, like this one, as people share their creations made from <gasp> your product! after all, if I go to a bits site to buy the engines I want, where did he get the kit from? So if GW's finances rely on getting every penny profit from every single kit, someone needs to point out that 5% on 100 sales is better than 7% on 20 sales.

As to their idea that impulse buying is the key to their success, that would work better - and indeed did work better - when you could get a rhino for £5 or 3 for £10. With the cost of the stuff they produce now - and it is undoubtedly better quality than the RTB01 era - running to anything up to £70 for something you may need multiples of in an army, I don't know of many people who could honestly say they could afford to drop even the cost of one as an 'Impulse' purchase. I recently had to replace my portable DVD player, and it cost £70 to get one with a bigger screen and better functions, but I knew the old one was playing up so started to save £1 coins. By the time I had to actually look for the replacement, I had more than enough to do so. I could comfortably look for a replacement, judge each on it's merits, and make an informed decision.

I truly believe that GW make some of the best models in '28mm' out there. I have both Tau and Necron armies, and would have loved to update the both of them. But I cannot bring myself to buy a single tomb spider or Riptide as I believe that the GW management are trying to comit financial suicide - as has been ponted out previously GW is growing by a few percent in a market growing by much larger amounts, even in this economy - and I believe anything that drags out their demise at this point is just being cruel.

 DarthOvious wrote:

The Division Of Joy wrote:
Well, if the forum mirrors the paying publics opinion as closely as some on here say, we should probably start buying up GW stuff before it closes for good.

Or it's a business with a limited customer base, and it actually makes sense to restrict the third party aspect of sales. the more direct sales traffic, the more profit.

No company should stand for their IP being leaked out before they want. concept artists, sculpture artists, painters, graphic designers all work hard to bring a product to life and all want it to be displayed in all it's glory. I know that GW are the conduit that all evil flows through on here, but it's worth looking at things from the other side sometimes

From a personal perspective from the two GW stores I go to, the people there don't have a anti-GW attitude. I understand that some people are unhappy with them and their buisness decisions and I know some people who also display that down at my local gaming group who don't play in store. So I see both sides of the coin.

I don't see it at the club I use, or at the store I visit. The general consensous is 'Don't like it? Don't buy it'

There are plenty of games that exist at different paypoints. It's no different to moaning at the price of a new premium car, when there are several options at different levels of value.

I drive a VW Golf, I can't afford a VW Scirroco. I don't moan that the Scirocco is out of my price range, as VW make cars of various values. And if VW raises prices above my limit? Well, there are plenty of other makers out there waiting for me to switch brand. And I pay a premium for my current choice because they are considered better quality and i like them. If I ever got to a stage I was moaning about how much I was paying, and that outweighed the love I have for the brand then boo, hello SEAT or Kia

 Zweischneid wrote:

 DarthOvious wrote:
. I'm not expecting The Sun or The Daily Star to do an article on it if you know what I mean and report a national scandal.

About the Beasts of War thing in particular? Probably not.

About some potential hick-up that goes to GW's detriment? Sure they would, if the angle is interesting.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21380003

Agreed, I'm just talking about this particular incident to do with contracts with the independent retailers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Herzlos wrote:

 DarthOvious wrote:

Is this the reason that their current codex releases are not a balanced article? It would make sense.

It's more like the reason that the books are filled with obvious mistakes like the DA codex not having rules for the LE interrogator chaplain, or the wargear entries being plain wrong. Things that the customers spot/ask almost immediately, and would have been caught by an external* play test.

Hmmm, I'm intrigued. I need to review my Dark Angels codex when I get home now. Bear in mind I haven't noticed it because I don't actually play Dark Angels but I bought the codex because I was considering starting them, but I never really got a good look at it.

* i.e. not tested by the guys that wrote it. It needs to be tested by people who don't know much about it; that's a universal. In my job, I can't review my own stuff and get much better results if I get a non-invested party to look at it. It's just human nature.

I thought this could still be done inhouse though. You just need other employees other than the writers to test it, but of course this would take them off their work and would slow other parts of the buisness.