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.

I think we all know the answer we were looking for was "42".

GW seems dead set on "One Man Stores" being the real answer, just in 'the right place'.

Not sure they're currently equipped to think outside this particular box.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It would be most amusing if the report listed the following major issues and recommendations:

Spoiler:

There aren’t enough staff. Get rid of one-man stores.
Staff are too pushy selling. Tone it down.
The shops need more of a community atmosphere. Encourage veterans to nurture recruits, and run more games and competitions.
There is serious sticker shock.
There isn’t enough variety of stock in the core games and there is nothing for casual browsers. Bring in some boxed games. (Possibly involving space corridors.)
Modern people want to engage with the brand online.
Players want to be enthused and excited about forthcoming new releases. Do more advance publicity.

"Thanks for all of your effort. Go ahead and file your report in that bin over there. Did you need a reference?"

I am tempted to apply for the job just to get the chance to write that report, but I don't think I could get through the interviews with a straight face.

Maybe it's just a way to employ Kirby's nephew on a decent salary for a couple of years.

Staff are too pushy selling. Tone it down.

this a million times this

(although sadly studies in other selling fields sadly show this horrific pushy nonsense does bring in more cash to the businesses that operate this way)

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I am tempted to apply for the job just to get the chance to write that report, but I don't think I could get through the interviews with a straight face.

Maybe it's just a way to employ Kirby's nephew on a decent salary for a couple of years.

I had a similar thought process (aside from being medically unable to work right now) I'd love to have a crack at it, but, with no false humility, I'd probably be too competent and unable to conceal my horror at the GW culture well enough to bluff the interview process.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
Staff are too pushy selling. Tone it down.

this a million times this

(although sadly studies in other selling fields sadly show this horrific pushy nonsense does bring in more cash to the businesses that operate this way)

Its a short term measure for growing companies mainly. Back in the old days of mobile retail, when the networks did some crazy things with the commissions they offered independent retailers and the promotions they did to reward sales, Phones4U were utterly horrendous, I mean telling outright lies to close deals, really, really sharp, intimidating practices went on in most stores daily, and if you didn't fit into that culture, you were drummed out pretty quickly.

That all stopped the day a senior executive saw a salesman grab a woman's child in a pushchair off her and wheel it into store to force her to follow.

Salesmen are often characterised as 'hunters' and 'farmers.' Now, male bravado being what it is, most blokes will want to be hunters, the pushy sort you mention, but in reality, the farmers are what you want, the ones who don't necessarily provide instant results, but look after their crop carefully, and consequently reap a harvest year after year.

Once a company is mature, or the market they operate in matures, this generally tends to occur naturally, as customer retention starts to eclipse acquisition as a priority.

I think what is happening with GW is that they haven't have to really mature as a company, having been the only game in town (to all intents and purposes) for so long. I think we are seeing a significant, and rapid, maturation of wargaming just now. Competitors are emerging, and rather than falling away after a few months or years, as they have historically, they are sticking around and continuing to grow and erode GW market share. I don't think GW, as is, is equipped to deal with this. Raise prices/slash costs has run it's course, 'two birthdays/one Christmas' is very much in the pervue of a growing company making a land grab, not a massively dominant encumbent,

A solid product, honestly priced. A dose of humility and the acknowledgment that the consumer has a choice and genuine appreciation if they choose you, would solve so many of the problems. Ironically, they seem to be falling back into patterns that, while still a bit rubbish, would be more understandable from the likes of PP, Mantic, CB et al, while those companies continue to act in a manner far more appropriate to a company of GWs size.

 BrassScorpion wrote:
The signs about the HQ closings have been apparent for a while. For example, GW US executives have been reporting directly to Nottingham since last year.

Maybe you are really not aware, but all foreign HQs are led by Kirby's strawpuppets, esp. USA and Germany (they had to fly in a Belgian because of his fitting attitude). The whole company is firmly led by Kirby and his group of non-gaming managers. If Kirby hires an inquisitor to tell him personally, what idiot is doing all those stupid decisions, then this is a tough job to do.

To echo the sentiments above, a simple online survey or a focus group discussion will answer all of their questions. This is the only company I know that is very afraid to interact with their customers, and from what I've learned from marketing you always have to listen to customer feedback. Sheesh.

The pushy staff is such a put off for so many people; it's so refreshing when staff are actually approachable without trying to sell you every paint in the building.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Having some bloke "wander the earth" for two years is just a gakky way of doing the study. Probably much cheaper than getting a professional agency to do it, though.

It would be most amusing if the report listed the following major issues and recommendations:

Unlucky Bloke wrote:There aren’t enough staff. Get rid of one-man stores.
Staff are too pushy selling. Tone it down.
The shops need more of a community atmosphere. Encourage veterans to nurture recruits, and run more games and competitions.
There is serious sticker shock.
There isn’t enough variety of stock in the core games and there is nothing for casual browsers. Bring in some boxed games. (Possibly involving space corridors.)
Modern people want to engage with the brand online. Build forums and worldwide campaigns for community.
Players want to be enthused and excited about forthcoming new releases. Do more advance publicity.

Kirby wrote: You're fired!

Seems pretty simple to me....

The Auld Grump

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I am tempted to apply for the job just to get the chance to write that report, but I don't think I could get through the interviews with a straight face.

Maybe it's just a way to employ Kirby's nephew on a decent salary for a couple of years.

Why don't you? It is a cover letter and a resume. Worst they fly you out to England and you tour GW HQ. If the pessimists don't apply, all you will get is GW fanboys who will look and see everything is perfect. Given they are advertising it, they may want an outside opinion (highly unlikely). That you lived in Japan (I assume speak Japanese) and you would already have language to cover one of the foreign markets. An evenings work is probably all it will take.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 heartserenade wrote:
To echo the sentiments above, a simple online survey or a focus group discussion will answer all of their questions. This is the only company I know that is very afraid to interact with their customers, and from what I've learned from marketing you always have to listen to customer feedback. Sheesh.

Online surveys are notoriously unreliable and prone to distortion. It would be too easy for GW dismiss.

It is one avenue, it doesn't have to be the only one. Focus group discussions are more reliable, and if the findings on an FGD supports the online survey (or better yet, conduct an offline survey! Why can't you do both? It's cheap!), then you'll have multiple evidence. It's what advertising firms do to get to know their consumer.

 heartserenade wrote:
It is one avenue, it doesn't have to be the only one. Focus group discussions are more reliable, and if the findings on an FGD supports the online survey (or better yet, conduct an offline survey! Why can't you do both? It's cheap!), then you'll have multiple evidence. It's what advertising firms do to get to know their consumer.

True, doing both would either validate the online mood or further convince GW that online opinions are utterly useless.

Separate note, came across a good video from an MBA analyzing the numbers. May have been posted in the previous thread, but it definitely pessimistic. Brought up some points and views that I did not see in any discussions so far.

 heartserenade wrote:
To echo the sentiments above, a simple online survey or a focus group discussion will answer all of their questions. This is the only company I know that is very afraid to interact with their customers, and from what I've learned from marketing you always have to listen to customer feedback. Sheesh.

Maybe they already know what a survey would get them and they don't want to hear it.

Just finished watching the video.

Well, no gak FLGS are buying less from GW, they were the ones who limited their sales in the first place.

Cool video, goes a lot more in depth than a lot of the people talking about this and really doesn't paint a pretty picture of GWs future if they don't make some radical changes.

The video hits on some good points but still isolates itself to looking at Games Workshop in general.

In a nutshell, when he mentions that they have a statement which shows complete lack of confidence in their plan, that is made worse when one looks at the market.

If I was on GW's board, or in a shareholder meeting, the first question I would have asked is "what did the market do last year?". When you are the market leader and the market has been growing by an estimated 8% CAGR since 2009 (estimates are gaming miniatures market are 9%-12% in 2013 alone) and your sales are declining and expected to continue to decline, that is a clear indicator you are doing the wrong things as a business.

After watching the video is becomes even clearer where GW is heading. In well-done corporate double-speak they basically have said: "We have no idea what we are doing, but know we are fething things up and will continue to do so, but we currently have enough cash on hand to cover for our pathetic management of the business."

Based more on their own responses to the financials, I do not expect things to go well in GW land (and therefore for it's customers) over the coming couple of years.

Wayshuba wrote:
The video hits on some good points but still isolates itself to looking at Games Workshop in general.

In a nutshell, when he mentions that they have a statement which shows complete lack of confidence in their plan, that is made worse when one looks at the market.

If I was on GW's board, or in a shareholder meeting, the first question I would have asked is "what did the market do last year?". When you are the market leader and the market has been growing by an estimated 8% CAGR since 2009 (estimates are gaming miniatures market are 9%-12% in 2013 alone) and your sales are declining and expected to continue to decline, that is a clear indicator you are doing the wrong things as a business.

This claim has been around for some time, and just like last time, I flat out state that it isn't true. Miniatures wargames is a mature market and 8 to 10% annual growth is ENORMOUS. I very, very much doubt it's growing anywhere close to that rate - if at all.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I am tempted to apply for the job just to get the chance to write that report, but I don't think I could get through the interviews with a straight face.

Maybe it's just a way to employ Kirby's nephew on a decent salary for a couple of years.

The job is a "red herring" job. Basically it is to cover Kirby's behind with the board and shareholders. It enables him to say my strategy is sound but the details need to be adjusted. Just give me two years and I will have some feedback for you. Once the report comes back, they implement some of the changes and it buys Kirby another couple of years because he can then shift the blame to the consultant instead of himself. This job will be "very bad" for one's resume as it is politically motivated and therefore doomed to fail (as this person is being set up to be publicly blamed for these failures).

If GW was truly interested in fixing things and getting back on track for growth, they would hire a market research analyst and market manager to look at the "entire market" and give them feedback and recommendations on what need to be done to turn the ship around.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Backfire wrote:

Wayshuba wrote:
The video hits on some good points but still isolates itself to looking at Games Workshop in general.

In a nutshell, when he mentions that they have a statement which shows complete lack of confidence in their plan, that is made worse when one looks at the market.

If I was on GW's board, or in a shareholder meeting, the first question I would have asked is "what did the market do last year?". When you are the market leader and the market has been growing by an estimated 8% CAGR since 2009 (estimates are gaming miniatures market are 9%-12% in 2013 alone) and your sales are declining and expected to continue to decline, that is a clear indicator you are doing the wrong things as a business.

This claim has been around for some time, and just like last time, I flat out state that it isn't true. Miniatures wargames is a mature market and 8 to 10% annual growth is ENORMOUS. I very, very much doubt it's growing anywhere close to that rate - if at all.

Sorry my friend, it is indeed true and miniature wargames in not a mature market. One has only to look at the growth of pre-painted minis to see that. This information is available from various game company sources who study this market. In fact, Hasbro has written about this in presentations given on overall markets last year. Also, many distributors and retailers in the market will tell you their sales grew with miniature wargames last year, but mainly from the collective of various titles (Malifaux, Infinity, Flames of War, Hell Dorado, et. al) filling in the gap. One only has to look at the breakdown on KickStarter to see the number one growth area has been games and that miniature games were a significant portion of that. Heck, Kickstarter alone was $55 million in games last year with almost half of that going to miniatures based games. that alone accounts for 8% growth. Lastly, when you see new companies quickly creating niches (Privateer Press, Battlefront Miniatures, Wyrd Miniatures, Corvus Belli, Mantic, et al.) this is a clear indicator of a growing market. There are too many indicators out there showing consistent market growth, not just one source. So it is pretty safe to say that the market is growing at a steady pace.

Lastly, 8%-10% growth is only enormous relative to the size of the initial market. If you have 8% growth in a $30 billion industry (like online recruiting) then yes, it is enormous. But the miniatures wargame market is in the low to mid-$100s of millions, so a 10% growth is only $35 to $40 million, which isn't really all that big on a global scale.

 BrassScorpion wrote:

it revolves around is costumer experience between entering the store and paying at the registry...

I don't see that as a problem, they are a business and that experience in the store has a lot to do with getting people to buy something. The stores exist ultimately to make sales, stores of any kind without sufficient sales close.

One thing to remember is that with web stores, you can't that easily quantify the level of sales a single store creates. Because if the store can create good atmosphere and spark the interest in an army, then a person can go home to check things out more and eventually start ordering stuff online. Now those sales are then not marked for the store (there can be a large discussion how orders could be linked to store, but I'll skip that), then that store didn't create profit. When looking at the stores balance sheet, it could show that the store might not produce profit that much. If it is downsized so that it doesn't cause that spark, then sales will eventually dwindle away. Eventually leading to point that closing the store would seem sensible as it merely generates loss.

So similar as you wrote below .

One basic of any sales training is that people buy something when they are happy. People do not open their wallets if they are unhappy with their experience talking to a salesperson or with other aspects of a retail establishment. They don't buy and they don't come back. A few years ago the stores in my own area seemed a lot more exciting and sales were better. People were happy to patronize the GW stores because they loved them and loved being in them for hobby and game time with people they liked in a place they really liked. That seems to have dropped off a lot. I'd hate to see all their shops close, too many have closed already. I hope GW finds the solution they are seeking before it's too late for them and their customers. A primary rule of serving your customers is to stay in business so that you have an opportunity to do so. Closed shops serve no one.

The one man store system they use now is terrible. Part time stores with one harried employee do little to generate community excitement or create a fun environment with good support for new customers.

I see this job as an obvious ploy to keep critics silent for the two years until Kirby retires. It is no coincidence that the report date is the same as Kirby getting 65 years old.

Wayshuba wrote:

Sorry my friend, it is indeed true and miniature wargames in not a mature market. One has only to look at the growth of pre-painted minis to see that. This information is available from various game company sources who study this market. In fact, Hasbro has written about this in presentations given on overall markets last year. Also, many distributors and retailers in the market will tell you their sales grew with miniature wargames last year, but mainly from the collective of various titles (Malifaux, Infinity, Flames of War, Hell Dorado, et. al) filling in the gap. One only has to look at the breakdown on KickStarter to see the number one growth area has been games and that miniature games were a significant portion of that. Heck, Kickstarter alone was $55 million in games last year with almost half of that going to miniatures based games. that alone accounts for 8% growth. Lastly, when you see new companies quickly creating niches (Privateer Press, Battlefront Miniatures, Wyrd Miniatures, Corvus Belli, Mantic, et al.) this is a clear indicator of a growing market. There are too many indicators out there showing consistent market growth, not just one source. So it is pretty safe to say that the market is growing at a steady pace.

Lastly, 8%-10% growth is only enormous relative to the size of the initial market. If you have 8% growth in a $30 billion industry (like online recruiting) then yes, it is enormous. But the miniatures wargame market is in the low to mid-$100s of millions, so a 10% growth is only $35 to $40 million, which isn't really all that big on a global scale.

8 to 10% growth over single year is not that signifant. 8% growth over many years is. If it was true, miniatures market would have grown close to 50% over last four years. Look around, folks. Are things 50% more active than in 2009? Because I sure as heck ain't seeing that. Other similar hobbies are in clear and obvious decline (model kits, railroads) so it's hard to believe miniature wargames somehow defy the trend.

And people always talk about "new companies rising and filling the void". It's not something new - four years ago there were games like Confrontation, AT-43 etc which were hot cakes. As for Kickstarters, vast majority of them are dead in the water within months.

Backfire wrote:

8 to 10% growth over single year is not that signifant. 8% growth over many years is. If it was true, miniatures market would have grown close to 50% over last four years. Look around, folks. Are things 50% more active than in 2009? Because I sure as heck ain't seeing that. Other similar hobbies are in clear and obvious decline (model kits, railroads) so it's hard to believe miniature wargames somehow defy the trend.

And people always talk about "new companies rising and filling the void". It's not something new - four years ago there were games like Confrontation, AT-43 etc which were hot cakes. As for Kickstarters, vast majority of them are dead in the water within months.

You do realize that there are actual reports that validate the growth claims, both in actual sales, reports from most other major wargaming companies and in KS numbers?

Do you have anything to substantiate your position that these reports are false or is this just another white knight tactic to somehow make GW results appear less bad, because contrary to what is observable and being reported, the miniature wargame hobby isn't actually growing?!

 Kroothawk wrote:
I see this job as an obvious ploy to keep critics silent for the two years until Kirby retires. It is no coincidence that the report date is the same as Kirby getting 65 years old.

ya I agree with this. Its all about stalling. .

PhantomViper wrote:

Backfire wrote:

8 to 10% growth over single year is not that signifant. 8% growth over many years is. If it was true, miniatures market would have grown close to 50% over last four years. Look around, folks. Are things 50% more active than in 2009? Because I sure as heck ain't seeing that. Other similar hobbies are in clear and obvious decline (model kits, railroads) so it's hard to believe miniature wargames somehow defy the trend.

And people always talk about "new companies rising and filling the void". It's not something new - four years ago there were games like Confrontation, AT-43 etc which were hot cakes. As for Kickstarters, vast majority of them are dead in the water within months.

You do realize that there are actual reports that validate the growth claims, both in actual sales, reports from most other major wargaming companies and in KS numbers?

No I don't, because I haven't seen such reports. Most wargaming companies are not publicly traded and publish little information about their sales.

The "reports" I have seen and which have been previously cited as support for the claims about this awesome growth of wargaming sector, are wild speculation, based on hearsay and individual tidbits. I've not seen any industry-wide analysis, indeed it would probably be difficult to impossible to even make such an analysis since most of the operators don't disclose their numbers! Now, maybe such reports exist somewhere which show that I'm wrong, but if so, I've yet to see them. What I have observed in my own eyes over last four years seem to point out that the hobby is pretty much stable, or in decline. There are new games, but at the same time old games die out: they just die out with much less fanfare than new games come out, that people don't often notice.

This whole thing has been a big mess. GW will survive in the end.

Goresaw wrote:
1) Are the margins on the stores that high?
2) Does most of their business now come from their one man stores?
3) I know its how they WANT to get new people into the hobby, but does the company store actually attract those new people?
4) Do FLGS's really account for so few new players, or continued players?
5) Are the revenues down from them?

1) Manufactures typically sell to a distributor or directly to high volume stores. The manufacture usually gets 40% to 60% of MSRP for their product. GW makes the assumption that if they sell directly to the public, they can make more profit than by going through distributors even though they have to invest in the store fronts and increased logistics cost. For online orders, it is true that GW makes more margin, because the warehousing and shipping are basically equal to them selling to a distributor, with the website and associated staffing costs being small in comparison to the volume served. Basically, GW wants the extra 20%+ margin they get by selling direct.

2) My guess is their business distribution is pretty much the same as its always been. One man stores are bad because they are open limited hours and don't have staffing to deal with a high volume of customers.

3) I will give GW credit for this, they do put the stores in high volume high rent areas, which does increase exposure. I think prior to one man stores, they probably had a reasonable hit rate for getting people interested that came in the store. The main advantage of a GW only store is that they can push only their product and don't have any competition.

4) FLGS can sell any product and will push the products that they are interested in, that the manufactures are supporting and that sell reasonably well. FLGS carry many options and as such, GW has to compete against those other options. My FLGS is currently big on Yugioh, MtG and the Star Trek table top game because Konami, WotC and Wizkids provide excellent support for their products, they sell well and they typically like the games. GW was actually dropped from the store again because they didn't sell (too expensive) and interacting with GW was a pain in the butt.

5) Revenue is down across the board. Reasons have been guessed at throughout the thread.

Stock down again today!

Backfire wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

Backfire wrote:

8 to 10% growth over single year is not that signifant. 8% growth over many years is. If it was true, miniatures market would have grown close to 50% over last four years. Look around, folks. Are things 50% more active than in 2009? Because I sure as heck ain't seeing that. Other similar hobbies are in clear and obvious decline (model kits, railroads) so it's hard to believe miniature wargames somehow defy the trend.

And people always talk about "new companies rising and filling the void". It's not something new - four years ago there were games like Confrontation, AT-43 etc which were hot cakes. As for Kickstarters, vast majority of them are dead in the water within months.

You do realize that there are actual reports that validate the growth claims, both in actual sales, reports from most other major wargaming companies and in KS numbers?

No I don't, because I haven't seen such reports. Most wargaming companies are not publicly traded and publish little information about their sales.

The "reports" I have seen and which have been previously cited as support for the claims about this awesome growth of wargaming sector, are wild speculation, based on hearsay and individual tidbits. I've not seen any industry-wide analysis, indeed it would probably be difficult to impossible to even make such an analysis since most of the operators don't disclose their numbers! Now, maybe such reports exist somewhere which show that I'm wrong, but if so, I've yet to see them. What I have observed in my own eyes over last four years seem to point out that the hobby is pretty much stable, or in decline. There are new games, but at the same time old games die out: they just die out with much less fanfare than new games come out, that people don't often notice.

You get the inherent contradiction?

You dismiss those that say that wargaming is growing as "wild speculation, based on hearsay and individual tidbits" then go on to say you don't believe that because you have "observed it with your own eyes."

No offence, but Finland is hardly the heartland of the wargaming industry, and I'll take the word of a company that offers market analysis as part of it's business or the managing director of the largest Indy wargaming retailer in the UK over your narrow observational platform any time.

In essence you're saying "I see you stood there with the smoking gun, covered in blood. I see the corpse with the gunshot wound at your feet. I heard the gunshot. I heard you confess. But, because I didn't see you shoot this person I don't believe you did it." You might be right, but I think its safe to play the percentages here.

I think there often gets to be a myopia in companies that get top heavy like GW. Their management is filled with salesmen and MBAs who are going to see all problems as sales and MBA problems. "Hey we're not selling enough? Time to just sell better of course!" For all they're concerned they might as well be selling self sealing stem bolts.

It makes sense. You use the tools in your toolbox. I've worked at companies that have been in situations like GW's; there is a very panicky sense that you have to do something. Since they guys who make decisions don't know gak about making a good wargame product, they fall back to what they know. And what they know is cutting costs and consolidating sales.

Backfire wrote:
8 to 10% growth over single year is not that signifant. 8% growth over many years is. If it was true, miniatures market would have grown close to 50% over last four years. Look around, folks. Are things 50% more active than in 2009? Because I sure as heck ain't seeing that. Other similar hobbies are in clear and obvious decline (model kits, railroads) so it's hard to believe miniature wargames somehow defy the trend.

And people always talk about "new companies rising and filling the void". It's not something new - four years ago there were games like Confrontation, AT-43 etc which were hot cakes. As for Kickstarters, vast majority of them are dead in the water within months.

You're assuming that all growth is equal, when it is not. Let's use PP, GW and Wizkids as examples. All numbers are completely made up and do not reflect any actual numbers, but are for example purposes only.

PP shows 10% in growth form 2012 to 2013, going from $10MM to $11MM in revenue. Plus $1MM
Wizkids shows 20% growth from 2012 to 2013, going from $5MM to $6MM in revenue. Plus $1MM
GW shows 2% decline in revenue, from $100MM to $98MM. Minus $2MM

As you can see above, the total money going into the miniatures market is still $115MM, its just how big each person's piece of pie that is changing. It's also 0% growth overall for the miniatures market, even though adding the companies up together would indicate is should be 28% growth, because GWs 2% delince is equal to the others growth, even with big percentages.

As far as model kits and railroads, I think those markets are declining because people want a bit more instant gratification as well as entertainment out of their hobby. Once the railroad or model s put together, you stare at it a bit and it's over. At least with Legos, you can build it, take it apart and build something else.

 azreal13 wrote:

You dismiss those that say that wargaming is growing as "wild speculation, based on hearsay and individual tidbits" then go on to say you don't believe that because you have "observed it with your own eyes."

Difference is that I don't have any interest in portraying 'my' business as growing: what I've seen and heard everywhere (not just my hometown, or Finland) is that young people are less and less likely pick up a hobby where physical handwork is involved. Go ask any model kit veteran how his hobby is doing. Answer: pretty bad, it's mostly old salts who stay in their beloved hobby, not that many youngsters are coming in, the hobby is disappearing from market shelves, expo attendance is down. I have really hard time believing that wargaming somehow goes against this trend.

Now, I have no problem believing that some individual games are growing. Something like X-wing, a hugely popular franchise with broad appeal, and it's actually good game on top of that: I'm sure it's doing great - at least for now. However, they are individual successes which tells us nothing how the hobby as a whole is doing, across the industry. Some games are probably gaining because they're attracting disgruntled ex-GW players, but again, that's old veteran players switching tit for tat. Once they get disgruntled to their new company, they move to something else, and that 'something else' then reports 'great growth'. Rinse & repeat. People talk about new games - and forget that 5 years ago, there were other games similarly gushed about, which are now dead or dying.

 azreal13 wrote:

No offence, but Finland is hardly the heartland of the wargaming industry, and I'll take the word of a company that offers market analysis as part of it's business or the managing director of the largest Indy wargaming retailer in the UK over your narrow observational platform any time.

So where is this mythical report? What segments are growing? At what rate, over what time? Because last time this discussion took place, someone came in with numbers which showed that BOARD game sales in US were up 10% or so in 2012 (or 2011). Which is pretty easy to believe given economic upturn after recession and everything. But that actually told us nothing about wargame industry and sales.