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.

 Arschbombe wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:
Any hope this is like Coke vs new Coke then switch back to "classic" while changing the sugar for a cost savings?

No chance. The New Coke fiaso was not planned. They still sell "new" coke in many if not most markets. Coke actually thought they were giving the customers what they wanted. All their taste-testing research validate their decision to go forward. They never saw the backlash coming.

And in the US Coke had already switched to HFCS instead of sugar, before unveiling the New Coke.

But, yeah... they really were not prepared for what happened. (I gather that Microsoft was likewise caught off guard by the failures of both Vista and Windows 8 to grab the market....)

An engineer will tell you that innovation fails nine times out of ten - a biologist will tell you that engineers are optimists.

The Auld Grump

 Arschbombe wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:
Any hope this is like Coke vs new Coke then switch back to "classic" while changing the sugar for a cost savings?

No chance. The New Coke fiaso was not planned. They still sell "new" coke in many if not most markets. Coke actually thought they were giving the customers what they wanted. All their taste-testing research validate their decision to go forward. They never saw the backlash coming.

You are correct with the initial comment but my statement is true as well, please review:
http://www.snopes.com/cokelore/newcoke.asp
But I still maintain this may very well be the same scenario: try something different, if it messes up it would still be an opportunity to increase sales in the end.

I was disappointed. I'd like something more than a booklet of pictures. Some real articles would have been nice.

 Talizvar wrote:

 Arschbombe wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:
Any hope this is like Coke vs new Coke then switch back to "classic" while changing the sugar for a cost savings?

No chance. The New Coke fiaso was not planned. They still sell "new" coke in many if not most markets. Coke actually thought they were giving the customers what they wanted. All their taste-testing research validate their decision to go forward. They never saw the backlash coming.

You are correct with the initial comment but my statement is true as well, please review:
http://www.snopes.com/cokelore/newcoke.asp
But I still maintain this may very well be the same scenario: try something different, if it messes up it would still be an opportunity to increase sales in the end.

The last quote in that link with them being 'not that dumb, and not that smart' is what has stuck in my mind about the whole New Coke thing after seeing a documentary about it a number of years ago now.

Whether that line applies to GW and WV... I say you can draw your own conclusions on that. Nothing would surprise me greatly, but it does seem to me that, as others have said WV is simply going to be a placeholder mag that will see out what little production is needed for the subscriptions remaining, with WDW being their only print mag thereafter.

Though if that was the case why wouldn't they just switch the subscription over to WDW, or just refund them? Why go the bother of making a phoned-in mag to satisfy subscribers when there are better alternatives.

The only reason they could have done is is because they expected sales to be enough to provide a decent return on investment.

 Tennants Lager wrote:
Nothing would surprise me greatly, but it does seem to me that, as others have said WV is simply going to be a placeholder mag that will see out what little production is needed for the subscriptions remaining, with WDW being their only print mag thereafter.

No offense, but this just would be a really cludgy way to get to a point where they switch their monthly mag to a weekly. If their goal was a weekly just give every subscriber the weekly for half of their remaining 'script months and call it done and done. Why go to the trouble to create a new mag in a new format solely to kill subscriptions? Especially when you can *still* buy a subscription to it? How does that see out what subscriptions are remaining? If the goal is to do away with subscriptions why are they still for sale?

Skriker

If you want to get rid of your subscribers just close your magazine and pay off the remaining subscription value.

Just had a "reply" to my email regarding WH:V and WDW suffice to say it was mostly copy and paste - not sure what I was expecting.

I found this nugget:

"Perhaps contrary to first impressions, the vast majority of the material you see in Warhammer: Visions has not and will not appear anywhere else."

AKA - "We hoped no one would notice we resold everyone half of the previous months White Dwarf :("

Absolute joke!

Also most people on subscription appear to be paying £9 a quarter or £3 per mag. This means they are either:

A. Losing money on subscriptions or

B. Ripping off non subscribers

hmmm

narkuk wrote:


Also most people on subscription appear to be paying £9 a quarter or £3 per mag. This means they are either:

A. Losing money on subscriptions or

B. Ripping off non subscribers

hmmm

Where's the rip off.

I subscribe to SFX magazine, 2000AD and Wargames Illustrated. I save money compared to the retail price on all of those subs so White Dwarf/ Warhammer Visions are not unique in publishing.

I always thought sub discounts were a reward for being guaranteed income to a company. Retail price payers pay for my discount and postage charges.

And people say GW never offer discounts Of course it all depends on whether or not you thought WD was worth £3 let alone the retail price.

 Ifurita wrote:
I was disappointed. I'd like something more than a booklet of pictures. Some real articles would have been nice.

My sentiments exactly. Warhammer: Visions is not labeled correctly as a magazine, a magazine has articles and such. If you like this type of publication, more power to you, but for the price, I expect to get information, not just pretty pictures.

narkuk wrote:
Just had a "reply" to my email regarding WH:V and WDW suffice to say it was mostly copy and paste - not sure what I was expecting.

I found this nugget:

"Perhaps contrary to first impressions, the vast majority of the material you see in Warhammer: Visions has not and will not appear anywhere else."

Apart from all the pictures that people have pointed out that have already been used in previous articles and codices. Anyway, there's only so many photos you can have of a figure before there's nothing new to see. There are far too many photos of the same figures in Warhammer Visions. Probably the result of dedicating an entire magazine to photos only of your latest stuff.

I think it just a mistake. That no one will want take the blame for and it will be chucked about endless meeting for months with no one making a decision on it.
We give GW too much strategy, good or bad, credit. Its just a further sign of poor management. People who don't understand their business can't run it. Western business practices have largely forgotten this in favor of management speak and other garbage.

I really enjoy Visions- genuinely. I am very looking forward to the next one...

...But. This is a big but. I don't think that means it's overall a good quality magazine by the standards of the majority. I think it appeals to a very narrow number of people. The reasons I really like it are peculiar to me-
I really hate having to look at screens for details, I infinitely prefer a hard copy.
I haven't looked extensively on the internet for Golden Demon winners and the like already.
I prefer the pictures to written articles in the long run, because I keep going back to the pictures to admire them or notice new details, whereas I wouldn't re-read an article in the same time period.
I enjoy looking at pretty pictures of the models as much as reading about details of them.
I wasn't subscribed to WD, so didn't get bait-and-switched.
They definitely need to not re-use photos, if only it hadn't included the stock tyranids as such a large part of it. The unique brown and mottled purple colour scheme at the back was cool, the same old Kraken/Leviathan/Behemoth ones were not.
The battle report either needs to be an actual battle report, or it needs to clear the feth out of the magazine.
It would be much improved by being A4, but no biggy.

If they just replaced the stock photos with more fan-painted or rarer 'Eavy Metal stuff, it would be much improved. Even mix in some of the artwork alongside the model photos. I think that if you want to buy pretty pictures of pretty models, Visions is better value than the artbooks they sell per page.

I can't imagine it lasting long, because it's a good quality magazine to a very narrow taste- and therefore a bad quality magazine to the majority. If it's your kind of thing, £60 for a year's subscription isn't so bad. It's about 2 and a bit pence per page.

Didn't read any of that comment, where are the pictures?

narkuk wrote:
Also most people on subscription appear to be paying £9 a quarter or £3 per mag. This means they are either:

A. Losing money on subscriptions or

B. Ripping off non subscribers

hmmm

Subscriptions for just about every magazine ever printed have usually offered a discount over the single issue cover price. That's part of the point of subscribing.

 insaniak wrote:

narkuk wrote:
Also most people on subscription appear to be paying £9 a quarter or £3 per mag. This means they are either:

A. Losing money on subscriptions or

B. Ripping off non subscribers

hmmm

Subscriptions for just about every magazine ever printed have usually offered a discount over the single issue cover price. That's part of the point of subscribing.

Pretty much - there are exceptions (I subscribe to Military History Quarterly), but then there are some where the subscription drops the price by more than 50%.

The Auld Grump
*EDIT* National Geographic can have as much as 89% off for the digital edition....

When a publisher sells a copy through a shop, the shop and the distributor need to get a cut of the cover price. The actual publisher only gets maybe 50%-60% of the cover price. (I don't remember the standard discount.)

When the publisher sells the magazine directly he can keep all of the cover price, but he prefers to give a discount to encourage subscription sales because he gets the whole year's money up front and can still make a bigger profit per copy than by selling via distribution.

God In Action wrote:
I really enjoy Visions- genuinely. I am very looking forward to the next one...

...But. This is a big but. I don't think that means it's overall a good quality magazine by the standards of the majority. I think it appeals to a very narrow number of people. The reasons I really like it are peculiar to me-
I really hate having to look at screens for details, I infinitely prefer a hard copy.
I haven't looked extensively on the internet for Golden Demon winners and the like already.
I prefer the pictures to written articles in the long run, because I keep going back to the pictures to admire them or notice new details, whereas I wouldn't re-read an article in the same time period.
I enjoy looking at pretty pictures of the models as much as reading about details of them.
I wasn't subscribed to WD, so didn't get bait-and-switched.
They definitely need to not re-use photos, if only it hadn't included the stock tyranids as such a large part of it. The unique brown and mottled purple colour scheme at the back was cool, the same old Kraken/Leviathan/Behemoth ones were not.
The battle report either needs to be an actual battle report, or it needs to clear the feth out of the magazine.
It would be much improved by being A4, but no biggy.

If they just replaced the stock photos with more fan-painted or rarer 'Eavy Metal stuff, it would be much improved. Even mix in some of the artwork alongside the model photos. I think that if you want to buy pretty pictures of pretty models, Visions is better value than the artbooks they sell per page.

I can't imagine it lasting long, because it's a good quality magazine to a very narrow taste- and therefore a bad quality magazine to the majority. If it's your kind of thing, £60 for a year's subscription isn't so bad. It's about 2 and a bit pence per page.

Tbh I don't even think its good for what it is. The size and layout choices are bizzare the patchy background being overlaid onto some model pictures is an awful idea the photos are reused and there are way too many photos of way too few models.. Even if I thought a magazine containing Just pictures of warhammer models was a good idea I wouldn't think this was good execution.

 carlos13th wrote:

God In Action wrote:
I really enjoy Visions- genuinely. I am very looking forward to the next one...

...But. This is a big but. I don't think that means it's overall a good quality magazine by the standards of the majority. I think it appeals to a very narrow number of people. The reasons I really like it are peculiar to me-
I really hate having to look at screens for details, I infinitely prefer a hard copy.
I haven't looked extensively on the internet for Golden Demon winners and the like already.
I prefer the pictures to written articles in the long run, because I keep going back to the pictures to admire them or notice new details, whereas I wouldn't re-read an article in the same time period.
I enjoy looking at pretty pictures of the models as much as reading about details of them.
I wasn't subscribed to WD, so didn't get bait-and-switched.
They definitely need to not re-use photos, if only it hadn't included the stock tyranids as such a large part of it. The unique brown and mottled purple colour scheme at the back was cool, the same old Kraken/Leviathan/Behemoth ones were not.
The battle report either needs to be an actual battle report, or it needs to clear the feth out of the magazine.
It would be much improved by being A4, but no biggy.

If they just replaced the stock photos with more fan-painted or rarer 'Eavy Metal stuff, it would be much improved. Even mix in some of the artwork alongside the model photos. I think that if you want to buy pretty pictures of pretty models, Visions is better value than the artbooks they sell per page.

I can't imagine it lasting long, because it's a good quality magazine to a very narrow taste- and therefore a bad quality magazine to the majority. If it's your kind of thing, £60 for a year's subscription isn't so bad. It's about 2 and a bit pence per page.

Tbh I don't even think its good for what it is. The size and layout choices are bizzare the patchy background being overlaid onto some model pictures is an awful idea the photos are reused and there are way too many photos of way too few models.. Even if I thought a magazine containing Just pictures of warhammer models was a good idea I wouldn't think this was good execution.

Yeah, the size is quite annoying, simply for the fact that it causes double spread photos to have the really annoying crease that you can't fold down (especially annoying if you like to keep such things in good condition and hate breaking spines). Agreed, I think they had too many photos of too few of the wrong models- mainly the reprinted tyranids. I would have liked more photos from different angles of the award winning models.