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.

 fullheadofhair wrote:
Before we get all excited over those positions and numbers let's all remember that there are some inherent flaws to that data and it is an incomplete data source. Now, I am not saving there arent issues and that WFB isnt suffering but those numbers are not giving a complete picture.

As regards dates for Financial Statements, GW year end is I believe May. The release of the 10K to the public domain can be somewhere between 1 and 3 months.

True - but it would not surprise me if Fantasy is falling behind.

We will see how the numbers shape up or shake up in a few months.

Maybe GW will surprise me.

The Auld Grump

 liquidjoshi wrote:

 Kroothawk wrote:

Here is their top5 list in the "Non-Collectible Miniature Lines" (hobby channel) category:
http://www.icv2.com/articles/markets/28125.html

Now this is interesting. Not to pull this thread massively off topic, but IIRC, Warhammer Fantasy was third on the list ~12 months ago, while 40K was at #1. Interesting...

Don't Get Sidetracked on ICV2 Again !! It's crap data.

Let me explain how it's done....again. I go out and find 20 people that work in game distributors and stores, and ask them "So, what miniature game is doing the best right now? Ok, how about second best? Third? Fourth? Fifth? Ok, awesome, thanks for your input."

After I get 20 people who have some connection to gaming, I look at who got the most votes. Easiest way is to give them 5 pts for a 1st best, 4 for a 2nd best, etc. Total it up and we have our list. I'ts a method of statistics called Ranked Data.

The Problems:
1. It's based on opinions, not numbers.
2. It's not based on actual sales numbers. For instance, Guywhopacksboxes had to get a whole bunch of 7.95 blisters of infinity down from a shelf yesterday, but only four 40k starter sets. "Man, Infinity is hot! Give it a #1". Despite the fact that the 40k sets add up to a higher dollar amount.
3. It doesn't take into account the product sold by GW, or by the Trade accounts that GW sells directly too. So even if it was ranking based on sales numbers (which it isn't), it would exclude at least 80% of the GW sales in the US.

Think of it this way. You want to know the best 40k tournament army to take to Nova or Adepticon. You find the data by walking into 10 GW stores and having the 12 year olds tell you their favorite armies and units. That's how IC2 gathers it's data.

You know - I remember a whole lot of D&D 4e fanbois saying the exact same thing when ICV2 reported that Pathfinder was selling as well as D&D, then better...

But if that were really the case then D&D 5e would already be in the works!

Oh, wait....

Anecdotal evidence is not something that should be disregarded because it is anecdotal - and in this case... I am more likely to believe ICV2, because what they say is in accord with my own observations. That WH40K is still doing well, but that Fantasy is falling to the wayside.

You want 'crap data'? Listen to folks that are too vested in a product to see that other products are catching up, or have passed their favored product in sales.

And sometimes the supporting numbers are within spitting distance of the anecdotes - folks are saying that GW's sales are not what they were, but increased prices coupled with decreased costs are keeping them buoyant. But that the increased release schedule is not producing the numbers of sales that were expected.

Then GW releases their half year report... and it looks like the anecdote brigade had the right of it....

The Auld Grump

 mikhaila wrote:
Don't Get Sidetracked on ICV2 Again !! It's crap data.

Let me explain how it's done....again. I go out and find 20 people that work in game distributors and stores, and ask them "So, what miniature game is doing the best right now? Ok, how about second best? Third? Fourth? Fifth? Ok, awesome, thanks for your input."
(...)

Think of it this way. You want to know the best 40k tournament army to take to Nova or Adepticon. You find the data by walking into 10 GW stores and having the 12 year olds tell you their favorite armies and units. That's how IC2 gathers it's data.

Somehow I doubt that Alliance and all US FLEGs are owned by 12 year olds who love to make up data.

He was making an analogy.

 Kroothawk wrote:

 mikhaila wrote:
Don't Get Sidetracked on ICV2 Again !! It's crap data.

Let me explain how it's done....again. I go out and find 20 people that work in game distributors and stores, and ask them "So, what miniature game is doing the best right now? Ok, how about second best? Third? Fourth? Fifth? Ok, awesome, thanks for your input."
(...)

Think of it this way. You want to know the best 40k tournament army to take to Nova or Adepticon. You find the data by walking into 10 GW stores and having the 12 year olds tell you their favorite armies and units. That's how IC2 gathers it's data.

Somehow I doubt that Alliance and all US FLEGs are owned by 12 year olds who love to make up data.

The point is that it is merely an opinion poll with a small sample size.

If the stores in question were asked to produce actual unit sale and dollar sale data for each game system over a given time period, it would have more validity.

 mikhaila wrote:

 liquidjoshi wrote:

 Kroothawk wrote:

Here is their top5 list in the "Non-Collectible Miniature Lines" (hobby channel) category:
http://www.icv2.com/articles/markets/28125.html

Now this is interesting. Not to pull this thread massively off topic, but IIRC, Warhammer Fantasy was third on the list ~12 months ago, while 40K was at #1. Interesting...

Don't Get Sidetracked on ICV2 Again !! It's crap data.

Let me explain how it's done....again. I go out and find 20 people that work in game distributors and stores, and ask them "So, what miniature game is doing the best right now? Ok, how about second best? Third? Fourth? Fifth? Ok, awesome, thanks for your input."

After I get 20 people who have some connection to gaming, I look at who got the most votes. Easiest way is to give them 5 pts for a 1st best, 4 for a 2nd best, etc. Total it up and we have our list. I'ts a method of statistics called Ranked Data.

The Problems:
1. It's based on opinions, not numbers.
2. It's not based on actual sales numbers. For instance, Guywhopacksboxes had to get a whole bunch of 7.95 blisters of infinity down from a shelf yesterday, but only four 40k starter sets. "Man, Infinity is hot! Give it a #1". Despite the fact that the 40k sets add up to a higher dollar amount.
3. It doesn't take into account the product sold by GW, or by the Trade accounts that GW sells directly too. So even if it was ranking based on sales numbers (which it isn't), it would exclude at least 80% of the GW sales in the US.

Think of it this way. You want to know the best 40k tournament army to take to Nova or Adepticon. You find the data by walking into 10 GW stores and having the 12 year olds tell you their favorite armies and units. That's how IC2 gathers it's data.

I don't disagree with you Mikhaila, though I do think that there is some value in the ICv2 data, as opposed to none, once you appreciate the inherent flaws in the methodology and the limitations. It is essentially anecdotal information, but ostensibly collected informally from more retailers that the average gamer has contact with. In the absence of decent data it amounts to little more than reading the informal opinions of several different FLGS owners on the internet.

For example, although it would be foolish to expect to win a tournament by asking 12 year olds what their favorite armies and units are, that study (flawed though it may be for the purposes of developing a winning tournament list) will at least give you an idea about what 12 year olds at 10 different GW stores think is cool. You could use the data to give you an idea about what army to buy for your 12 year old cousin as long as you understood how it was collected.

I think they point Weeble made is the point several people have been making but no so elequantly. there is nothing wrong with using data that has a flaw with it providing you factor in the flaw. All data unless it is 100% sample size is by definition flawed :-D

The report has its uses, it gives a flavor and potential some idea of what is going on in the market. It cannot however be used in definitive terms and certainly not that product X is beating WFB is sales simply because:

1) If as Mikhaila says it isn't based of hard sale numbers from the store then that isn't numerical data - data gathered on someones opinion of what is selling is not the most reliable of things.

2) If GW data was included in this I would hazard a guess that WFB would still wipe the floor with the other games in sales.

This is just what is selling in FLGS. You cannot really extrapolate the data further with any hope of some degree of accuracy. A Gw store is obviously not the same animal as a FLGS so the comparison is not possible.

All you can say this is:
1) In FLGS only it SEEMS like other products are over taking WFB.

2) In the wider market, taking into account the limited data in GW's annual report, it SEEMS that GW products are losing market share in a purported growing market to maturing competitors and some new entrants that are yet to grow into maturing companies. Unfortunately, with no real hard data ($'s and #'s) from many of the privately held companies only broad brush estimation is possible.

3) Internet sales for all companies are growing as prices increase. Factoring in the impact of this is almost impossible.

There are other conclusions I could add but don't have time and those are the ones that immediately sprung to mind.

1.) This extensive ICv2 discussion is off topic here and belongs to the ICv2 thread that I linked to:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/584632.page
2.) The main ICv2 study was not based on short interviews with random people, but accompanied by hard numbers by e.g. the biggest US distributor Alliance, who (at least for a long time) also distributed GW products. And Alliance is a major source for many many FLGS in USA. Saying that Alliance numbers are as irrelevant as a random 12 year old boys ramblings is nonsense. BTW every retailer can get the study for free here: http://www.icv2.com/articles/news/28110.html

 Platuan4th wrote:
Actually, it's collected from sales data from stores, manufacturers, and distributors. The "interview" includes them sending in hard data from their computers. You can e-mail ICv2 yourself and ask them if you want.

3.) USA is not plastered with GW stores like the UK. In USA you have states without a single GW store, and the rest is reduced to sorry one-man-stores. Expecting one-man-stores in every second state to bear the mass of US-wargaming sales is unrealistic.

On topic: Last two days saw almost no trading. Share price still around 505p, a tad above the psychological 500 threshold.

Kroot, that's not a study, I've downloaded a previous edition out of curiosity and it is essentially just more of the same stuff as you see on the website. Certainly no 'hard' data to speak of, might have been a little bit more in depth IIRC, but. nothing of real substance.

As for icv2 being off topic? Information pertinent to the state of the industry that GW operates exclusively in, which speaks to it's company performance and couches it in a context, the same performance which is going to directly dictate it's future reports and share price?

That's off topic? I think we must have different ideas on what constitutes off topic.

Also, what psychological threshold are you referring to? I've not come across that before, for people making a living from the market, that's just a number. You wouldn't be investing your opinion into factual statements now would you, you little tinker?

 Kroothawk wrote:
Actually, it's collected from sales data from stores, manufacturers, and distributors. The "interview" includes them sending in hard data from their computers. You can e-mail ICv2 yourself and ask them if you want.

Not all FLGS get their items from Alliance. They get them from GW directly. Many stores actually do not have items sold by SKU or manufacturer, something I still find staggering, and those that do are not overly keen to dish that data. As I have said, I find the report interesting to read on a thematic basis but certainly dont regard it as a definitive source.

3.) USA is not plastered with GW stores like the UK. In USA you have states without a single GW store, and the rest is reduced to sorry one-man-stores. Expecting one-man-stores in every second state to bear the mass of US-wargaming sales is unrealistic.

Actually, if memory serves, many of the large population areas and areas where there is concentrated people and shopping areas have stores. Some however maybe an 1hr or more away! I would hazard a guess that if there is no GW and/ or a FLGS that internet shopping would be where it is at. We don't know to what degree internet stores are included in the ICv2 numbers. Until one of us can actually be bothered to go and find what the exact sample size is and the channels the sample occupy in relation to the overall population you have to be careful what conclusions you draw from the data.

Come on now, that is basic math and statistical analysis.

On topic: Last two days saw almost no trading. Share price still around 505p, a tad above the psychological 500 threshold.

Psychological to you. Not to someone who may own stock and is comfortable with their investment. Making stuff up again I am afraid.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
You know - I remember a whole lot of D&D 4e fanbois saying the exact same thing when ICV2 reported that Pathfinder was selling as well as D&D, then better...

But if that were really the case then D&D 5e would already be in the works!

Oh, wait....

Anecdotal evidence is not something that should be disregarded because it is anecdotal - and in this case... I am more likely to believe ICV2, because what they say is in accord with my own observations. That WH40K is still doing well, but that Fantasy is falling to the wayside.

You want 'crap data'? Listen to folks that are too vested in a product to see that other products are catching up, or have passed their favored product in sales.

And sometimes the supporting numbers are within spitting distance of the anecdotes - folks are saying that GW's sales are not what they were, but increased prices coupled with decreased costs are keeping them buoyant. But that the increased release schedule is not producing the numbers of sales that were expected.

Then GW releases their half year report... and it looks like the anecdote brigade had the right of it....

The Auld Grump

Actually, anecdotal evidence should always be disregarded if you are actually trying to do statistical analysis of something other than ranked data. You believe ICV2 because they agree with you, but that doesn't make it valid. And anecdotal evidence can come to correct conclusions. A stopped clock also tells the correct time twice a day.

I just get annoyed when people take ICV2 as gospel. I know how their data is arrived at, and have read ICV2 for about 20 years. It's part of my industry. But it isn't something people should point to as proving anything. It's held in high regard at times, when it has all the validity of an unconfirmed rumor telling us about the next army coming out.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kroothawk wrote:

 mikhaila wrote:
Don't Get Sidetracked on ICV2 Again !! It's crap data.

Let me explain how it's done....again. I go out and find 20 people that work in game distributors and stores, and ask them "So, what miniature game is doing the best right now? Ok, how about second best? Third? Fourth? Fifth? Ok, awesome, thanks for your input."
(...)

Think of it this way. You want to know the best 40k tournament army to take to Nova or Adepticon. You find the data by walking into 10 GW stores and having the 12 year olds tell you their favorite armies and units. That's how IC2 gathers it's data.

Somehow I doubt that Alliance and all US FLEGs are owned by 12 year olds who love to make up data.

Which isn't something i said at all. Just trying to come up with an analogy that a 40k gamer would appreciate

I still don't think that the professionals answering the poll have no more competence and insight than random 12 year old customers.
As someone interested in rumours I am used to deal with incomplete information. Just because it is incomplete doesn't mean it is worthless to me.

Nobody is calling it worthless, people are simply saying treat it with the appropriate amount of worth ie don't take it as gospel, merely as an interesting tidbit which is in no way conclusive.

Take it from me, as someone who has held an equivalent position to a lot of FLGS owners in a different industry, if someone called me up and asked me a bunch of questions that I had to answer off the top of my head, even with the profound knowledge I'd have of my own company and the business it was doing, I absolutely guarantee that I wouldn't get every question right, and some I might get dramatically wrong, because your perception gets twisted by what is in your face at that minute, and only sometimes when you sit down and look at the hard data do you realise how far off your perception is from reality.

 azreal13 wrote:
Nobody is calling it worthless, people are simply saying treat it with the appropriate amount of worth ie don't take it as gospel, merely as an interesting tidbit which is in no way conclusive.

Take it from me, as someone who has held an equivalent position to a lot of FLGS owners in a different industry, if someone called me up and asked me a bunch of questions that I had to answer off the top of my head, even with the profound knowledge I'd have of my own company and the business it was doing, I absolutely guarantee that I wouldn't get every question right, and some I might get dramatically wrong, because your perception gets twisted by what is in your face at that minute, and only sometimes when you sit down and look at the hard data do you realise how far off your perception is from reality.

Actually, Mikhaila is calling it useless, and that it should be disregarded.

He did, in fact, state so outright, and gave his reasons for doing so.

I disagree with his reasons, but he did support his premise.

I suspect, but cannot prove, that he disbelieves the data in part because it disagrees with his personal observations, while I agree with it because it does agree with my observations.

Which means... that we have access to different markets - his data is likely accurate for where he is, and mine is likely accurate for where I am. *EDIT* As an example, Kings of War is doing well in my area - which I do not think is the norm for most places.

But I cannot help but recall those 4e D&D fanboys that were shouting at the tops of their internetz that ICv2 was wrong, wrong, wrong!

And it turned out that it was the fanboys that were wrong.

Mikhaila is vested in this question - but the nature of his vested interest is such that he has much better data for his area than I do.

I have some background in cultural anthropology - which is largely about anectdotal data - so I learned never to discount it.

Statisticians, on the other hand, deal with quantifiable data - and anecdotal data bothers them - whether that data is right or wrong.

The Auld Grump, cultural anthropology is also why I sampled hákarl.... which was not quite the nastiest food that I have ever tried....

 TheAuldGrump wrote:


I have some background in cultural anthropology - which is largely about anectdotal data - so I learned never to discount it.

Statisticians, on the other hand, deal with quantifiable data - and anecdotal data bothers them - whether that data is right or wrong.

The Auld Grump, cultural anthropology is also why I sampled hákarl.... which was not quite the nastiest food that I have ever tried....

As a historian and small group researcher, I share your views about anecdotal data. History is defined as a discipline by a methodology designed to draw useful inferences from anecdotal data. Without it historians would just be...cultural anthropologists or something.

 Kroothawk wrote:
I still don't think that the professionals answering the poll have no more competence and insight than random 12 year old customers.
As someone interested in rumours I am used to deal with incomplete information. Just because it is incomplete doesn't mean it is worthless to me.

But Mikhaela has a better understanding of IC2 than do you, since he's been actually running a business in that industry for many years.

After seeing the rankings of Pathfinder overtaking D&D and then the announcements of both Paizo and WotC pretty much confirming it in the face of so much internet opposition (including people who owned local game stores slamming the ranking as anecdotal and not reflective of their D&D4E vs Pathfinder sales), I'm far more likely be believe a wide informal survey over a store owner in one city extrapolating his experience across the entire country.

As for 500 being a psychological level, Kroot is talking about trading trends and the idea of support and resistance. It comes about from people asking themselves the question "if this keeps going down, when do I get out?" and human nature pointing them to big round numbers.

 frozenwastes wrote:
As for 500 being a psychological level, Kroot is talking about trading trends and the idea of support and resistance. It comes about from people asking themselves the question "if this keeps going down, when do I get out?" and human nature pointing them to big round numbers.

Round number theory only applies to retail investors and it's something dumb money trades off of. Smart money and people that are actually going to move a stock aren't trading off of round numbers.

Support and resistance levels are formed based on the price where volume is traded. That is what technical analysis is about which I touched on earlier. Support is in the 470s. Resistance currently sits at 530.. the 500 level is completely meaningless.

That's a better explanation. Thanks! I conflated a couple of ideas there.

Saldiven wrote:
But Mikhaela has a better understanding of IC2 than do you, since he's been actually running a business in that industry for many years.

You must not have been following this thread. We have 15 pages of Kroot making logic leaps and debating professionals on topics of which he only has a cursory knowledge(and that is being generous).

Just read some of the cloak and dagger conspiracy theories he's been touting. It's laughable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 frozenwastes wrote:
That's a better explanation. Thanks! I conflated a couple of ideas there.

You understood more than most people do.

Jesus Derek, can you at least TRY to mitigate your tone somewhat?

I find myself in the bizarre position of agreeing with some of your points and still wanting to argue with everything you wrote because you're coming across so high handed and patronising.

Rather than arguing about the value of anecdotal data2, I would like to tap the DakkaDakka resources of actual retailers in the form of Mikhaila who could give us his current ranking and any changes over the years.

We wouldn't want precise sales figures, just an honest high level overview of things.

I know it is a sample of only one.

dereksatkinson wrote:

You understood more than most people do.

From what I understand you can only really identify a trend after it is already underway and the holy grail of stock trading is the idea of finding a way to identify a trend beforehand-- or at the very least before the majority. Kroot seems to have decided that the fundamentals of the company are such that he knows the trend is down. That's his "holy grail" when it comes to talking about GW's stock.

My meager experience tells me that stock behaviour lasts until it changes and as soon as you think about what is right or wrong about the direction of a given stock, you might miss what it actually does. That you want to be proven wrong so you can make the correct decision about a position as early as possible. I never buy a stock without a clear exit plan including a mathematical test on what would prove me wrong and show I need to get out. I think that's more important than worrying about predicting where the price goes.

I do think that GW is a stock that responds to fundamentals, but like most stocks that do so, they only seem to respond in the direction of underlying investment market forces like liquidity, general investor sentiment, etc.,. They could have an absolutely glowing report, but if the underlying conditions aren't there, it won't have nearly the impact it could have and cause GW stock to gap back up or something.

The gap down after the financial report is obviously because of the financial report, but only because larger forces allowed it to have the impact that it did. These larger forces may be larger economic issues, but they can just as easily be the thinly traded nature of the stock and how it's followed or not.

It seems to me that the best answer about the future of this stock is "I don't know." It totally possible that the drop to 500 from the high is the beginning of a long trend down, or it could be that those participating in the stock trading have absorbed the new information and we'll have a year or more of range bound status quo both in stock price and financial reporting.

 azreal13 wrote:
Jesus Derek, can you at least TRY to mitigate your tone somewhat?

I find myself in the bizarre position of agreeing with some of your points and still wanting to argue with everything you wrote because you're coming across so high handed and patronising.

This is probably a good point to once again step in and and strongly and 'officially' suggest that everyone follow that advice.

 azreal13 wrote:
Jesus Derek, can you at least TRY to mitigate your tone somewhat?

The first time he makes a post without insulting anybody, we know his account has been hijacked
Dakka's rule #1 doesn't apply to friends of Michael Dobson

weeble1000 wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:


I have some background in cultural anthropology - which is largely about anectdotal data - so I learned never to discount it.

Statisticians, on the other hand, deal with quantifiable data - and anecdotal data bothers them - whether that data is right or wrong.

The Auld Grump, cultural anthropology is also why I sampled hákarl.... which was not quite the nastiest food that I have ever tried....

As a historian and small group researcher, I share your views about anecdotal data. History is defined as a discipline by a methodology designed to draw useful inferences from anecdotal data. Without it historians would just be...cultural anthropologists or something.

As a historian, I disagree with this statement on multiple levels.

 Kroothawk wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
Jesus Derek, can you at least TRY to mitigate your tone somewhat?

The first time he makes a post without insulting anybody, we know his account has been hijacked
Dakka's rule #1 doesn't apply to friends of Michael Dobson

Dear god, you are just as bad, if not worse because you actually bait him and constantly insult and troll those who disagree with you. Quit it and stop being such a pain when people disagree.

While I agree with DA it is hard to not bite at his tone. At least I can respect his knowledge. Your tone and responses are just as bad but you dont have the knowledge to mitigate that.

I haven't read this thread, but I really do hope that GW folds and thier IP gets picked up by a company that can make it as great or better than it's been in the past.

 Ketara wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:


I have some background in cultural anthropology - which is largely about anectdotal data - so I learned never to discount it.

Statisticians, on the other hand, deal with quantifiable data - and anecdotal data bothers them - whether that data is right or wrong.

The Auld Grump, cultural anthropology is also why I sampled hákarl.... which was not quite the nastiest food that I have ever tried....

As a historian and small group researcher, I share your views about anecdotal data. History is defined as a discipline by a methodology designed to draw useful inferences from anecdotal data. Without it historians would just be...cultural anthropologists or something.

As a historian, I disagree with this statement on multiple levels.

Uhhh...then you are a terrible historian. No offense, but you ought to know why history is distinguishable as an academic discipline. If you didn't pick that up in grad school, that's a problem, and if you picked up in grad school and disagreed with it for some reason then you are an awful representative of the discipline equipped with the power to do measurable harm to the public good.

It would be like a chemist disagreeing with the scientific method if you could release drugs to the public with nothing other than peer review. History is only truly different from the many disciplines from which it borrow methodology in terms of identifying, understanding, interpreting, and accounting for source bias. If you aren't following methodology on those lines, then you aren't a historian.

This, however is off topic and if you would like to continue having a substantive discussion about this I would be more than happy to do so in another thread in an off topic board or via PM, email, snail mail, or phone.