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.

This is so true about recruiting. I have introduced 3 new players in the last 4 years!!! but strongly advised not to buy from GW but second hand or if they dont mind recasters (I mean how can some Chinese company make better casts then overpriced Forge world or GW).
Me and my wife are playing Inquisimunda since it needs less starting financial involvement and community is great.

I agree with the OPs perspective about the parallels between GW and TSR.

Time will tell if a collapse will happen and what it will look like. But the thing that concerns me the most about the company has little to do with cash on hand or diminished sales.

It's their entry into digital markets and the way they use their IP. Space Marine and DOW sold a lot of product, the fact there has not been new versions in a while concerns me. The fact there are unanswered questions about the licensing for the franchise they established with THQ concerns me. The fact they are putting a lot of effort into an MMO really concerns me, given the risk associated with finding an audience for one and the overall economics of the genre.

The way I look at it, their IP is valuable to the point where it has demonstrated market worth. The fact they can't consistently capitalize in other markets really speaks to the overall value of their brand. There's no lack of demand for their physical product, but there is a lack of licensees willing to help them expand their base in other areas. There's something about it that doesn't make sense, I suspect there's a fatal flaw that doesn't get widely discussed but causes other companies to back off.

A friend of mine works for Warner Brothers and is very aware of the GW brand, consumer consciousness about the company's products, and where people's interests intersect with the projects he works on. From what he's shared with me, the perception around GW is that the company is intriguing but serious issues exist with brand loyalty. While I haven't cornered him on what exactly that means, my guess is he's saying the people who leave the game behind are the ones that would be most desirable to have as consumers.

For me, it's always more interesting to understand what companies don't do, and why. What I don't agree with the OP about is that the company is very similar to TSR, which was primarily a publisher and dominated a much smaller market than what exists today. GW always seems to have this potential, like they could grow in all these different directions and be this huge franchise like Star Wars or Transformers. The fact that they don't, and that their ventures all seem to have a relatively short shelf life, is really disappointing. But the fact so many of the people who spend money on their products feel hated or disrespected by the company is so much worse, it just makes them toxic and costs them opportunities. Instead of polishing their brand, focusing on significant components like the rules, and making people feel great about their stuff so they stick around, GW literally gets outmaneuvered by companies pushing comic book characters on sippy cups and bibs.

Makes no sense to me. I actually think a collapse could be good for GW, someone else would grab that IP and do something useful with it.

People have mentioned before that GW have essentially three types of customers. Those who like the game, those who like the fluff, and those who like the modelling. (There are of course large areas of overlap and sub-sets of these types of cuatomers.)

The key point is that the people who like the (tabletop) game and the modelling are not necessarily very interested in a computer game of Warhammer.

I personally think the GW fluff is more limited and less attractive than the general D&D universes, or other fictional universes such as Star Wars.

 Wayshuba wrote:

Our continual investment in product quality, using our defendable intellectual property, provides us with a considerable barrier to entry for potential competitors: it is our Fortress Wall. While our 400 or so Hobby centres which show customers how to collect, paint and play with our miniatures and games provide another barrier to entry: our Fortress Moat. We have been building our Fortress Wall and Moat for many years and the competitive advantage they provide gives us confidence in our ability to grow profitably in the future.

GW is still one of the best, when it concerns building a fortress wall around their products, with less and less customers getting past it each year

It's nice that they acknowledge that their actions have created a barrier to entry. It's a shame that they just don't realise the barrier works both ways.

 techsoldaten wrote:
A friend of mine works for Warner Brothers and is very aware of the GW brand, consumer consciousness about the company's products, and where people's interests intersect with the projects he works on. From what he's shared with me, the perception around GW is that the company is intriguing but serious issues exist with brand loyalty. While I haven't cornered him on what exactly that means, my guess is he's saying the people who leave the game behind are the ones that would be most desirable to have as consumers.

Unless you are being bought by Mark Zuckerberg because he has more money than he knows what to do with, or Peter Adkinson because he is a gamer and loves your brand so much, a standard part of any M&A or equity investment due diligence is also surveying the customer base. While GW may believe they can ignore the massive amount of customer negativity right now, a potential acquiring company will not. Even WotC did this which is why they were able to make the D&D brand strong again after TSR had trashed it. What your friend is referring to is a simple bit of research that can be done right now to see GW is severely damaging their brand. In addition, if the numb executives at GW talk about getting a 14-year old kid to buy a few models for a couple years, then rinse and repeat, no potential acquirer is going to like hearing that. Most businesses tend to try and build long term customer loyalty. This is just one example of how GW is operating so counter to standard business practices as to be harmful to their chances of acquisition.

This also is a good point to point out, this is standard operating procedure for Hasbro before they make any acquisition. They WILL survey the current customers company base and WILL spend days online looking at fan sites and forums such as this to gauge how customers react to the current company. One example is when Avalon Hill was going belly up and they did this due diligence, they found that the company had a loved and respected brand, which is one of the key factors that lead to Hasbro acquiring a $7 million company that they would normally not even look at. At Hasbro, customer perception of a brand is MUCH more important than numbers alone. In fact, any serious corporation is more concerned with brand integrity than just the financials. Thus why TSR and AH, were acquired despite the terrible financials and GW will NOT be acquired because they currently have good financials and TERRIBLE brand integrity.

 techsoldaten wrote:
For me, it's always more interesting to understand what companies don't do, and why. What I don't agree with the OP about is that the company is very similar to TSR, which was primarily a publisher and dominated a much smaller market than what exists today. GW always seems to have this potential, like they could grow in all these different directions and be this huge franchise like Star Wars or Transformers. The fact that they don't, and that their ventures all seem to have a relatively short shelf life, is really disappointing. But the fact so many of the people who spend money on their products feel hated or disrespected by the company is so much worse, it just makes them toxic and costs them opportunities. Instead of polishing their brand, focusing on significant components like the rules, and making people feel great about their stuff so they stick around, GW literally gets outmaneuvered by companies pushing comic book characters on sippy cups and bibs.

TSR had a larger share of their respective market (RPGs) than GW does of theirs. In comparison, I was more referring to the way the company's are run (or were run in the case of TSR) and what the outcome of it will be.

It is obvious GW is in trouble now. Not just from their last numbers but from quite a few things that are happening now (rushing out half-baked releases, unable to capitalize on demand (Void Shield Generator), inventories starting to be reduced on plastic kits without notice (terrain, Bretonnians, etc.), major shareholders dumping stock like it is going out of style, extreme pricing that is beyond comprehension ($60 Witch Elves(). They are showing all the classic signs of a company quite close to collapsing. While it is too early to tell, I believe that the next period financial reporting is going to make this last one look good by comparison. GW is struggling now and it is showing in a lot of ways.

It is three months to go until the end of year report.

deleted.... accidental repost

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It is three months to go until the end of year report.

Should be a little sooner, their FYE will be early may, then I believe they have three months to publish, but have typically done so around a month later, so maybe 2 1/2 months, give or take?

 Wayshuba wrote:
Unless you are being bought by Mark Zuckerberg because he has more money than he knows what to do with, or Peter Adkinson because he is a gamer and loves your brand so much, a standard part of any M&A or equity investment due diligence is also surveying the customer base.

Forget about Hasbro. Anytime anyone wants to put a cartoon character on a sock they need to do landscape research. People know all about GW's customers and how to get consumers to choose a spoilt banana in a wet napkin over them a certain percentage of the time.

 Wayshuba wrote:
TSR had a larger share of their respective market (RPGs) than GW does of theirs. In comparison, I was more referring to the way the company's are run (or were run in the case of TSR) and what the outcome of it will be.

Yeah, I get you. But TSR operated in a world where Star Wars was just a movie, not an international, multibillion dollar industry. They are one of many gigantic franchises. You don't need to dominate this world to be a BFD.

Honestly, I see the parallels and have thought the same. I also think they are in 2 different fishbowls.

 techsoldaten wrote:


Yeah, I get you. But TSR operated in a world where Star Wars was just a movie, not an international, multibillion dollar industry. They are one of many gigantic franchises.

What? This makes no sense to me. What world was this, pre prequels? I'm pretty sure Star Wars was a big deal before that.

 Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

 Kain wrote:

Or Dark of the Moon being the sixth most successful movie ever.

Another example of a steaming pile of gak smelling sweet to the schadenfreude freaks, as long as it's not GW.

Accounting for inflation, it's the 129th most successful movie ever. .

More importantly, it sucks!.

Did you see it? It was actually pretty good, certain robot designs aside (Starscream shouldnt look like an ape). Much better than the 2nd with its stupid comic relief (pot brownies, robot balls, leg humping robots, and the Jar-Jar Binks level stupidity of Skids and Mudflap). The scenes of them falling through the buildings was pretty boss, and Lazerbeak was certifiably badass.

Hasbro is not the worst choice. WOTC pretty much just has to produce profits, how they do them doesnt matter a lot, so there's less "suit interference" than might be expected. I couldnt see someone like Paizo scraping together enough to buy the IP, but they would handle the source material well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

weeble1000 wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:


Yeah, I get you. But TSR operated in a world where Star Wars was just a movie, not an international, multibillion dollar industry. They are one of many gigantic franchises.

What? This makes no sense to me. What world was this, pre prequels? I'm pretty sure Star Wars was a big deal before that.

Yeah, back in the early 80's it was all Star Wars, all the time. Spaceballs the flamethrower wasn't far off from from how it was. Nothing really compared at the time vs. today where you have many juggernauts of merchandising.

So, for those in the know of such business things, if Hasbro looked into the customer base, as suggested above, what do you think their take would be? Would they see only the vitriol, or would they look beyond that to the underlying love for the IP that drives our deep disappointment?

Because I honestly think that a company that restored the game to a semblance of normalcy and brought it back to something with mass appeal could clean up.

 Kyrolon wrote:
So, for those in the know of such business things, if Hasbro looked into the customer base, as suggested above, what do you think their take would be? Would they see only the vitriol, or would they look beyond that to the underlying love for the IP that drives our deep disappointment?

Because I honestly think that a company that restored the game to a semblance of normalcy and brought it back to something with mass appeal could clean up.

This might just me talking from my own perspective, rather than any objective assessment, but based on my own feelings and those I have observed in others...

They would see a company that is operating massively below it's potential. I suspect they would see a solid base that bovinely consumes whatever is released, but that herd is progressively thinning. I also suspect they will see customers, and former customers, that retain huge passion and affection for large aspects of the models, background and game, who are massively frustrated at the way GW behaves.

Above all, I agree that I suspect anyone taking a good look at the GW customer base will see a huge potential for improvement, both in terms of customer satisfaction, but, crucially customer spend too.

 Kyrolon wrote:
So, for those in the know of such business things, if Hasbro looked into the customer base, as suggested above, what do you think their take would be? Would they see only the vitriol, or would they look beyond that to the underlying love for the IP that drives our deep disappointment?

Because I honestly think that a company that restored the game to a semblance of normalcy and brought it back to something with mass appeal could clean up.

Personally I don't ever expected to buy anything more substantial than a pot of paint or two from GW ever again, but (and I hope if Hasbro are doing market research they see this) I really, really want to.
I want to get back into both 40k and fantasy but I just can't with the rules, the models that look like toys, the prices and the general attitude of GW. All of those problems trace back to the guys in charge, if Hasbro bought them out and started making sweeping changes I'd probably start throwing money at them.

 insaniak wrote:

 Pacific wrote:
A company the size of Hasbro will truly be run by 'suits', clinically and efficiently, with little love for the background universe and wargaming culture beyond the money that it brings in.

Star Wars Miniatures would like a word.

Something that Hasbro generally does well is put the right creative people into the positions they need to be in, and then to a large extent just lets them do their thing. The team behind SWM had an awful lot of creative control over how that game was presented and how it evolved beyond just what the 'suits' thought made the best business sense.

Or, to put it in perspective, they do what GW used to do in the '90s.

In that case I stand corrected! Perhaps I should be a bit more hopeful about the prospect, and that it might genuinely bring change for the better.

I think at this point any sort of split between the sales and design/development team would make such a huge difference to the quality (and form) of the products that go on release.

I think what proves GW's craziness and highlights the exact issue is this exact quote from their Investor Relations page (emphasis mine):

If our Hobby centres do a great job, we will recruit lots of customers into our Hobby and they will enjoy spending their money on the products we make.

If you ever wondered why things have gone to crap, that's why. They seriously think that all their customers want to do is to spend money on GW Products.

Are you kidding? That's my FAVORITE part of the hobby! I love going down to games day and giving GW all my money.

Well, the kicker is they don't even put their "Hobby centres" in a position to succeed. They're closed half the time because GW is too cheap to staff a store with 2 employees. You know how many times I played on a Sunday, then figured out I wanted a model to add to my army on a Monday? Guess what? The local GW store is closed Monday and Tuesday. By Wednesday, I either forgot I wanted the model or came to my senses and didn't want to spend the money.

Are there ANY other stores that people can think of that are literally only 1 employee running the whole store? I can't. I think even the stands in the mall have two alternating staff.

To be more on topic, however, we all seem to see a company that could be making a lot more money with their IP, but did people feel the same way about TSR? I feel like TSR developed their IP about as much as they could, and it has shown in that D&D isn't really any significantly bigger than it used to be. I always felt like D&D wouldn't be a very profitable business because it's such a niche and the most generally can ask for is people to buy a couple of $20-$50) books every few years, and even that's going to have limited success because you can't improve that dramatically on the product for that long. At the end of the day, RPGs are more dependent on the people playing them than the system they're using.

 azreal13 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It is three months to go until the end of year report.

Should be a little sooner, their FYE will be early may, then I believe they have three months to publish, but have typically done so around a month later, so maybe 2 1/2 months, give or take?

I'll bet there is a lot of good news in that report, how they sold out the some products (void), and how customers are willing to pay lots for a mono-pose 6" figure (knight).

This conversation is great and I am sad I stepped away from it.

No doubt in my mind that Hasbro sees the myriad amount of companies producing GW substitutes out there and rightly assumes that if multiple companies can survive on leavings then the IP is viable and is being badly run. Perhaps Heroquest is a dabbling into seeing what they can do.

If Hasbro were to purchase a failing GW, we might expect to see a significant reorganization of the game. Perhaps a removal of all tables with results being more like WM based on unit vs unit stats plus d6 rolls. Perhaps a simplification of terrain rules without removing flexibility. Perhaps a book with all armies in with significantly reduced units for balance but with a promise to bring every until back after testing.

Perhaps a push to sell product in department and toy stores, more tie ins, tournament support, standardization. a furtherance of the fluff, etc

Sure some would say that 40k was ruined but with a focus on providing to the customer thing might change for the better.

I would totally go for transformers 1/ 144 scale transformers miniatures game, or a 1/32 G.I. Joe figure game.


Yo Joe, Skulls for Cobra!!!

There is a game for Army Men, called Combat Storm.

http://www.combatstorm.com/

GI Joe (Action Man) is about a 1/12 scale doll.

 Kilkrazy wrote:


GI Joe (Action Man) is about a 1/12 scale doll.

You are showing your age, old man!

GI JOE hasn't been 1/12 size since the 70's (not counting the brief Hall of Fame line in 1991). 3¾-inch scale is where it is at now for Mr. Joe.

How are the mighty fallen!

 Kilkrazy wrote:
How are the mighty fallen!

And you!

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:


GI Joe (Action Man) is about a 1/12 scale doll.

You are showing your age, old man!

GI JOE hasn't been 1/12 size since the 70's (not counting the brief Hall of Fame line in 1991). 3¾-inch scale is where it is at now for Mr. Joe.

That was back when GI Joe was a person, not a super-secret military organization.

How interesting would a 28 MM GIJOE game be, imagine all of the vehicles and models.

There'd have to be a rule requiring players to make shooting and wooshing noises to accompany their actions.

 Fafnir wrote:
There'd have to be a rule requiring players to make shooting and wooshing noises to accompany their actions.

I do that already.....