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.

Goresaw wrote:
Although the more I think about it, I will argue market research actually would be kinda useless. Look at the user base. Its so insanely fractured and at odds with itself. We, as the consumer don't even know what we want. Some want lords of war. Some want a balanced tourney game. Others want the game to remain unbalanced. Everything is subjective, and no one out there that plays the game anymore can agree on anything about the game.

Alas, the fragmentation of the customer base is a symptom of the huge deficits in vision and direction where GW's product lines are concerned. Even if no other usable data was gathered, this realisation alone would be important for them.

Goresaw wrote:
Although the more I think about it, I will argue market research actually would be kinda useless. Look at the user base. Its so insanely fractured and at odds with itself. We, as the consumer don't even know what we want. Some want lords of war. Some want a balanced tourney game. Others want the game to remain unbalanced. Everything is subjective, and no one out there that plays the game anymore can agree on anything about the game.

The ideal answer to that would be to split 40k in half. Same scale in terms of miniatures but 1 detailed skirmish ruleset that is perfectly balanced (in so far as that is possible), basically Infinity with Space Marines and the ma(e?)ss battle game that is 7th. GW would still gets its miniatures sales, the players would be able to choose which type of game they want without having to play other games and it would considerably broaden the appeal of 40k. You will always get mixed opinions from customers but that is where statistics and metadata come to the rescue.

What I think we will see over the coming year is a scattershot approach as GW flails around and tries to find something that will save them without doing anything so terrifying as actually doing something that will work.

Just because a market is fragmented doesn't mean you have to ditch market research. In fact, it means you HAVe to do market research. Why is it fragmented? What are they buying? Who are buying these things?

It's true that any change will piss off some of your fan base. Market research will make you know how to piss off the least amount of them, and how to win them back.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Idolator wrote:

 agnosto wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

Once you ramp to a certain extent you hit "economies of scale" and you plateau or in their case, the production will plateau and level off, while hopefully sales remain strong.

This sentence makes absolutely 0 sense...

It makes complete sense as long as you don't know a thing about business or manufacturing....at all....then it's completely an intelligent statement.

I don't know. I think it only makes sense if you don't know anything about the English language. It's obvious that writer has no idea of what economies of scale means. Perhaps he meant the law of diminishing returns. I have absolutely no idea what the rest of it was supposed to impart, but apparently in that dude's world having fewer sales and sales revenue is an indicator of remaining strong.

I don't know how so many people are so bad at reading intent when the phrasing is poor (then again, that's why YMDC exists).

The guy meant that GW invested money into increased manufacturing capacity and the costs of that ate into the resulting increased revenue, but this was a one-time expense, so next year they will have the full benefit of their increased revenue with none of the costs, so a net profit.

This is completely wrong, of course, but not really that hard to follow.

Well, I'm glad that you cleared that up. Now it's just complete total nonsense. Increasing manufacturing costs would have no negative effects on revenue. Revenue is based on SALES. Profit would be affected by expenditures in manufacturing but not sales. With the caveat that a decrease in manufacturing expenditures can and will result in a decrease in revenue as you would be making less product to sell. He was using the wrong terminology to make his point. "Economies of scale" references a paradigm that was antithetical to his overall point, he should have used the "law of diminishing returns" when discussing the plateau (of profitability, I assume).

Also there was no increase in revenue, it's a raw number, reported before any expenses are factored in. Making his entire premise dog poo from the get go.

Then there the statement that production will hopefully level off!?!? You never want production to level off. In the manufacturing business, which GW directly states that they are, you always want an increase in production along with an increase in sales. It's how you grow.

Sorry to ask again as it's on another page, but I was wondering what Kirby made on the 20p dividends. And does his wife really work for the company? I assume she has holdings too.

IF his wife is owner of the company that changed the web site. It could be that Kirby is expecting GW to fall. And is transferring funds out before it crashes. Happened to a firm I used to work for. Trained everybody, even people he already let go, at 1500 a head. He transferred the funds to a training company he owned. Then put the company I worked for into receivership.

 Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:

Goresaw wrote:
Although the more I think about it, I will argue market research actually would be kinda useless. Look at the user base. Its so insanely fractured and at odds with itself. We, as the consumer don't even know what we want. Some want lords of war. Some want a balanced tourney game. Others want the game to remain unbalanced. Everything is subjective, and no one out there that plays the game anymore can agree on anything about the game.

I'm sorry but everything you just typed was utter bollocks. Market research is not JUST about guessing "what the consumers want." Its about looking at what they ACTUALLY bought and looking for TRENDS and PATTERNS in buying habits. Its about looking at the demographics (age income, race) and seeing who bought what.

well then, by that definition they do market research. They know people bought miniatures. Great success! If we keep making miniatures, people will keep buying them (well we assume they are people and not swamp mutants)

Goresaw wrote:
Some want lords of war.

If the units were balanced, far fewer people would have an issue with it. A Baneblade, for instance, isn't really any more powerful than the equivalent points in LRMBT, arguably weaker, whereas a Revenant is a real handful unless you're warned ahead of time and can tailor for it. So that's not really a fracture created by the players, that's a fracture created by poor rules, which GW have the power to fix.

Some want a balanced tourney game. Others want the game to remain unbalanced.

Anyone who doesn't want a balanced game isn't really grasping the argument. If one wishes to imbalance a balanced game, it's very simple, the reverse less so.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
It's a shame Kirby only told us how much they paid into their new website - £4m.

I'd much rather know how much they've spent so far on the CHS case other that it being an 'indecent' amount.

Come on GW, don't leave us hanging. After you said that we all want to know, I'm sure your investors would like to know. Don't be shy.

I guess it depends on how you define indecent. I personally think 4 million on that storefront they call a website is utterly obscene .

Goresaw wrote:

 Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:

Goresaw wrote:
Although the more I think about it, I will argue market research actually would be kinda useless. Look at the user base. Its so insanely fractured and at odds with itself. We, as the consumer don't even know what we want. Some want lords of war. Some want a balanced tourney game. Others want the game to remain unbalanced. Everything is subjective, and no one out there that plays the game anymore can agree on anything about the game.

I'm sorry but everything you just typed was utter bollocks. Market research is not JUST about guessing "what the consumers want." Its about looking at what they ACTUALLY bought and looking for TRENDS and PATTERNS in buying habits. Its about looking at the demographics (age income, race) and seeing who bought what.

well then, by that definition they do market research. They know people bought miniatures. Great success! If we keep making miniatures, people will keep buying them (well we assume they are people and not swamp mutants)

Uh no they didn't. Read my sig. They don't do any demographics research whatsoever.

Goresaw wrote:
Although the more I think about it, I will argue market research actually would be kinda useless. Look at the user base. Its so insanely fractured and at odds with itself. We, as the consumer don't even know what we want. Some want lords of war. Some want a balanced tourney game. Others want the game to remain unbalanced. Everything is subjective, and no one out there that plays the game anymore can agree on anything about the game.

They don't even know that their market base is fractious, because they don't do market research. See the problem?

The product that they manufacture is so Byzantine and convoluted that none of their customers can find someone to agree on a way to play. See the problem?

There it is in a nutshell. There wouldn't even be a fractiousness if the game wasn't designed in the manner that it currently is.

So, I know very little about business. How bad is this report really? What similarities does this have to other companies that have gone under or managed to recover? Are there parallels to be drawn? And could GW recover if they keep doing largely what they're currently doing?

To me, it looks unhealthy, but I don't know how bad it really is.

Goresaw wrote:
Although the more I think about it, I will argue market research actually would be kinda useless. Look at the user base. Its so insanely fractured and at odds with itself. We, as the consumer don't even know what we want. Some want lords of war. Some want a balanced tourney game. Others want the game to remain unbalanced. Everything is subjective, and no one out there that plays the game anymore can agree on anything about the game.

Well this is presumptuous garbage until you actually see the market research, isn't it? Are you saying that based on your exposure to players at your store and on the internet, there are no products or market strategies a large portion of the player base would agree on with their wallets? You're not really saying anything - you're presuming you understand an entire market based on your individual experience, and that's the exact kind of poor thinking that led us to this report.

Goresaw wrote:

 Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:

Goresaw wrote:
Although the more I think about it, I will argue market research actually would be kinda useless. Look at the user base. Its so insanely fractured and at odds with itself. We, as the consumer don't even know what we want. Some want lords of war. Some want a balanced tourney game. Others want the game to remain unbalanced. Everything is subjective, and no one out there that plays the game anymore can agree on anything about the game.

I'm sorry but everything you just typed was utter bollocks. Market research is not JUST about guessing "what the consumers want." Its about looking at what they ACTUALLY bought and looking for TRENDS and PATTERNS in buying habits. Its about looking at the demographics (age income, race) and seeing who bought what.

well then, by that definition they do market research. They know people bought miniatures. Great success! If we keep making miniatures, people will keep buying them (well we assume they are people and not swamp mutants)

I assume you're joking, but hilariously enough that seems to be their attitude. A stunning tautology directly from the report:

Our market is a niche market made up of people who want to collect our miniatures.

By GW's definition, any gamer or hobbyist who isn't already buying GW models isn't even in GW's market! I guess at least that way, by definition, they own 100% market share? But like people are pointing out, market research is way more than just knowing that someone buys your product, and GW had better attempt to understand their fracturing and dwindling customer base if they want to hold on to it and grow. Equally important, they should seek to understand why some people buy their competitor's models and not theirs. You know, looking outside the people who already "want to collect our miniatures." With narrow thinking like that, it's no wonder they aren't capturing more players.

 Thokt wrote:

Goresaw wrote:
Although the more I think about it, I will argue market research actually would be kinda useless. Look at the user base. Its so insanely fractured and at odds with itself. We, as the consumer don't even know what we want. Some want lords of war. Some want a balanced tourney game. Others want the game to remain unbalanced. Everything is subjective, and no one out there that plays the game anymore can agree on anything about the game.

Well this is presumptuous garbage until you actually see the market research, isn't it? Are you saying that based on your exposure to players at your store and on the internet, there are no products or market strategies a large portion of the player base would agree on with their wallets? You're not really saying anything - you're presuming you understand an entire market based on your individual experience, and that's the exact kind of poor thinking that led us to this report.

Truth! The game is designed by (basically) five guys that are fully immersed in the game with (reportedly) no outside input. Then a sales team has their way with it setting prices and affecting points allocations with (reportedly) no outside input. At some point, things will either stagnate or go completely off the rails. They left the track about two years ago, and the momentum is finally slowing.

 Blacksails wrote:
So, I know very little about business. How bad is this report really? What similarities does this have to other companies that have gone under or managed to recover? Are there parallels to be drawn? And could GW recover if they keep doing largely what they're currently doing?

To me, it looks unhealthy, but I don't know how bad it really is.

It's... not good.

It could have been worse, they've essentially managed to make up a small amount from January, year on year, but as has been pointed out, that period features the relaunch of their flagship product, and arguably one of the most lucrative model releases of recent times (pure speculation on my part, but given even I have become a big IK fanboy, difficult to see that it couldn't have been.)

It's like a scene in an RPG when the floor starts to break away in pieces, and the protagonists leap from one solid section to the next, that plan will only work for so long until you get out of that room or go down the hole.

One of the things even some basic market research would tell them is that dropping the Specialist Games was a bad idea. Just look at all the companies doing quite well for themselves by filling that void.

But, then again, GW thinks their market is only people who already want to buy their stuff.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Sorry to ask again as it's on another page, but I was wondering what Kirby made on the 20p dividends. And does his wife really work for the company? I assume she has holdings too.

In the report he also says this:

Nevertheless, with or without growth, I expect to see dividends. I am not planning to sell any of my shares.

So, yeah, he's still cashing in while driving the company into the ground...

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:


I assume you're joking, but hilariously enough that seems to be their attitude. A stunning tautology directly from the report:

Our market is a niche market made up of people who want to collect our miniatures.

By GW's definition, any gamer or hobbyist who isn't already buying GW models isn't even in GW's market! I guess at least that way, by definition, they own 100% market share? But like people are pointing out, market research is way more than just knowing that someone buys your product, and GW had better attempt to understand their fracturing and dwindling customer base if they want to hold on to it and grow. Equally important, they should seek to understand why some people buy their competitor's models and not theirs. You know, looking outside the people who already "want to collect our miniatures." With narrow thinking like that, it's no wonder they aren't capturing more players.

I've said this for quite a while now. It can also be evidenced in their current practices. Instead of attempting to garner more business and custom their focus has been wringing every last cent from their existing customer base. I have been decried as a heretic more than once for that sentiment, but there it is in their own reports.

 Azreal13 wrote:


It's... not good.

It could have been worse, they've essentially managed to make up a small amount from January, year on year, but as has been pointed out, that period features the relaunch of their flagship product, and arguably one of the most lucrative model releases of recent times (pure speculation on my part, but given even I have become a big IK fanboy, difficult to see that it couldn't have been.)

It's like a scene in an RPG when the floor starts to break away in pieces, and the protagonists leap from one solid section to the next, that plan will only work for so long until you get out of that room or go down the hole.

My thinking as well.

I mean, what else can they really offer that will sell as well as marines, IG, and IK, not to mention the core rulebook? Short of them turning their game around and giving us a top quality re-launch of BFG/Epic, I don't know what they're going to be making more money from.

As I said earlier, I wouldn't be shocked if we saw 8th before this time next year.

 RiTides wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Sorry to ask again as it's on another page, but I was wondering what Kirby made on the 20p dividends. And does his wife really work for the company? I assume she has holdings too.

In the report he also says this:

Nevertheless, with or without growth, I expect to see dividends. I am not planning to sell any of my shares.

So, yeah, he's still cashing in while driving the company into the ground...

Well clearly it's a good year for someone. No point in holding all those shares if you can't hand out a dividend.

 Idolator wrote:

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:


I assume you're joking, but hilariously enough that seems to be their attitude. A stunning tautology directly from the report:

Our market is a niche market made up of people who want to collect our miniatures.

By GW's definition, any gamer or hobbyist who isn't already buying GW models isn't even in GW's market! I guess at least that way, by definition, they own 100% market share? But like people are pointing out, market research is way more than just knowing that someone buys your product, and GW had better attempt to understand their fracturing and dwindling customer base if they want to hold on to it and grow. Equally important, they should seek to understand why some people buy their competitor's models and not theirs. You know, looking outside the people who already "want to collect our miniatures." With narrow thinking like that, it's no wonder they aren't capturing more players.

I've said this for quite a while now. It can also be evidenced in their current practices. Instead of attempting to garner more business and custom their focus has been wringing every last cent from their existing customer base. I have been decried as a heretic more than once for that sentiment, but there it is in their own reports.

Isn't it funny how those of us who are frequently decried as "haters" or "just negative" (despite frequent assurances from me that it isn't the case for me personally) seem to constantly get new information that vindicates, supports or reinforces our arguments, yet for those who take the opposite view, they seem to consistently find themselves with nothing but name calling and handwavium?

Well, there was no big collapse of the stock. Paying a dividend and claiming that you will continue to pay a dividend has a very calming effect on the long term investor. Which most of the major stock holders are. It was the lack of dividend payment that caused the big drop earlier this year. Pensioners like having that source of income.

The overall direction of the company still remains in question however.

 Blacksails wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:


It's... not good.

It could have been worse, they've essentially managed to make up a small amount from January, year on year, but as has been pointed out, that period features the relaunch of their flagship product, and arguably one of the most lucrative model releases of recent times (pure speculation on my part, but given even I have become a big IK fanboy, difficult to see that it couldn't have been.)

It's like a scene in an RPG when the floor starts to break away in pieces, and the protagonists leap from one solid section to the next, that plan will only work for so long until you get out of that room or go down the hole.

My thinking as well.

I mean, what else can they really offer that will sell as well as marines, IG, and IK, not to mention the core rulebook? Short of them turning their game around and giving us a top quality re-launch of BFG/Epic, I don't know what they're going to be making more money from.

As I said earlier, I wouldn't be shocked if we saw 8th before this time next year.

If they release 8th by this time next year, they will alienate so many of us. It would be akin to 40k TT committing suicide.

sand.zzz wrote:


If they release 8th by this time next year, they will alienate so many of us. It would be akin to 40k TT committing suicide.

So...like 7th then?

Here's the thing: Are they still profitable? Yes. But they've still lost revenue. If you constantly lose revenue without turning it around, eventually you will reach the point where you start NOT being profitable.

They need to take a good, long look at the situation and turn things around, or they aren't going to be around much longer. At this rate, in 3-5 years they'll be a footnote in history.

 Blacksails wrote:
So, I know very little about business. How bad is this report really? What similarities does this have to other companies that have gone under or managed to recover? Are there parallels to be drawn? And could GW recover if they keep doing largely what they're currently doing?

To me, it looks unhealthy, but I don't know how bad it really is.

One thing to remember is that they're still cash flow positive with quite a bit of margin on that end. Yes, cash from operations declined, but GW still increased their cash position. The balance sheet is also strong, so GW doesn't have to meet interest / debt levels. A problem will be the cost of renting for stores.

This gives GW enough cash to move into other lines in the upcoming year. GW still has flexibility to try to turn things around.

Strategically, I see three components of GW's business:
1. The WH40K, WH, and LoTR IP.
2. Model production business.
3. Gaming Store network in UK and other countries.

If I was going to be aggressive in 'turning around' GW, I would attack the second and third components:

For the model production business, GW should produce models under contract licenses. If GW's quality and production costs are competitive, this can offset the fixed costs of the machines. GW could leverage their large plastic production capability to lock in competitors into long term contracts. Medium term, I think that GW should investigate rapid production of 'good quality' figures to allow for rapid production turnaround.

For the Game Store network, look at each geographical segment. Where GW is not the dominant form of game stores, leave that market entirely. Shift GW stores to 'Battle Bunkers' or roaming sales teams which arrange events at local stores. Eliminate fixed costs and underproductive sales force. Where GW is the dominant segment, diversify the games held at the stores. Treat the stores as a general model store with a range of games from different producers. This cements the GW store network and gives it a wider range of income. It also would strangle any potentially hostile FLGS movement in those markets.

Both approaches diversify GW revenue away from WH40K and they would cement GW's current position in model production and sales. They also mean that GW can profit from other people's IP development without taking that risk.

As for WH40k, that game line needs to be better exploited with a range of products. If GW could produce high quality models cheaper, GW could push into Epic/BFG/ even Aeronautica Imperialis with a speed and scale no competitor could match. Ideally, GW should BFG / Aeronautica Imperialis for sale at any store.

ultraatma wrote:
You sell pretty plastic soldiers, not coach purses... strike a deal with a major hobby store chain, or even walmart.

Not the best comparison, honestly. Even Coach sells through major chains(including the discount chains like TJMaxxx and Ross).

 Allod wrote:

Goresaw wrote:
Although the more I think about it, I will argue market research actually would be kinda useless. Look at the user base. Its so insanely fractured and at odds with itself. We, as the consumer don't even know what we want. Some want lords of war. Some want a balanced tourney game. Others want the game to remain unbalanced. Everything is subjective, and no one out there that plays the game anymore can agree on anything about the game.

Alas, the fragmentation of the customer base is a symptom of the huge deficits in vision and direction where GW's product lines are concerned. Even if no other usable data was gathered, this realisation alone would be important for them.

This. GW themselves have created this broken base due to their own incompetence and should be doing their damnedest to fix it.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Allod wrote:

Goresaw wrote:
Although the more I think about it, I will argue market research actually would be kinda useless. Look at the user base. Its so insanely fractured and at odds with itself. We, as the consumer don't even know what we want. Some want lords of war. Some want a balanced tourney game. Others want the game to remain unbalanced. Everything is subjective, and no one out there that plays the game anymore can agree on anything about the game.

Alas, the fragmentation of the customer base is a symptom of the huge deficits in vision and direction where GW's product lines are concerned. Even if no other usable data was gathered, this realisation alone would be important for them.

This. GW themselves have created this broken base due to their own incompetence and should be doing their damnedest to fix it.

Very true.
But alas, I don't think they even realize their player base fractured.