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.

 Vermis wrote:

 WarOne wrote:
The other interesting thing is is that new people are always still coming into the Warhammer hobby. Look at the introductions to the forums and you see a lot of the traffic flowing in is new Warhammer players.

With respect, I think new members on Dakka are as meaningful to 40K sales as Google's Corvus Belli trends are to Infinity sales.

Dakka is not a 40k forum, how do you know which games the people joining dakka play, if any?

Davor wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:
I think that the key line people are missing is:

Pre-tax profit £12.4m down from £21.4m
Combined with this
Revenue £123.5m down from £134.6m

That is almost 50% profitability lost, and sales changed from flat lining to decline.

Both put together = deep gak.

Yeah who wants to make 10 Million more dollars eh?

They explained that stating they had ~£4.5 million in exceptional costs. Would have been a decline of ~£4.5 million in pre tax ~25% rather than 50%. Not great but not quite as bad.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I am a fan of the audit opinion from P-Dubs. I didn't realize they publish their ML. I liked how they identified the audit risks and discussed how they addressed these risks. It would be interesting to see that approach in the US.

KommissarKarl wrote:

Spoiler:

 Wayshuba wrote:

KommissarKarl wrote:

 Alpharius wrote:
And yet 'real world' data/evidence says otherwise!

Google trends *is* real world data. Regardless of what a company says about its profits, if there are so few people searching for it that google can't even display the results...I can safely say that they are not very popular. They also aren't big enough to show up on alexia either, for what it's worth.

Just want to add something here since I own an internet business.

Those search term rankings mean diddly when the customers come from other sources, including directly to your website. Our UMV and engagement numbers on my company are far beyond the "search term rankings". In addition, multiple search terms can lead to a site. So for Corvus Belli, for instance, it can be Corvus Belli, Infinity, Infinity the Game, Infinity miniatures game, etc.

When most people buy a product from Corvus Belli (or any manufacturer) you can get the site right off the product and go directly to the site. No Google search terms needed in between. All search term rankings do is determine how many are "searching" for your site and does not account for other methods of hitting the site, including directly entering it in the browser.

As far as Alexia and Compete, I have given up on those personally because on our site, they have been so far from the reality it isn't even funny. I've talked with quite a few other CEOs at conferences who own internet companies as well and they have experienced the same thing with these rankings (so has Techcrunch which dropped Alexia rankings from the standard information display on companies as well).

TL;DR Search rankings have very little to do with the reality of any business today as it is only ONE way to get to a business.

Okay I will clarify my point then - clearly google trends does not correlate directly with a business's revenue, *but* it is a very handy way of gauging how much new/fresh interest there is in your product. I can't think of anything that would skyrocket in popularity without a corresponding increase in google data. There is a clear correlation between sales in a company and interest in a company, a correlation that exists in video games, movies, web stores...even GW's own performance roughly corresponds to google trends data. And yet apparently none of their competitors do?

Perhaps you could also explain how "Corvus Belli" is a product in any way?

What you're essentially arguing is the iPhone is less popular because people aren't Googling "Apple." It's nonsense, as it was in the previous thread. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that in the case of Infinity, there's even a percentage of the player base who might not know, or be only dimly aware, that CB are the company that makes it, because of the way the game is presented there is very little Corvus Belli branding and it is generally presented to the public as "Infinity: The Game."

Let me restate once again, in the recent past I've Googled multiple things I'm interested in but have not spent a penny on any of them, conversely I've probably spent more money with Tesco this year, in terms of fuel and groceries, than any other body, yet not Googled them once to my recollection.

While Google trends makes an interesting talking point, the argument you're trying to construct has no real substance and very little merit.

Noir wrote:


CB was nice enough to show us their growth rate.

If my company was growing at 75% per year, I'd absolutely show everyone!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 solkan wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
GW should do a skirmish game as an important component in a well-planned line-up of games set within their fluff background. It would provide a great introduction to the wider line-up.

But does anyone have solid numbers concerning the number of Mordheim players that "upgraded" to WHFB players?

Me.

Well, we had a discussion in our gaming group.
The outcome was that Fantasy is basically dead with almost nobody buying models or even playing.
In 40k, nobody is currently building up a new army, but players are supplementing armies with current releases.
WarmaHordes is on the rise as will be Infinity with the new starter box coming out soon.

 jonolikespie wrote:

Dakka is not a 40k forum, how do you know which games the people joining dakka play, if any?

Well, that's not really my point. The fact is that 'a lot of new members on Dakka are new Warhammer players' is not as indicative of GW's sales or successes as a financial report. (Although I appreciate that probably wasn't WarOne's point, either) Also, I assume WarOne knows these are the games new members are playing, if he's been looking and they've been, y'know, saying what games they play.

Also: seven individual boards focused on 40K. Six for WHFB. Warmachine four, Infinity three, a handful of others get one each, and the rest are lumped into two or three generic boards. The wide range of historical gaming, barring FoW, is given 7x fewer boards than 40K - one game. I've been lurking on the painting & modelling board, that being one of my main interests in this hobby, and it's almost overwhelmingly dominated by 40K. Even WHFB barely gets a look-in there. Even the name of the forum, I assume, is derived from something orks say in 40K.
I'm not saying that Dakka is wrong to be like that. It is what it is. But when you compare it to something like the LAF, TMP or Frothers, you could make the argument that what it is, is primarily a 40K forum, and win many an argument that it's primarily a GW forum.

Time to move on from Corvus Belli; in-depth discussion of Google trends and how they do (or don't) relate to the growth of another manufacturer's game is off-topic.

I don't think anyone's arguing that GW still isn't top dog. What people are saying is that they won't hold that spot for much longer IF things continue as they are.

 MWHistorian wrote:
I don't think anyone's arguing that GW still isn't top dog. What people are saying is that they won't hold that spot for much longer IF things continue as they are.

Well, I guess things will continue as they are for a while. Let's wait for the next half-year report.

Someone used the term "ecosystem" earlier, and that, I think, is a good example of GW's problems. GW has a complete ecosystem for their product: their own stores, models, rules, tools, supplies, paints, terrain, and even a game board. Everything you could want to play GW games is sold by GW. Apple is also similar, in that you can get everything you want from Apple as well (they have stores, media players, phones, computers, for all your personal electronic and media consumption needs). But there is a big difference between Apple and GW. Apple has an entry point. With iTunes, you can get your foot into the door at a low pricepoint (at just the cost of one song or ebook), and get absorbed into the ecosystem from there. GW, on the other hand, provides no real low cost entry point to rope you in with.

Having your own ecosystem can be a great way to sell your product, but it doesn't help when you put up a sign by the door saying "you must have this much money to enter," and that amount is higher than anybody else's.

 wuestenfux wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
I don't think anyone's arguing that GW still isn't top dog. What people are saying is that they won't hold that spot for much longer IF things continue as they are.

Well, I guess things will continue as they are for a while. Let's wait for the next half-year report.

I doubt we'll need that long.

Despite last year's report being better, there was a significant downturn in the 6 months to Dec, and it is highly unlikely that somebody, somewhere "flicked a switch," so it is reasonable to assume that the writing has been on the wall for a year at least, likely longer.

Given that, if GW are going to change anything we should start to see evidence of that in the release schedule and behaviour in the next few months, as that should have been sufficient lead time for the first reactions to falling income to be developed and made ready for sale.

If it is yet more "increase volume of releases, jack up prices, feth quality" then we can infer they haven't learned anything. If there is a change in approach, then maybe they've finally got the message.

Either way, you're right in that we'll need to wait til January to find out if it works.

My thanks to those who took the time to read and reply to my long rant about maths and GW

Anyway, back OT.

There seems to be an assumption on this thread that if GW were a bit nicer to the customers and had an entry level skirmish game, then all would be well in their world. But this overlooks many important facts. To my knowledge (somebody correct me if I'm wrong) none of GW's competitors have to worry about the overheads of bricks and mortar stores, so the growth of rival companies is always going to look impressive.

Some of these rival companies only make rules or only make miniatures. Obviously if you're only focused on one aspect, you don't have to worry about making other stuff like paints.

If my sole concern is rulebooks, I can say just use a rival's minis, and not be bogged down by manufacturing costs. Again, my growth looks better than GW's.

For me, GW is an 'elite' company and its rivals are not. To use an analogy, GW makes luxury cars, and everybody else is making family cars. Yeah, Company X can say we sold 10 cars, and GW only sold 1 car, but if GW is selling that 1 car at £100,000 and the 10 other cars are selling at £10,000 each, then well, do the maths

Point is, there is nothing wrong with focusing on premier games. I think most people's problems with Fantasy and 40k are the prohibitive costs and the unpopular rules. If GW got the situation back to where it was 10-15 years ago, I think they could turn it around.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MWHistorian wrote:
I don't think anyone's arguing that GW still isn't top dog. What people are saying is that they won't hold that spot for much longer IF things continue as they are.

Passed a GW store earlier, and it was packed. Sure it's a Saturday and it was full of kids and mums, but it didn't look like it was closing down anytime soon. Ok, that's just one example in the UK, but I think they can last a few more years.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Someone used the term "ecosystem" earlier, and that, I think, is a good example of GW's problems. GW has a complete ecosystem for their product: their own stores, models, rules, tools, supplies, paints, terrain, and even a game board. Everything you could want to play GW games is sold by GW. Apple is also similar, in that you can get everything you want from Apple as well (they have stores, media players, phones, computers, for all your personal electronic and media consumption needs). But there is a big difference between Apple and GW. Apple has an entry point. With iTunes, you can get your foot into the door at a low pricepoint (at just the cost of one song or ebook), and get absorbed into the ecosystem from there. GW, on the other hand, provides no real low cost entry point to rope you in with.

Having your own ecosystem can be a great way to sell your product, but it doesn't help when you put up a sign by the door saying "you must have this much money to enter," and that amount is higher than anybody else's.

Like I said above and before in other posts, I think it's more complicated than a cheap entry level game solving GW's problems.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
My thanks to those who took the time to read and reply to my long rant about maths and GW

Anyway, back OT.

There seems to be an assumption on this thread that if GW were a bit nicer to the customers and had an entry level skirmish game, then all would be well in their world. But this overlooks many important facts. To my knowledge (somebody correct me if I'm wrong) none of GW's competitors have to worry about the overheads of bricks and mortar stores, so the growth of rival companies is always going to look impressive.

GW's overhead isn't the customers' problem, doubly so in areas where there are no GW stores and customers never use them. If the main reason they charge the prices they do is the stores, then they need to abandon the stores.

For me, GW is an 'elite' company and its rivals are not. To use an analogy, GW makes luxury cars, and everybody else is making family cars. Yeah, Company X can say we sold 10 cars, and GW only sold 1 car, but if GW is selling that 1 car at £100,000 and the 10 other cars are selling at £10,000 each, then well, do the maths

Except they're not elite. They make excellent plastic kits but they don't make the highest quality models in the world (see the Finecast launch) and the quality of sculpts is subjective. While GW does make many excellent sculpts, there are companies that make better sculpts, and not all of GW's models are the best. Admittedly this is subjective, but look at some of the stuff from Dark Age, Malifaux, Infinity, and the smaller boutique miniature companies like Mierce, Creature Caster, etc.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Point is, there is nothing wrong with focusing on premier games. I think most people's problems with Fantasy and 40k are the prohibitive costs and the unpopular rules. If GW got the situation back to where it was 10-15 years ago, I think they could turn it around.

Amazingly enough, 10-15 years ago GW produced and sold entry level games and other boxed games that were far more affordable to play than their "premier" games.

Ultimately, it seems you're proceeding from the same false assumption GW is making: that someone who buys their skirmish game would have bought their main game instead if the skirmish game was unavailable, thus, why invest in selling the skirmish game? This wonderful thing called Market Research™ would tell them that there are people who would ONLY buy the skirmish game, thus, they are lost customers and lost profit if no such game exists (hence the aforementioned growth of GW's competitors selling the game genres GW no longer makes a game for). GW needs to diversify their offerings, and that diversification cannot simply consist of adding models to the preexisting games.

EDIT: Now, I'm not saying that such games would be the miracle cure for all of GW's ills, but it would be a major part of helping them to turn around their image. GW has a host of other problems with their current games that need resolving as well. But GW simply cannot succeed longterm by tripling down on 40K (they're already way past the doubling down point).

 RatBot wrote:
Except they're not elite. They make excellent plastic kits but they don't make the highest quality models in the world (see the Finecast launch) and the quality of sculpts is subjective. While GW does make many excellent sculpts, there are companies that make better sculpts, and not all of GW's models are the best. Admittedly this is subjective, but look at some of the stuff from Dark Age, Malifaux, Infinity, and the smaller boutique miniature companies like Mierce, Creature Caster, etc.

Exactly, and GW is falling behind in their plastic production as well. Just look at the plastics coming from Wargames Factory (Malifeaux, Kingdom Death, Dreamforge Games). While aesthetics are subjective, on an engineering level, WGF is objectively blowing GW away.

It's interesting to note that another site disparages us when we talk about finances here because we apparently don't have any CEO's on the forum. We do have a plethora of small business owners investors, and management grads like myself, but we obviously don't know jack about finance. (Just like the opinions of the veterans here on combat are meaningless; where are the career politicians?! But I digress...)

Those of us who follow such things might be interested in this; Google stock analytic tools have digested the the new GW report, and put the likelihood of them going bankrupt in the next 2 years at 71%
http://www.macroaxis.com/invest/ratio/GAW.L--Probability_Of_Bankruptcy
(For comparison, the site lists a good risk at about 15%.) Also recommended as a strong SELL on google and other stock sites.

Yeah, just a lot of armchair speculation from those professional investors...

 RatBot wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
My thanks to those who took the time to read and reply to my long rant about maths and GW

Anyway, back OT.

There seems to be an assumption on this thread that if GW were a bit nicer to the customers and had an entry level skirmish game, then all would be well in their world. But this overlooks many important facts. To my knowledge (somebody correct me if I'm wrong) none of GW's competitors have to worry about the overheads of bricks and mortar stores, so the growth of rival companies is always going to look impressive.

GW's overhead isn't the customers' problem, doubly so in areas where there are no GW stores and customers never use them. If the main reason they charge the prices they do is the stores, then they need to abandon the stores.

Yeah, I don't get this mentality. GW decided that rather than continuing to invest in the FLGS (which is what they *used* to do), they would instead open up all these minimally supported stores. And now that they've sunk money into what many consider a foolish project, we have to foot the bill in miniatures cost?

 Boggy Man wrote:
It's interesting to note that another site disparages us when we talk about finances here because we apparently don't have any CEO's on the forum. We do have a plethora of small business owners investors, and management grads like myself, but we obviously don't know jack about finance. (Just like the opinions of the veterans here on combat are meaningless; where are the career politicians?! But I digress...)

Those of us who follow such things might be interested in this; Google stock analytic tools have digested the the new GW report, and put the likelihood of them going bankrupt in the next 2 years at 71%
http://www.macroaxis.com/invest/ratio/GAW.L--Probability_Of_Bankruptcy
(For comparison, the site lists a good risk at about 15%.) Also recommended as a strong SELL on google and other stock sites.

Yeah, just a lot of armchair speculation from those professional investors...

Fascinating link. Yet another source adding to the weight to the argument that GW is in deep trouble, which is really unassailable at this point. The only question is how bad the situation actually is, and whether or not they can pull it around. My gut says no.

 Guildsman wrote:

 Boggy Man wrote:
It's interesting to note that another site disparages us when we talk about finances here because we apparently don't have any CEO's on the forum. We do have a plethora of small business owners investors, and management grads like myself, but we obviously don't know jack about finance. (Just like the opinions of the veterans here on combat are meaningless; where are the career politicians?! But I digress...)

Those of us who follow such things might be interested in this; Google stock analytic tools have digested the the new GW report, and put the likelihood of them going bankrupt in the next 2 years at 71%
http://www.macroaxis.com/invest/ratio/GAW.L--Probability_Of_Bankruptcy
(For comparison, the site lists a good risk at about 15%.) Also recommended as a strong SELL on google and other stock sites.

Yeah, just a lot of armchair speculation from those professional investors...

Fascinating link. Yet another source adding to the weight to the argument that GW is in deep trouble, which is really unassailable at this point. The only question is how bad the situation actually is, and whether or not they can pull it around. My gut says no.

Based on latest financial disclosure Games Workshop Group plc has Probability Of Bankruptcy of 71%. This is 91.82% higher than that of the Consumer Goods sector, and 63.3% higher than that of Recreational Goods, Other industry, The Probability Of Bankruptcy for all stocks is 79.88% lower than the firm.

71% probability of bankruptcy within 2 years?

Ouch.

 Boggy Man wrote:
It's interesting to note that another site disparages us when we talk about finances here because we apparently don't have any CEO's on the forum. We do have a plethora of small business owners investors, and management grads like myself, but we obviously don't know jack about finance. (Just like the opinions of the veterans here on combat are meaningless; where are the career politicians?! But I digress...)

Those of us who follow such things might be interested in this; Google stock analytic tools have digested the the new GW report, and put the likelihood of them going bankrupt in the next 2 years at 71%
http://www.macroaxis.com/invest/ratio/GAW.L--Probability_Of_Bankruptcy
(For comparison, the site lists a good risk at about 15%.) Also recommended as a strong SELL on google and other stock sites.

Yeah, just a lot of armchair speculation from those professional investors...

Good link. However, some of us are CEOs, like myself, and if you read my posting regarding the latest financials, I gave GW 24-30 months. This link just reinforces the factors I saw based on a lot of common historical analytics.

Where are the idio-I mean, um, believers in white armor coming to tell us there is nothing wrong and that facts are unimportant because GW doesn't believe in them? Or make up stuff they want to believe are facts? Can Kirby be sacked, Monty Python style? And his kronies (does he really call them that, spelled that way?).

As much as I disagree with nearly all of the arguments presented by people who support GW and spin everything in a positive fashion, I don't think calling them idiots is going to help.

 Wayshuba wrote:

 Boggy Man wrote:
It's interesting to note that another site disparages us when we talk about finances here because we apparently don't have any CEO's on the forum. We do have a plethora of small business owners investors, and management grads like myself, but we obviously don't know jack about finance. (Just like the opinions of the veterans here on combat are meaningless; where are the career politicians?! But I digress...)

Those of us who follow such things might be interested in this; Google stock analytic tools have digested the the new GW report, and put the likelihood of them going bankrupt in the next 2 years at 71%
http://www.macroaxis.com/invest/ratio/GAW.L--Probability_Of_Bankruptcy
(For comparison, the site lists a good risk at about 15%.) Also recommended as a strong SELL on google and other stock sites.

Yeah, just a lot of armchair speculation from those professional investors...

Good link. However, some of us are CEOs, like myself, and if you read my posting regarding the latest financials, I gave GW 24-30 months. This link just reinforces the factors I saw based on a lot of common historical analytics.

*raises hand*

Former company director (currently unable to work for health reasons, not former due to incompetence!) and holder of business related qualifications here.

Not that it means I'm an expert, or even right, or that I think a layperson isn't entitled to an opinion, just to counter the assertion that somehow Dakka posters aren't qualified or informed.

I've worked for an ad agency and fairly knowledgeable with marketing and advertising (hence why I mostly comment on how GW engages their customers and how they present themselves). And GW is definitely not doing what they should be doing as a company in terms of advertising and marketing.

I'm a hod carrier for lego and a former Airfix test pilot.

Does anyone really see a turnaround becoming possible with the current business structure - Not just Kirby and the board.

I mean. It has taken cash to get them to this point and will take cash to turn around.

There are lots of calls for price reductions and or better value within boxes etc, but as it stands such a strategy would stress the current company even more.

Divesting it's stores would offer a gain but takes cash up front to manage.

Going back to fully staffed stores would take money in training wages admin etc.

There is always a danger that a modern GW - and its products - would be unpalatable.

I'm an engineer. While your Mysterious Money Maths™ may befuddle my general sensibilities at time, I can see numbers and trends like the rest. I can also see a disconnect from someone offering solutions not based upon a well defined or addressed problem statement (e.g. the lack of market research).

I also write technical documentation for scoping and defining work, sometimes in the millions of dollars range, and can tell you that their authors lack any sensibilities in this sort of thing. And that's killing any fun of the game. Make the rules clinical to the 'T', but make the how and why those things happening interesting with your fluff. Most customers care about the color of paint and how it looks in the end, but the smart engineer knows that too many issues and problems are usually hidden behind this knowledge of priority of colors of paints and finishes. A lot of GWs problems are falling under that category and Forge the Narrative is about as "color picking" as it can get.

 Mr. Burning wrote:
....and a former Airfix test pilot.

Let's all take a moment out of the thread to thank you for your sacrifices and for making millions of small boy's childhoods possible.

 Blacksails wrote:
As much as I disagree with nearly all of the arguments presented by people who support GW and spin everything in a positive fashion, I don't think calling them idiots is going to help.

Agreed. Please remember rule #1 (be polite) and make your points without name-calling / insults.

Thanks!

Awwww, c'mon, I didn't even finish the word.

Actually about the only reason I said it was because nobody had come forward: I think everyone realizes this report is showing that GW is in dire straights. I'm sure most of us who left GW would LOVE to go back. I certainly would. When they make it reasonable to go back with prices similar to what things cost in 6th edition WHFB, I'll return. If prices don't go down, I won't go back. Pretty simple. In the meantime, other companies get my business. Oh, and the rules have to be improved as well. In fact, here's what is do:
-8th edition 40k=pancake edition. Rules cost $10 with the return of a 7th edition rulebook (can't give the rules away, but make em inexpensive for those who bought the turd that is 7th)
-25% price slash on everything
-Kill off the GW stores completely
-Open up the forums and have two staff members whose only job is to moderate forums and answer questions
-Show upcoming models/greens on big releases (nothing wrong with occasional hidden gems)
-paid rule testers who look for broken combos
-tournament support
-Gamesday with returned free model or t-shirt (pick when you buy ticket, other item can be purchased).

Get them back in touch with the community, really, and lower price. Hell, I'd say keeping GW stores would even be okay, if they went back to the 90s/2005 setup.

There have been a lot of good ideas in this thread for how things go turn around for GW.

Most of it likely won't happen, but its fun to dream.

I also think that even if GW took some positive steps back into the light that many people who left wouldn't be inclined to come back, having found greener pastures. GW would have to rival the buy in costs, rules quality, overall cost of playing the game, and engage with the customer base at least on par with the rest of the industry, which is a very tall order indeed for them.

 timetowaste85 wrote:

-25% price slash on everything
-Kill off the GW stores completely

If you take a look at the financial report by channel, you'll see just how much of GW's revenues comes from their stores. And many stores are obviously still profitable.

Furthermore, we don't know if a pricing cut would actually drive sales at all. We do know it'll reduce revenue. It's possible that the customers they lost due to pricing simply won't come back. We also know from the report that GW has fixed costs of good sold that didn't shrink with declining volume.

If they ended their revenue from their own stores and then also reduced prices by 25% they'd be gone and out of business in a single quarter.

An eventual transition to using traditional distribution channels and a gradual transition to offering better value for the money would likely be good things to implement. But they can't "kill off" a major sales channel and "slash" prices like that without imploding.

---