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.

The one thing that stands out to me from all of this is that Kirby has managed to make people think of tabletop gaming as a "luxury". I've seen people defend the cost of the hobby by comparing it to golf or photography or console gaming, non of which are really valid comparisons. especially as £250 could get you a Xbox 360 with a 2 - 3 game bundle, all ready to go and the games could be traded in.

Tabletop gaming is not a "luxury" hobby. We are talking about objects made out of plastic, basically toys. Over the last couple of years he has proved that it's all about getting money out of 12 - 14 year olds. You can't even say that a £100 spent actually gets you a proper working game, they have to invest even more money, which Kirby knows will be a wasted investment as the kid drops out. Everything about GW's way of doing business is to exploit a certain age range, nothing more, nothing less.

That's one thing I will give GW - they have successfully perpetuated the myth that tabletop gaming is a luxury product. Look at all the people quick to defend the price as not that bad for the "enjoyment" that they get.

It is a luxury product. By definition. Do you need it to survive? If not, it's a luxury.

Luxury goods are products and services that are not considered essential and are associated with affluence. All wargaming products are luxury goods though, and that's what GW is forgetting - and people can still look for value inside a luxury good.

They may have managed that with a number of people. A lot of the rest of us find their products over-priced and of rather low quality if you are not specifically interested in the GW-ness of them.

Take the Knight Titan as an example. For £85 you get a "giant robot" model about the size of a Gundam. It is a single colour moulding with limited posability and only two weapon options.

The equivalent Gundam model is moulded in five or six colours of plastic on the sprue. It has multiple points of articulation using polycaps, allowing it to be posed after finishing, swappable weapons often with moving parts, and comes with a sheet of stickers for instant decoration.

But it costs less than half the price.

The GW model is clearly greatly inferior in all respects except for being designed in the 40K Imperial aesthetic.

Define your idea of luxury? It used to be that kids would spend their pocket money on this sort of stuff. Obviously that was a long time ago, but just because it's not essensual, it doesn't therefore mean it's a luxury. Is there a term for something in the middle?

No. Miniatures are clearly a luxury, just like video games, music, movie etc.

Premium is the word people are looking for here, I think. Does the quality of GW's product justify calling it a Premium Luxury product, and charging Premium prices?

Kirby clearly thinks so, and has staked his career and reputation on making it so.

Luxury item would be something you don't need to buy such as a TV. Luxury items don't have to cost millions of dollars or pounds. Essential items would be hygiene products, food, and shelter. Stuff that you need everyday that people buy. Warren Buffet always tells people to invest in companies that sell products that people need everyday such as toothpaste. But Buffet owns the biggest private jet leasing company in the world which would be a luxury item.

 Wolfstan wrote:
Define your idea of luxury?

Anything that's not essential, as I said.

It used to be that kids would spend their pocket money on this sort of stuff. Obviously that was a long time ago, but just because it's not essensual, it doesn't therefore mean it's a luxury. Is there a term for something in the middle?

It really does mean that. Candy is a luxury. Computers are a luxury (less so nowadays, but I think they still fall into that category).
New .mp3s are a luxury.

If you lost your job tomorrow, what would you cut spending on first? Those are luxury items.

GW charges premium prices for an average (some say below-average) product in a luxury market. That's why they're failing now that there are competitors that provide average-high prices for average-high quality products in a luxury market.

As above, luxury goods are the ones you like to buy if you have spare money after taking care of everyday needs.

From that angle all wargames are luxuries.

rigeld2 wrote:
It is a luxury product. By definition. Do you need it to survive? If not, it's a luxury.

Luxury goods are products and services that are not considered essential and are associated with affluence. All wargaming products are luxury goods though, and that's what GW is forgetting - and people can still look for value inside a luxury good.

That's not actually the definition of a luxury product (at least not in the economic sense).

A luxury good is one for which the demand increases more than proportionally as income rises. In other words, the richer people get, the more they want that item.

 Baragash wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
It just means that Kirby would stop getting ~£800k/year in dividends, which he'd no doubt make up for in profits.

Private companies pay owners in dividends too.

Yes, but that's a tax dodge as dividends are taxed at a lower rate than income, so you pay yourself a living wage and then a feth off big dividend at the end of the year. Can't remember the exact figure, but the % saving in tax is near or into double digits.

You can own a private company and not work for it, though I dare say most private company owners probably work as a director of their company. The point is that private companies also have shares and can declare dividends to the owners of the shares. The difference of a plc is that the shares can be traded on the open market without the permission of the directors.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The key surprise about the report was that Kirby in his preamble tried so hard to gloss over the presence of a massive elephant in the room -- the awful sales performance -- and said absolutely nothing about how he was going to address it.

That does not look like a CEO who is responsive to the concerns of his shareholders.

Speaking as an average layman who know nothing about buisness, even I could have said something better in his preamble, even if it was utter tripe:

"Our sales are currently down, much to our surprise, and we intend to thoroughly investigate this matter and come up with a solution which we hope shall see a rise in sales once more."

It's not effing difficult to do. Sure the actions are going to take effort, but the words alone would at least instill some sense of faith in the company to the reader.

 Selym wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The key surprise about the report was that Kirby in his preamble tried so hard to gloss over the presence of a massive elephant in the room -- the awful sales performance -- and said absolutely nothing about how he was going to address it.

That does not look like a CEO who is responsive to the concerns of his shareholders.

Speaking as an average layman who know nothing about buisness, even I could have said something better in his preamble, even if it was utter tripe:

"Our sales are currently down, much to our surprise, and we intend to thoroughly investigate this matter and come up with a solution which we hope shall see a rise in sales once more."

It's not effing difficult to do. Sure the actions are going to take effort, but the words alone would at least instill some sense of faith in the company to the reader.

Dang, as a stockholder, I'd much prefer that over insane ramblings.

 Selym wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The key surprise about the report was that Kirby in his preamble tried so hard to gloss over the presence of a massive elephant in the room -- the awful sales performance -- and said absolutely nothing about how he was going to address it.

That does not look like a CEO who is responsive to the concerns of his shareholders.

Speaking as an average layman who know nothing about buisness, even I could have said something better in his preamble, even if it was utter tripe:

"Our sales are currently down, much to our surprise, and we intend to thoroughly investigate this matter and come up with a solution which we hope shall see a rise in sales once more."

It's not effing difficult to do. Sure the actions are going to take effort, but the words alone would at least instill some sense of faith in the company to the reader.

Hey... Kirby might be a moron, but he is NOT a liar.

Kiwidru wrote:

 Selym wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The key surprise about the report was that Kirby in his preamble tried so hard to gloss over the presence of a massive elephant in the room -- the awful sales performance -- and said absolutely nothing about how he was going to address it.

That does not look like a CEO who is responsive to the concerns of his shareholders.

Speaking as an average layman who know nothing about buisness, even I could have said something better in his preamble, even if it was utter tripe:

"Our sales are currently down, much to our surprise, and we intend to thoroughly investigate this matter and come up with a solution which we hope shall see a rise in sales once more."

It's not effing difficult to do. Sure the actions are going to take effort, but the words alone would at least instill some sense of faith in the company to the reader.

Hey... Kirby might be a moron, but he is NOT a liar.

Yea! I mean, he just says whatever pops into his head, without thinking about what it means or why he is saying it. Lying implies a specific intent to deceive. Kirby's only specific intent is to compare himself to Steve Jobs.

weeble1000 wrote:

Kiwidru wrote:

 Selym wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The key surprise about the report was that Kirby in his preamble tried so hard to gloss over the presence of a massive elephant in the room -- the awful sales performance -- and said absolutely nothing about how he was going to address it.

That does not look like a CEO who is responsive to the concerns of his shareholders.

Speaking as an average layman who know nothing about buisness, even I could have said something better in his preamble, even if it was utter tripe:

"Our sales are currently down, much to our surprise, and we intend to thoroughly investigate this matter and come up with a solution which we hope shall see a rise in sales once more."

It's not effing difficult to do. Sure the actions are going to take effort, but the words alone would at least instill some sense of faith in the company to the reader.

Hey... Kirby might be a moron, but he is NOT a liar.

Yea! I mean, he just says whatever pops into his head, without thinking about what it means or why he is saying it. Lying implies a specific intent to deceive. Kirby's only specific intent is to compare himself to Steve Jobs.

Steve jobs is dead so...perhaps Kirby should think carefully and reconsider that comparison.

 Azreal13 wrote:

 Baragash wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
It just means that Kirby would stop getting ~£800k/year in dividends, which he'd no doubt make up for in profits.

Private companies pay owners in dividends too.

Yes, but that's a tax dodge as dividends are taxed at a lower rate than income, so you pay yourself a living wage and then a feth off big dividend at the end of the year. Can't remember the exact figure, but the % saving in tax is near or into double digits.

10 percentage points on the basic rate, 7.5 percentage points on the mid-band and 2.5 percentage points on the higher band.

That being said, I don't see how the motivation for paying things a certain way is relevant to the fact of whether or not they can or are done that way.

Wolfstan wrote:Over the last couple of years he has proved that it's all about getting money out of 12 - 14 year olds. You can't even say that a £100 spent actually gets you a proper working game, they have to invest even more money, which Kirby knows will be a wasted investment as the kid drops out. Everything about GW's way of doing business is to exploit a certain age range, nothing more, nothing less.

Heh. I just finished explaining to another guy, on another forum, who was wondering why GW seems so kiddified now, compared to how kewl they were when he was a... kid.

Kilkrazy wrote:Take the Knight Titan as an example. For £85 you get a "giant robot" model about the size of a Gundam. It is a single colour moulding with limited posability and only two weapon options.
The GW model is clearly greatly inferior in all respects except for being designed in the 40K Imperial aesthetic.

I was in the Belfast shops last week, comparing a few things. £85 will get me a knight: a collection of thin polystyrene parts with a GW stamp. Meanwhile, over in B&Q, less than £60 would get me a dremel with a bunch of accessories.

I'd go for the latter much sooner. And this is from someone who'd really like a knight, just for the look of the thing; the 40K imperial aesthetic.

Saldiven wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
It is a luxury product. By definition. Do you need it to survive? If not, it's a luxury.

Luxury goods are products and services that are not considered essential and are associated with affluence. All wargaming products are luxury goods though, and that's what GW is forgetting - and people can still look for value inside a luxury good.

That's not actually the definition of a luxury product (at least not in the economic sense).

A luxury good is one for which the demand increases more than proportionally as income rises. In other words, the richer people get, the more they want that item.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxury_goods

Yeah plastic toys are not luxury goods, if it was made out of gold or it was made by Lois Vuitton then it would be a Luxury Good.

Now this is a luxury good!



GW just not has the Brand recognition or the quality to call itself a luxury item.

How is it not a luxury good?
Demand increases as income increases - as you have more money, you spend more on toys.
As income decreases, plastic dude men are less important.

The material is irrelevant.

Just because I have disposable income it doesn't mean that anything I buy with it is a luxury item. Whether it's something I need to "live" is another argument. Being able to spend £20 here and there for extras is different to spending £400 on a TV. Those small purchases add to the quality of my life.

rigeld2 wrote:
How is it not a luxury good?
Demand increases as income increases - as you have more money, you spend more on toys.
As income decreases, plastic dude men are less important.

The material is irrelevant.

It's not a luxury good because the only thing luxury about it is the price charged. Is a Ford a luxury car? How about a Ford that cost $80,000? That's just an overpriced car, nothing luxury about it.

Wargaming is a "luxury" hobby in the same sense as anything else that isn't needed, but GW figures have nothing luxury about them besides the luxury price.

Kirby likes to talk about GW stuff as being luxury goods because it explains the way they keep on selling as the price goes up and up and up.

Only the thing is that sales are down.

WayneTheGame wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
How is it not a luxury good?
Demand increases as income increases - as you have more money, you spend more on toys.
As income decreases, plastic dude men are less important.

The material is irrelevant.

It's not a luxury good because the only thing luxury about it is the price charged. Is a Ford a luxury car? How about a Ford that cost $80,000? That's just an overpriced car, nothing luxury about it.

Wargaming is a "luxury" hobby in the same sense as anything else that isn't needed, but GW figures have nothing luxury about them besides the luxury price.

... Which is what I said. It's a premium priced luxury item.
Edit: that doesn't have anything to justify its premium price.

rigeld2 wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
How is it not a luxury good?
Demand increases as income increases - as you have more money, you spend more on toys.
As income decreases, plastic dude men are less important.

The material is irrelevant.

It's not a luxury good because the only thing luxury about it is the price charged. Is a Ford a luxury car? How about a Ford that cost $80,000? That's just an overpriced car, nothing luxury about it.

Wargaming is a "luxury" hobby in the same sense as anything else that isn't needed, but GW figures have nothing luxury about them besides the luxury price.

... Which is what I said. It's a premium priced luxury item.
Edit: that doesn't have anything to justify its premium price.

from the wiki;

Luxury goods are said to have high income elasticity of demand: as people become wealthier, they will buy more and more of the luxury good.

Economics are up GW sales are down ergo plastic toys are not a luxury good even if GW price them as one.

 Jehan-reznor wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
How is it not a luxury good?
Demand increases as income increases - as you have more money, you spend more on toys.
As income decreases, plastic dude men are less important.

The material is irrelevant.

It's not a luxury good because the only thing luxury about it is the price charged. Is a Ford a luxury car? How about a Ford that cost $80,000? That's just an overpriced car, nothing luxury about it.

Wargaming is a "luxury" hobby in the same sense as anything else that isn't needed, but GW figures have nothing luxury about them besides the luxury price.

... Which is what I said. It's a premium priced luxury item.
Edit: that doesn't have anything to justify its premium price.

from the wiki;

Luxury goods are said to have high income elasticity of demand: as people become wealthier, they will buy more and more of the luxury good.

Economics are up GW sales are down ergo plastic toys are not a luxury good even if GW price them as one.

Only applies ceteris paribus. Since GW's prices have also risen significantly you need to isolate and remove the price elasticity of demand in order to determine the income elasticity of demand.

 Jehan-reznor wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
How is it not a luxury good?
Demand increases as income increases - as you have more money, you spend more on toys.
As income decreases, plastic dude men are less important.

The material is irrelevant.

It's not a luxury good because the only thing luxury about it is the price charged. Is a Ford a luxury car? How about a Ford that cost $80,000? That's just an overpriced car, nothing luxury about it.

Wargaming is a "luxury" hobby in the same sense as anything else that isn't needed, but GW figures have nothing luxury about them besides the luxury price.

... Which is what I said. It's a premium priced luxury item.
Edit: that doesn't have anything to justify its premium price.

from the wiki;

Luxury goods are said to have high income elasticity of demand: as people become wealthier, they will buy more and more of the luxury good.

Economics are up GW sales are down ergo plastic toys are not a luxury good even if GW price them as one.

That's a simplistic way of looking at it that ignores many other factors, like price elasticity. Sales are down because customers perceive poor quality for high prices, whilst competitors offer better value, not because miniatures are not a luxury item.

And economics may be "up" but that doesn't mean everybody suddenly has more money. Money is still tight for the average person.

Miniatures ARE a luxury.
Some miniatures are even a Premium Luxury, if the quality justifies the price.
For the most part, the quality of GW's product do no justify the price, therefore they are a luxury just not a Premium Luxury.
Or rather, increasing numbers of people are beginning to see it that way and so sales are falling.

Things you don't need to survive, are essential. Food, shelter, clothing, medicine, transport.
Things that you can do without if necessary= luxuries.

Miniatures pretty clearly fall into the latter.

 Jehan-reznor wrote:

Economics are up GW sales are down ergo plastic toys are not a luxury good even if GW price them as one.

Sales are booming for the rest of the wargames industry, so I'm not sure you can assert that mini's aren't a luxury good. You could argue GW mini's aren't a luxury good though.

I buy more mini's when I'm feeling flush, but almost none of them are from GW.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:


Things you don't need to survive, are essential. Food, shelter, clothing, medicine, transport.
Things that you can do without if necessary= luxuries.

Miniatures pretty clearly fall into the latter.

What, that is crazy by your own standred they aren't luxuries, as I sure most do need them to survive .