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.

 Azreal13 wrote:

 BrookM wrote:

Also re: FFG doing 40k. Let them improve their distribution model first. I'd hate having to wait months upon months for the next codex: *insert spunkgargleweewee here* to finally arrive in stores outside of the US.

Asmodee already have massively superior European distribution, but weren't so well set up in the States. Hence the recent merger with FFG, so that problem is already a long way towards solved.

Thank you for clarifying that. FFG are certainly juggling a but right now, but they will sort it out.

 Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

nkelsch wrote:


The 'quote' which started this concept was I believe in 2008 when Jervis Johnson said something like 2/3rds of their customers buy the models to collect and never play the game at a Gamesday.

Fast forward to 2007-2008 when 5th hit and the rules actually became somewhat playable, the "LEGAL = FAIR" crew who was basically unwelcome for a solid 8 years of 3rd edition made a comeback and has snowballed into what we have right now. But by that point when the rules got good enough to even stand on their own, the "we make models for hobbyists and collectors, the game is not important" had already had a decade+ of entrenchment in the corporate philosophies.

So it was always like this... but didn't get said really until competitive 40k began to rise after 5th edition launch. If you didn't play in 3rd edition tourneys, you really have no idea how loose and unplayable the rules used to be and why games were really loose and no one could take competition seriously because there simply was no fairness.

Indeed.

There is some truth to Priestley's quote, but essentially he is a rival now and it's in his interest to do them down.

I shouldn't think of 90% of people that play 40k have even heard of Hail Caesar, Bolt Action etc. Warlord are still small-fry compared to GW, despite their growth, and I can't imagine how he would say something like this just to try and get a bit of capital for Warlord.

Rick said years ago that GW was in the business of selling toys to children. That's not to denigrate adults that buy the product, but more of a recognition of where the company's cross-hairs lie, and where they see the opportunity to make money. But, TBH this (and what Rick has said above) surprises me not a bit - it's pretty obvious if you have seen the transformation of GW over the past decade, it's games and miniature releases, and the part they now play within the industry.

GW did market research, and has adapted. You just don't like the direction that they are going, but GW is doing rational things - that much is obvious.

 Pacific wrote:

 Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

nkelsch wrote:


The 'quote' which started this concept was I believe in 2008 when Jervis Johnson said something like 2/3rds of their customers buy the models to collect and never play the game at a Gamesday.

Fast forward to 2007-2008 when 5th hit and the rules actually became somewhat playable, the "LEGAL = FAIR" crew who was basically unwelcome for a solid 8 years of 3rd edition made a comeback and has snowballed into what we have right now. But by that point when the rules got good enough to even stand on their own, the "we make models for hobbyists and collectors, the game is not important" had already had a decade+ of entrenchment in the corporate philosophies.

So it was always like this... but didn't get said really until competitive 40k began to rise after 5th edition launch. If you didn't play in 3rd edition tourneys, you really have no idea how loose and unplayable the rules used to be and why games were really loose and no one could take competition seriously because there simply was no fairness.

Indeed.

There is some truth to Priestley's quote, but essentially he is a rival now and it's in his interest to do them down.

I shouldn't think of 90% of people that play 40k have even heard of Hail Caesar, Bolt Action etc. Warlord are still small-fry compared to GW, despite their growth, and I can't imagine how he would say something like this just to try and get a bit of capital for Warlord.

Rick said years ago that GW was in the business of selling toys to children. That's not to denigrate adults that buy the product, but more of a recognition of where the company's cross-hairs lie, and where they see the opportunity to make money. But, TBH this (and what Rick has said above) surprises me not a bit - it's pretty obvious if you have seen the transformation of GW over the past decade, it's games and miniature releases, and the part they now play within the industry.

He was part of the management buy out and still owns stock. His wife is still employed by black library. I think attributing any kind of financial reaons for these quotes would be a mistake.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
GW did market research, and has adapted. You just don't like the direction that they are going, but GW is doing rational things - that much is obvious.

They said that they don't do market research and were quite proud of it. Yes, they're adapting, but not in a way that promotes growth.

GW has clearly read the market and moved to where they have less competition, and they have accelerated that move. Whether they admit to diong "Market Research," or not.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
GW has clearly read the market and moved to where they have less competition, and they have accelerated that move. Whether they admit to diong "Market Research," or not.

I think we're talking about two different things.
(from what I understand)
You're talking about them seeing their shrinking market share and revenue and adapting to what makes them most profit.
I'm talking about:

mar·ket re·search
noun
noun: market research; modifier noun: market-research

the action or activity of gathering information about consumers' needs and preferences.

This, they definitely don't do.

I dunno about that. I think GW has a pretty clear idea of what sells, and how quickly. Those analytics are more important than surveys and focus groups.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I dunno about that. I think GW has a pretty clear idea of what sells, and how quickly. Those analytics are more important than surveys and focus groups.

No, they're not, because without the additional context provided by actual market research they can't possibly know why a thing is selling or not selling, and so any attempts they make to repeat the success or rectify the mistake are a shot in the dark that could cost them a big chunk of money and gain them nothing.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I dunno about that. I think GW has a pretty clear idea of what sells, and how quickly. Those analytics are more important than surveys and focus groups.

Its obvious they know what is selling. not sure they know why.

Given that GW closed their forums, it's also obvious that they know that Internet chatter does nothing to provide useful information about what people want.

Hell, I doubt we could get all of the posters in this thread to agree on what GW should do, and that is less than 20 people.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Given that GW closed their forums, it's also obvious that they know that Internet chatter does nothing to provide useful information about what people want.

Hell, I doubt we could get all of the posters in this thread to agree on what GW should do, and that is less than 20 people.

Market research isn't internet forums, that's for PR, another area they're sorely lacking in.

Who said anything about the interwebs
there are other ways to do market research.

If GW stopped selling rules for WHFB & 40k they would be screwed, their "collectables" dream would die a death. Can you just imagine trying to flog a £100+ of plastic models to little Johnny's parents?

Parent: What does he do with them once he's finished sticking them together and painting them?

GW redshirt: Eh... nothing

Parent: Didn't you used to do rules so they can play against other armies?

GW Redshirt: Yep, but we decided that our models are too collectable for that sort of thing, so we stopped making rules.

Parent: So £100 for some figures, plus glue & paint, so that they can then just be stuck in a box or on a dusty shelf.

GW Redshirt: But they are "collectable"

Parent: Not when my 12 year old son has finished painting them they won't be!

So unfortunately GW you still need the rules, to justify the purchase to parents. Kill the rules and kill your sales. No parent is going to allow their child to spend £100+ some expensive Airfix kits.

 Wolfstan wrote:
If GW stopped selling rules for WHFB & 40k they would be screwed, their "collectables" dream would die a death. Can you just imagine trying to flog a £100+ of plastic models to little Johnny's parents?

Parent: What does he do with them once he's finished sticking them together and painting them?

GW redshirt: Eh... nothing

Parent: Didn't you used to do rules so they can play against other armies?

GW Redshirt: Yep, but we decided that our models are too collectable for that sort of thing, so we stopped making rules.

Parent: So £100 for some figures, plus glue & paint, so that they can then just be stuck in a box or on a dusty shelf.

GW Redshirt: But they are "collectable"

Parent: Not when my 12 year old son has finished painting them they won't be!

So unfortunately GW you still need the rules, to justify the purchase to parents. Kill the rules and kill your sales. No parent is going to allow their child to spend £100+ some expensive Airfix kits.

Ha... totally not true. Parents take kids to the hobby shop all the time to buy a model to put together and paint and 'sit on a shelf'. In fact, that is how I got started as a kid. I would get to go to the hobby shop and buy a car or plane and spend a few weeks assembling it and painting it. The simple act of hobby time as a reward and constructive use of my time was what is valuable for parents. If you think parents actually attach 'value' to that they can game with the models later, you are insane as they don't care what a child does with a toy or a model or a video game. It is the value of the time it consumes which is on their plate. And sitting at home painting is good use of time for parents.

Actually, as a parent I might prefer models which sit on a shelf than having to have another place to chauffeur my kid to and to have him interact with adults with poor social skills. I would consider it a selling feature to not have a game attached. Hence why kids still like to build model planes, cars, tanks and gundams.

nkelsch wrote:

 Wolfstan wrote:
If GW stopped selling rules for WHFB & 40k they would be screwed, their "collectables" dream would die a death. Can you just imagine trying to flog a £100+ of plastic models to little Johnny's parents?

Parent: What does he do with them once he's finished sticking them together and painting them?

GW redshirt: Eh... nothing

Parent: Didn't you used to do rules so they can play against other armies?

GW Redshirt: Yep, but we decided that our models are too collectable for that sort of thing, so we stopped making rules.

Parent: So £100 for some figures, plus glue & paint, so that they can then just be stuck in a box or on a dusty shelf.

GW Redshirt: But they are "collectable"

Parent: Not when my 12 year old son has finished painting them they won't be!

So unfortunately GW you still need the rules, to justify the purchase to parents. Kill the rules and kill your sales. No parent is going to allow their child to spend £100+ some expensive Airfix kits.

Ha... totally not true. Parents take kids to the hobby shop all the time to buy a model to put together and paint and 'sit on a shelf'. In fact, that is how I got started as a kid. I would get to go to the hobby shop and buy a car or plane and spend a few weeks assembling it and painting it. The simple act of hobby time as a reward and constructive use of my time was what is valuable for parents. If you think parents actually attach 'value' to that they can game with the models later, you are insane as they don't care what a child does with a toy or a model or a video game. It is the value of the time it consumes which is on their plate. And sitting at home painting is good use of time for parents.

Actually, as a parent I might prefer models which sit on a shelf than having to have another place to chauffeur my kid to and to have him interact with adults with poor social skills. I would consider it a selling feature to not have a game attached. Hence why kids still like to build model planes, cars, tanks and gundams.

The problem is:
GW thinks that's their customer base.
But I see adults spending way more over greater periods of time.
Again, if GW did market research, they'd know who was buying and why.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
GW did market research, and has adapted. You just don't like the direction that they are going, but GW is doing rational things - that much is obvious.

Thats a joke, right? GW openly admits they don't do market research. I think what you actually mean is that they decided what their buyers are, and they act as if that's the right path for them to continue on. Market research would imply they're figuring out what they are doing wrong and fixing it, and see what they do right and continue. This is the opposites of market research.


Also, to prove a point: GW says they sell models to people who primarily model. Yet SMs are the biggest seller in all of GW. Probably mostly with the standard kit. Rationally, you're telling me that their "research" shows that people are buying 4-6 boxes for display purposes and not play purposes? Yeah...not fething likely.

 timetowaste85 wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
GW did market research, and has adapted. You just don't like the direction that they are going, but GW is doing rational things - that much is obvious.

Thats a joke, right? GW openly admits they don't do market research. I think what you actually mean is that they decided what their buyers are, and they act as if that's the right path for them to continue on. Market research would imply they're figuring out what they are doing wrong and fixing it, and see what they do right and continue. This is the opposites of market research.

Ya know to play devils advocate

and even though the way things are going shows the contrary, we dont ACTUALLY know if they do or do not do market research. what Kirby Said isnt necessarily the whole truth. (though likely it is)

WayneTheGame wrote:

 melkorthetonedeaf wrote:
So what does that say about people who play a game that is just a catalogue? Aside from astounding loyalty, that is...

Rick Priestley: what a dreamboat.

In all seriousness I've wondered why people stick with 40k knowing what kind of company GW is. Either they really don't care that they're being treated like clueless morons who buy anything, or they just figure they enjoy it so they'll deal. I used to chalk it up to just people not wanting to admit that they invested hundreds or even thousands of dollars in such a poor game so that's why people got defensive (because pointing it out makes them look stupid), but I really do see actual loyalty and fanaticism towards GW products, usually coupled with ignorant or outright hostility towards anything else.

GWombies.

I think it's unnecessarily disrespectful to shoehorn large swathes of people in to such small boxes.

People like it, people are defensive about things they like. I think brand loyalty is vastly over stated when it comes to GW because people see the defensiveness as fanatic GW loving when a lot of the time it's far more basic of people being defensive about something they enjoy.

Not that brand loyalty doesn't exist, I just think in the context of wargaming it is rather over stated. GW does still offer features that other wargames are lacking and if people are attracted to that I don't think we need to get overly offensive about it.

nkelsch wrote:

 Wolfstan wrote:
If GW stopped selling rules for WHFB & 40k they would be screwed, their "collectables" dream would die a death. Can you just imagine trying to flog a £100+ of plastic models to little Johnny's parents?

Parent: What does he do with them once he's finished sticking them together and painting them?

GW redshirt: Eh... nothing

Parent: Didn't you used to do rules so they can play against other armies?

GW Redshirt: Yep, but we decided that our models are too collectable for that sort of thing, so we stopped making rules.

Parent: So £100 for some figures, plus glue & paint, so that they can then just be stuck in a box or on a dusty shelf.

GW Redshirt: But they are "collectable"

Parent: Not when my 12 year old son has finished painting them they won't be!

So unfortunately GW you still need the rules, to justify the purchase to parents. Kill the rules and kill your sales. No parent is going to allow their child to spend £100+ some expensive Airfix kits.

Ha... totally not true. Parents take kids to the hobby shop all the time to buy a model to put together and paint and 'sit on a shelf'. In fact, that is how I got started as a kid. I would get to go to the hobby shop and buy a car or plane and spend a few weeks assembling it and painting it. The simple act of hobby time as a reward and constructive use of my time was what is valuable for parents. If you think parents actually attach 'value' to that they can game with the models later, you are insane as they don't care what a child does with a toy or a model or a video game. It is the value of the time it consumes which is on their plate. And sitting at home painting is good use of time for parents.

Actually, as a parent I might prefer models which sit on a shelf than having to have another place to chauffeur my kid to and to have him interact with adults with poor social skills. I would consider it a selling feature to not have a game attached. Hence why kids still like to build model planes, cars, tanks and gundams.

You're missing the point. A kid sitting down and building an Airfix kit with dad is one thing and is in fact a part of a lot of kids childhoods. However for a long time GW have pitched the this image of kids getting involved with the assembling & painting of their stuff, with the added benefit that it makes them sociable, due to the 'gaming' part of it. Remove that and it's just expensive Airfix, not the pocket money Airfix that father & son sat down and did together.

 MWHistorian wrote:

The problem is:
GW thinks that's their customer base.
But I see adults spending way more over greater periods of time.
Again, if GW did market research, they'd know who was buying and why.

You can claim that adult collectors buy more transformers too... but for every adult collector buying out 3 waves of 6 transformers for 10 years, you have hundreds of kids buying single 20$ transformers maybe once or twice. Someone who spends 1000s of dollars assumes their voice is more important and they should be catered to because clearly their investment means they are the core market right?

I think gamers grossly overestimate their value to the GW market and the best thing GW could do is be like Hasbro... find out where their sales come from and show how insignificant the vocal minority really is. When GW has been making bad rules and wholesale discounting gamers for 20 years now and is still in business, sometimes people need to take the hint that they simply are not the core market and are not very important.

Right now, GW claims to have that information from knowing how their models sell and gamers discount that as 'they couldn't possibly know, I must be worth more marketshare than that!' because it means they won't be catered to.

There is a market for people who buy models, assemble them, and sit them on shelves. It is a fairly large market and there are good number of companies who do nothing but that and are highly successful at it too. To pretend that model kits need games to drive sales is not always true and is not at all true for many manufacturers.

Voting with your wallet is a powerful tool. And it is even more powerful when others vote against you with their wallet.

It does seem a bit odd to just focus on the modelling/ collectable aspect.
I have recently returned to table top gaming, and am building an Ork army. Whilst I really enjoy the painting, the only reason I buy the figures, is to play them in the game.
I doubt very much that I would have bothered if there was no game involved, there seem to be many other models available that have caught my eye, and I would have preferred to paint.
The fluff, game and social aspect of table top gaming is what engaged me, and engages new blood. Without all that, what you have is a large amount of odd fantasy/ sci-fi miniatures.
Unfortunately, even as a recent re-entrant I can see the flaws in the game, and luckily I live near a vibrant gaming club that plays many types of game. If they decide to bin the game altogether, I will simply re-purpose whatever I have for a different game, and only buy whatever models capture my fancy to paint.
But without a game to motivate the purchase, I doubt I would buy much TBH.

 Wolfstan wrote:
Can you just imagine trying to flog a £100+ of plastic models to little Johnny's parents?

Parent: What does he do with them once he's finished sticking them together and painting them?

GW redshirt: Eh... nothing

No different from a Gundam kit.

OR MOST OF MY GW COLLECTION OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS.

I've got loads of stuff from when I played a lot, but now it's largely sitting in cases.

It all comes back to the fact that GW's turned its fan base into collectors by virtue of weak rule support. I think alot of those "collectors" are simply players who wish and hope and pray GW eventually does something about the rules and makes a better game.

Rules sell models. They do. Rules sell models so well that many companies in this industry take a loss on their rules because the investment helps to sell more models.

When you are mass producing line troops, you aren't selling them to collectors. We know that GW's best selling products as of at least 2012 were troop choices. That's a fact. GW may be trying to transition away from that model, but that's the model that GW has found success with for decades.

North America is GW's biggest market now. North American buyers are gamers, or a huge proportion of them are. We have seen GW's revenue fall right along with declining tournament attendance in the US. Is that a massive years long coincidence? Anecdotally we know that GW sells well in areas where the game is being played on a regular basis in a thriving community. That's certainly true for other Wargame products as well.

We know that when the rules for a GW model are good, product sales are stronger. Ask anyone who owns a game store. You can also tell what is selling well by following the third party accessory market.

GW operates, or has operated, on a model very similar to the way most other table top miniatures game companies operate. At the end of the day, GW doesn't have a magic formula. GW isn't doing things fundamentally different from its competitors, and we know a whole lot about how GW's competitors operate. It is largely a matter of scale, maturity, and market penetration.

Games sell models. That's the formula. Talk to anyone that has a miniatures business. Why do you think Reaper developed Bones, or has a Savage Worlds miniatures license, or desperately wants to develop their own hot game systems. Why do you think GW designed Warhammer in the first place. GW was tired of selling Citadel miniatures for other peoples' games. There was more money to be had in developing their own game.

And finally, if GW was a collectible model business and not a tabe top games business, GW's product would be on the lower tier. Collectible model kits are generally cheaper and better than GW's offerings. GW doesn't sell to collectors.

GW sells to gamers. GW knows that. But in the short term, GW wants to maximize profit margin by selling splashy, limited availability models to old GAMERS who have become such fans of the company through playing the GAME for years that they are effectively collectors of GW products. That model has a limited lifespan, but the folks at GW don't really know what else to do. They know that a subset of their customers are very loyal and will buy high profit margin products. That's what they know. So the company is maximizing its attention on those customers because management isnt willing to invest the money or take the risks necessarry to find out what is going to help them bring in new customers.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I dunno about that. I think GW has a pretty clear idea of what sells, and how quickly. Those analytics are more important than surveys and focus groups.

Knowing why thos things sell is also useful, as it helps you to focus further releases. Otherwise you're just releasing random stuff in the hope it will be as popular as what you sold previously...

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Given that GW closed their forums, it's also obvious that they know that Internet chatter does nothing to provide useful information about what people want.

Well, it's obvious that they think that. And they've said as much in the past.

Whether or not it's true, or something that they have concluded based on their own mismanagement of their relationship with their customers, that's another story.

Hell, I doubt we could get all of the posters in this thread to agree on what GW should do, and that is less than 20 people.

Of course you won't. No form of market research will result in everyone offering the same opinion. That doesn't mean that communicating with your customer base isn't still kind of helpful for determining what your customers want.

nkelsch wrote:
Parents take kids to the hobby shop all the time to buy a model to put together and paint and 'sit on a shelf'

Sure, but those models cost $5-10, maybe $20 for a really nice kit, not $50 minimum. GW is going to have a hard time justifying their high prices when a parent asks "so what exactly does my kid get out of this that they can't get from the $10 tank at the local hobby shop?".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I dunno about that. I think GW has a pretty clear idea of what sells, and how quickly. Those analytics are more important than surveys and focus groups.

Knowing why thos things sell is also useful, as it helps you to focus further releases. Otherwise you're just releasing random stuff in the hope it will be as popular as what you sold previously...

And then there's knowing why things didn't sell. If you want to know why a potential customer didn't buy something you have to go outside your own sales data and do market research. But GW seems content to define their target market as "people who obsessively buy everything we produce" and has no problem throwing away all of the potential sales they could be making by expanding their market.

GW saying in court among the general public they see their customers as miniature collectors and not gamers isn't suprising to me. A gamer to the general public I think portrays a kid on a ps4 or pc or a variety of things that are not miniature table top games which are not mainstream. Also the specifics of the case likely had something to do with the way their arguments were presented which had to do with protecting their IP. Honestly miniature gaming as a hobby which includes modelling and painting is less like "gaming" for those that are in it purely to game imo.

 insaniak wrote:

Hell, I doubt we could get all of the posters in this thread to agree on what GW should do, and that is less than 20 people.

Of course you won't. No form of market research will result in everyone offering the same opinion. That doesn't mean that communicating with your customer base isn't still kind of helpful for determining what your customers want.

I don't know if you could get people to agree on how GW should do it, but I think you could get majority of people here to agree that the rules could be improved and that by improving the rules they'll help their sales. I realize that's a very broad stroke, but that's about as much guidance a company will get from market research.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
GW has clearly read the market and moved to where they have less competition, and they have accelerated that move. Whether they admit to diong "Market Research," or not.

How's that working out for them?

Falling profits and decreasing revenue despite raising prices, cutting costs and accelerating releases.

If GW has really "read the market" I might diagnose GW with dyslexia.