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.
heartserenade wrote: But you really can't judge a business because "they're doing something fun and they're making a living off of it", is it? That's highly subjective, and a lot of people do business that they don't really like doing because they need the money. That's something a privileged person who don't have problems with money would say.
It's absurd to be like "Sure, let's give GW a free pass on their declining sales because they're doing what the love and that's awesome!" As an investor it would be stupid to think like that.
i think doing something you love, and making a living off of it, is the most important thing...
i am not privileged in any way, and have been poor all my life...
i tried doing work that i didn't like, and none of those jobs lasted more than a couple of months before i just walked away, because i would rather be poor than do a job i don't love...
even making $40 an hour was not worth the time it took away from my painting and surfing...
as to your second point, every investor who posts here is very happy with their GW stock, because it pays...
cheers
jah
$40 is like triple the minimum wage of a worker here in the Philippines. The average person here don't get opportunities like that.
And you're telling me you're not privileged because you have the luxury of turning down something like that, while we don't get opportunities like that? Huh. Sorry if "doing what I love" for most of us here means "literally starving to death". But sure, tell people to do what they love even if it means they'll literally die of starvation or not having a house for the night.
Ugh.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/06/25 03:08:35
The problem is, we can't draw any conclusions from it. It could be, if they pushed out less product, their sales would shrink more. It could be, if they did nothing at all, their sales would be exactly the same. We can't even make a good guess.
Edit: A better way to put it -- if they focused on cheaper products and appealing to a broader base, their total revenue might be LESS than their current strategy, apparently of focusing on more products and appeasing the more hardcore fans.
I'm honestly not sure what you're arguing. Perhaps that GW might theoretically only WANT to serve a smaller part of the market, and that this could be indicative of them shrinking to that point but no further, and deliberately so?
I suppose that could be. It'd be hard to say without either hearing it from the horse's mouth, or showing that to be the case. And I get the impression they could perhaps have a little better PR around it. From what I've been reading they're kinda acting like they're hoping that the customers they don't want to serve don't talk too many others to tag along. Reminds me a little of what happened around Star Wars Galaxies and the NGE (but only a little). That's total speculation on my part though.
I'd be more inclined to believe that trend is towards eventually being in the red. Which is going to be problematic barring other forms of funding (which can themselves be dangerous to the long term survivability of a company - basically killed my previous employer).
I'm honestly not sure what you're arguing. Perhaps that GW might theoretically only WANT to serve a smaller part of the market, and that this could be indicative of them shrinking to that point but no further, and deliberately so?
I suppose that could be. It'd be hard to say without either hearing it from the horse's mouth, or showing that to be the case. And I get the impression they could perhaps have a little better PR around it. From what I've been reading they're kinda acting like they're hoping that the customers they don't want to serve don't talk too many others to tag along. Reminds me a little of what happened around Star Wars Galaxies and the NGE (but only a little). That's total speculation on my part though.
I'd be more inclined to believe that trend is towards eventually being in the red. Which is going to be problematic barring other forms of funding (which can themselves be dangerous to the long term survivability of a company - basically killed my previous employer).
First, I am pretty sure GW doesn't want to implode and does want to be profitable. Second, we know that despite declining revenue, GW still is a strong and successful company.
Now, we don't know what management actually wants, because whatever they say in an annual report may simply be what investors want to hear.
There are a couple of different, unsubstantiated hypothesis that I've tossed out.
One is that GW knows better than us, and the key to maximizing profits is to focus on getting more money out of fewer people. In this scenario, they project that if they lowered prices and slowed the release cadence, they would make LESS money, than by maximizing what they can get our of the really eager crowd that can't get enough.
Another is that GW cares a lot about the type of hobbyist that are like-minded with them and are trying very hard to please them, at the expense of passing off the larger, but less dedicated community. I cite two examples to support this: superfans would happily buy annual codex releases and add to their army every year; more casual players want to get infrequent rules changes to get more mileage out of their investment. Also, the modelling heavy crowd gets all hot and bothered over incremental model improvements, and the casual gamer cares much less. GW's release cadence and product prerelease ('better' products at higher prices) support this theory.
Or GW management could hate their company, hate their employees and hate their customers and just want to bleed it all dry. But I don't think so; I think this is just what people think when they aren't GW's target demographic.
heartserenade wrote: But you really can't judge a business because "they're doing something fun and they're making a living off of it", is it? That's highly subjective, and a lot of people do business that they don't really like doing because they need the money. That's something a privileged person who don't have problems with money would say.
It's absurd to be like "Sure, let's give GW a free pass on their declining sales because they're doing what the love and that's awesome!" As an investor it would be stupid to think like that.
i think doing something you love, and making a living off of it, is the most important thing...
i am not privileged in any way, and have been poor all my life...
i tried doing work that i didn't like, and none of those jobs lasted more than a couple of months before i just walked away, because i would rather be poor than do a job i don't love...
even making $40 an hour was not worth the time it took away from my painting and surfing...
as to your second point, every investor who posts here is very happy with their GW stock, because it pays...
cheers
jah
$40 is like triple the minimum wage of a worker here in the Philippines. The average person here don't get opportunities like that.
And you're telling me you're not privileged because you have the luxury of turning down something like that, while we don't get opportunities like that? Huh. Sorry if "doing what I love" for most of us here means "literally starving to death". But sure, tell people to do what they love even if it means they'll literally die of starvation or not having a house for the night.
Ugh.
i'm sure there are people in every single country in the world who would love the opportunity to make $40 and hour...
my point is that i am happier making $2.50 an hour doing something i love, than $40 doing something i don't...
it isn't about having the luxury to turn something down, or being privileged, but about wanting to make my money on my terms...
i work eight hours a day, seven days a week, just to survive, but i am happy...
i prefer living on the beach in Mexico, making $500 a month, over living in Alaska, making a $1000 a week...
for me, making money is not as important as making great art...
i'm happy to go a little hungry in order to have the freedom to live how i want to...
heartserenade wrote: But sure, tell people to do what they love even if it means they'll literally die of starvation or not having a house for the night. Ugh.
I agree by the very nature of where you were born you can have many opportunities.
Jah was pointing out the level he was willing to live to keep his freedom to his "happy" level (everything has a cost).
The dire circumstances you outline are rather a stark contrast discussing hobby luxuries sold typically $50 odd dollars a box and seems rather out of place: is that you circumstance?
If so, what the heck are you doing talking about GW models??
A revolution is an idea which has found its bayonets.
Napoleon Bonaparte
heartserenade wrote: $40 is like triple the minimum wage of a worker here in the Philippines. The average person here don't get opportunities like that.
And you're telling me you're not privileged because you have the luxury of turning down something like that, while we don't get opportunities like that? Huh. Sorry if "doing what I love" for most of us here means "literally starving to death". But sure, tell people to do what they love even if it means they'll literally die of starvation or not having a house for the night.
Ugh.
While I can sympathize with you, minimum wage in Canada isn't a third of that either, nor in most of the USA. I don't think jah ever suggested that someone should do what they love AND STARVE. In most first-world countries, it's possible to do BOTH -- eat and be happy. And have shelter. His special skill is painting minis -- look at his gallery, and you'll see it's very good, and he's also won prestigious awards. But I'm sure that took a lot of dedication and work to develop that portfolio and those skills, to be able to make a living at it.
To suggest that he's being elitist for calling on other people to follow their dreams isn't fair. I mean I get it: there are parts of the world inhere that isn't possible is just stating reality, just as it's not safe in your own home in many parts of Africa or the Middle East. They wont be buying minis either...
I'm not saying he's elitist. I'm saying it's a privilege for some people. It's not an option to all, so I'm pointing out that saying things like "I just have to do what I love bro" to a person who can't do that is, at the very least, insensitive.
This is why i find statements like "Businesses are there to do something you like doing!" silly. Sure, it can be true but the point of having a business in the first place is making money, whether you love what you do or not. Just like the main purpose of eating is not dying, whether you enjoy the food or not. Even in first-world countries, not everyone can afford doing what they love.
The dire circumstances you outline are rather a stark contrast discussing hobby luxuries sold typically $50 odd dollars a box and seems rather out of place: is that you circumstance?
If so, what the heck are you doing talking about GW models??
And that is why I don't buy GW. It's too expensive.
Are you implying one can't enjoy painting and collecting miniatures or discussing them in forums if they're poor?
Don't make it about class warfare, when clearly this was not what jah was saying. He said he turned down work at $40 an hour to do what he loved -- implying he gave up more money which he could have had in order to spend his time doing something he enjoyed. Should he give that up, or not encourage others to do likewise, because someone somewhere can't eat?
Talzvar essentially said (or meant) the same thing as me, in different words: if your situation is so dire that food and shelter are in question, why would miniatures (from any company) be something you were talking about? I mean, at the end of the day, taking care of yourself and your family is way more important than a game. Anywhere in the world!
So yes, I will come out and say it: if you struggle to afford food and shelter, collecting miniatures is a terrible idea.
Of course you can discuss it, but I mean, it's totally academic.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/06/25 05:26:34
There is a strong case for do what you can tolerate for a while, if it gives you a significant funding base to fund what you love for the rest of your life. Probably a better trade off, but that's life philosophy and personal investment strategy versus plastic army men.
The latter, we know GW could use some financial advice lessons. Gonna be fun, maybe they'll hit right before the 4th. Strap a space marine to a reverse drop pod for celebration.
Where did I mention that miniatures should come first before food or shelter? Please don't put words in my mouth.
And even if you're in a dire circumstance, does that ban you from discussing miniatures?
Should he give that up, or not encourage others to do likewise, because someone somewhere can't eat?
No, because that's his choice. I would do the same if I have the same choice.
My problem lies with people harping "just do what you love". I would love to do that. A lot of people would love to do that. But for a lot of people, it's not a choice. And it comes off as a little insensitive, even if that is not the intention.
I guess this is super off topic now. If you want to discuss it with me via PM, feel free to do so. But I suggest we get back on topic so that this thread won't end up closed.
it's insensitive for me to say that i would rather be poor and happy, than work a job i don't like???
i'm not speaking for, to, or about anyone other than me when i say that you don't have to be "a privileged person who doesn't have problems with money" to chase your dreams...
i bust my butt to develop the skills to make a very meager living off of painting GW minis, and couldn't be happier...
it's not as if i made the choice because i am independently wealthy...
i choose to use the skill that can make me poor but happy, rather than the one that would make me comfortable and unhappy...
that might make me crazy, but it doesn't make me insensitive to the plight of the poor...
First, I am pretty sure GW doesn't want to implode and does want to be profitable. Second, we know that despite declining revenue, GW still is a strong and successful company.
How are you defining strong and successful? That they are still profit generating?
Now, we don't know what management actually wants, because whatever they say in an annual report may simply be what investors want to hear.
That'd be pretty worrying, since the reports seem to raise many eyebrows in financial circles, usually involving articles on how GW is a perfect example of how not to do things.
More realistic is that the puppet master (Chairman and ex-CEO) is about 2-3 years from retirement and owns 7.9% of the stock. He's got no interest in the longevity of the company and every interest in maximising profit before he retires, and seems to rule the company absolutely.
One is that GW knows better than us, and the key to maximizing profits is to focus on getting more money out of fewer people. In this scenario, they project that if they lowered prices and slowed the release cadence, they would make LESS money, than by maximizing what they can get our of the really eager crowd that can't get enough.
But their reports are showing that isn't working; they are currently making less money every financial report.
Another is that GW cares a lot about the type of hobbyist that are like-minded with them and are trying very hard to please them, at the expense of passing off the larger, but less dedicated community. I cite two examples to support this: superfans would happily buy annual codex releases and add to their army every year; more casual players want to get infrequent rules changes to get more mileage out of their investment. Also, the modelling heavy crowd gets all hot and bothered over incremental model improvements, and the casual gamer cares much less. GW's release cadence and product prerelease ('better' products at higher prices) support this theory.
If they are appeasing the superfans at the expense of the larger community, it's not working (see their reports). The thing is, without any perceptible research, they've no idea what the customers want. They make the games they think they want, based on what their staff do, which seems to be GM'd games that largely ignore the rules. There's a place for that though.
Thing is, there's all sorts they can do to satisfy both the superfans and the casual gamers, like clear rules and FAQ's.
First, I am pretty sure GW doesn't want to implode and does want to be profitable. Second, we know that despite declining revenue, GW still is a strong and successful company.
How are you defining strong and successful? That they are still profit generating?
I'm simply comparing them to other companies in the miniature wargaming industry. They probably make more money and have more cash than their competitors, and despite all the griping, they ARE selling a lot of stuff, in relative miniature/wargaming dollar terms. They are also debt free and have a lot of talent and own significant manufacturing capability.
Most hobby stores would really feel losing 40k sales, as they would Magic, and probably Privateer Press, but they wouldn't care if they lost, for instance, Mantic or Dreamforge.
GW is also strong in the sense that they are the masters of their own destiny (whatever that may be). A lot of companies can't say that.
Herzlos wrote: More realistic is that the puppet master (Chairman and ex-CEO) is about 2-3 years from retirement and owns 7.9% of the stock. He's got no interest in the longevity of the company and every interest in maximising profit before he retires, and seems to rule the company absolutely.
Who knows. What's he going to do with his 8%? If he wants to sell it, his best strategy is to maximize share prices. Does he divest it? I have no idea, as I don't follow it.
Generally speaking, an insider can't just dump 8% of the stock. Insiders need to announce any purchases or sales of shares, so the whole world will know ahead of time. If the Chairman decides to dump it all and announces it, by the time it comes around to his selling the shares, it will be worth a lot less. The smart money is on slowly divesting it, like Bill Gates has done with his Microsoft shares.
I genuinely don't think Kirby wants to raid the GW piggy bank for his own profit, and leave GW a ruined husk. It seems as plausible as Kirby tanking the GW stock so that he can scoop up more. I could be wrong, of course. I'm just sayin'.
Occam's Razor would peg the truth at the most obvious scenario, being that he probably just isn't the best steward of the company that there could be.
But their reports are showing that isn't working; they are currently making less money every financial report.
As I said, this is really hard to analyze. All we know is that they're making less profit than they have at their peak. Maybe with a different course of action, like low prices, low barriers to entry, and support for a low model count game, they would be really popular but make a lot less money.
Or, maybe they just want to focus on the so-called "GW Hobbyists" and superfans. I have no idea, but it does seem pretty certain that they don't care much for (or about) the people who are quite casual, want low model count games, and who are primarily interested in a game with gamepieces, rather than the folks who want to play a game using collectible miniatures. Of course, who knows what will happen with Sigmar - maybe I'll eat my words.
Herzlos wrote: If they are appeasing the superfans at the expense of the larger community, it's not working (see their reports). The thing is, without any perceptible research, they've no idea what the customers want. They make the games they think they want, based on what their staff do, which seems to be GM'd games that largely ignore the rules. There's a place for that though.
Maybe? Perhaps the have a better pulse of their superfans than we know, and perhaps they can extrapolate more data out of what they have than we can. For instance, some pricing looks pretty inconsistent and crazy to us; maybe it's an experiment on their end to see the price elasticity of their product. After all, there were a number of price increases, and then most of the prices stabilized and haven't changed much recently (for old kits, I mean).
On the topic of "market research", I have no idea what other companies in the wargaming industry spend on this. For instance, do we have any idea if Dreamforge or Darksword or FFG do any market research? A lot of small companies just "put one foot in front of the other", and despite GW being the biggest fish in the pond, it's still a relatively small company.
Thing is, there's all sorts they can do to satisfy both the superfans and the casual gamers, like clear rules and FAQ's.
I don't disagree with you at all that FAQs would be a good thing. I think the rules in 7e are relatively clear, though (at least, I'm happy with them).
I don't know if they can satisfy casual gamers without slowing down release cadence and reducing price. What I hear from casual gamers is that whoa, 2 year codex is crazy fast; what I hear from hardcore fans is that 1-2 year revised codex is ideal. You can't really reconcile that. Neither can you reconcile that meta shifts (for instance BOOM, new faction, adjust!) hurt casual players way, way more than the superfans.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/06/25 09:01:02
I'm curious as to what research people think GW could/should be doing?
They have 400 odd retail locations across the world feeding back sales data and one would assume more qualative information.
Each of which has a Facebook page which I understand allows comments.
They have 30years of experience that should inform them of what advertising does/doesn't work for them.
They already update production tech and materials regularly, so I'm sure they have that covered.
Customer surveys have been held recently.
The have both postal and electronic addresses and customer service personnel where you can contact then and ask/feedback whatever you want.
True they don't have a forum but why would you when there are already ample enough wargaming forums that do that role (which we know GW employees look at). With the added bonus of not exposing your employees to abuse, which can happen.
Based upon the above I would imagine they already have more information on the wargaming industry than any other entity that I can think of.
I can only think of a loyalty card system for more detailed data mining so to better use the info they already have.
I'm just not seeing how more research will improve sales given the data they already possess/have access to?
How do you promote your Hobby? - Legoburner "I run some crappy wargaming website "
Even well-known, established brands do research. Everyone does.
Except GW. Because it is otoise, for some reason.
Research would lead them to know why they're dropping in sales, or what their customers don't like about their product and why aren't they buying. Research would also point them to the direction of getting said customers back. This isn't even a mysterious subject: it's basically marketing 101. Do. Market. Research.
notprop wrote: I'm curious as to what research people think GW could/should be doing?
A couple of thoughts --
They could do McDonald's type testing to optimize price. Pick a region that matters not so much, and test the impact of price changes and product changes. Create a bundle, sell it there at a different price than the rest of the world, see what the response is, that kind of thing. I hope this is not Australia (shudder)
They could attend events in an official capacity and solicit input as to what the pain points of the game are, and to see how the game is played outside of GW stores, and see what the culture of their playerbase is.
I think an official forum would be good. The problem is that they get REALLY negative, really fast, and you can't really just wack-a-mole every negative comment. It's bad form, anyhow and pisses people off (as censorship). However, they could make an official forum (1) explicitly for game balance issues and (2) explicitly for game rulings. They could restrict posting to people who have at least made 1 web order, which would dramatically cut down on people creating accounts just to troll.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
heartserenade wrote: Even well-known, established brands do research. Everyone does.
Except GW. Because it is otoise, for some reason.
Research would lead them to know why they're dropping in sales, or what their customers don't like about their product and why aren't they buying. Research would also point them to the direction of getting said customers back. This isn't even a mysterious subject: it's basically marketing 101. Do. Market. Research.
I'm sorry, but this is not factually accurate. I have worked for companies up to 10 times the size of Games Workshop (in revenue) that think that market research -- beyond the scope of what their people tell them -- is a waste of time.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/06/25 10:15:26
notprop wrote: I'm curious as to what research people think GW could/should be doing?
They have 400 odd retail locations across the world feeding back sales data and one would assume more qualative information.
Each of which has a Facebook page which I understand allows comments.
They have 30years of experience that should inform them of what advertising does/doesn't work for them.
They already update production tech and materials regularly, so I'm sure they have that covered.
Customer surveys have been held recently.
The have both postal and electronic addresses and customer service personnel where you can contact then and ask/feedback whatever you want.
True they don't have a forum but why would you when there are already ample enough wargaming forums that do that role (which we know GW employees look at). With the added bonus of not exposing your employees to abuse, which can happen.
Based upon the above I would imagine they already have more information on the wargaming industry than any other entity that I can think of.
I can only think of a loyalty card system for more detailed data mining so to better use the info they already have.
I'm just not seeing how more research will improve sales given the data they already possess/have access to?
They don't do any of that though, even if they have the data to hand. How do we know that? GW say it themselves in their business model:
We do no demographic research, we have no focus groups, we do not ask the market what it wants. These things are otiose in a niche.
heartserenade wrote: Even well-known, established brands do research. Everyone does.
Except GW. Because it is otoise, for some reason.
Research would lead them to know why they're dropping in sales, or what their customers don't like about their product and why aren't they buying. Research would also point them to the direction of getting said customers back. This isn't even a mysterious subject: it's basically marketing 101. Do. Market. Research.
What leads you to think they don't know why sales are dropping?
The obvious one would be the Hobbit system is declining after the release of the films and it's reduced support as the licence finishes as we know happened with LotR's.
Managed reduction in turnover is a thing. Not something you trumpet in the press or in reports (the licenser wouldn't be too happy for a start!) but it does happen.
The timing of the revamped WFB makes this all the more likely to me.
How do you promote your Hobby? - Legoburner "I run some crappy wargaming website "
Most hobby stores would really feel losing 40k sales, as they would Magic, and probably Privateer Press, but they wouldn't care if they lost, for instance, Mantic or Dreamforge.
From what I gather, more stores are dropping GW than picking them up.
Who knows. What's he going to do with his 8%? If he wants to sell it, his best strategy is to maximize share prices. Does he divest it? I have no idea, as I don't follow it.
He's passed a motion for the last 2 years to allow GW to buy back stock that'd cover it, so I assume he's planning on selling it at face value internally when he leaves. But the dividend over that period will exceed the stock value, so again I assume he's aiming to maximize dividends rather than share price.
notprop wrote: I'm curious as to what research people think GW could/should be doing?
They have 400 odd retail locations across the world feeding back sales data and one would assume more qualative information.
Each of which has a Facebook page which I understand allows comments.
They have 30years of experience that should inform them of what advertising does/doesn't work for them.
They already update production tech and materials regularly, so I'm sure they have that covered.
Customer surveys have been held recently.
The have both postal and electronic addresses and customer service personnel where you can contact then and ask/feedback whatever you want.
True they don't have a forum but why would you when there are already ample enough wargaming forums that do that role (which we know GW employees look at). With the added bonus of not exposing your employees to abuse, which can happen.
Based upon the above I would imagine they already have more information on the wargaming industry than any other entity that I can think of.
I can only think of a loyalty card system for more detailed data mining so to better use the info they already have.
I'm just not seeing how more research will improve sales given the data they already possess/have access to?
It is a bit hit and miss. For instance, when GW created the new web store, they failed to port over the existing customer accounts. That threw away several years of useful marketing information, not a clever move as they were trying to beef up direct sales via internet mail order.
Talys wrote: On the topic of "market research", I have no idea what other companies in the wargaming industry spend on this. For instance, do we have any idea if Dreamforge or Darksword or FFG do any market research? A lot of small companies just "put one foot in front of the other", and despite GW being the biggest fish in the pond, it's still a relatively small company.
Many companies have key figures that are active in the community. Cavatore attends Bolt Action tournaments, for instance. Priestly will happily talk to folk at conventions.
Many other companies run open betas (Privateer Press, Corvus Belli), many others have outriders of some description.
Most seem pretty responsive to feedback and seem genuinely passionate about the hobby.
notprop wrote: I'm curious as to what research people think GW could/should be doing?
They have 400 odd retail locations across the world feeding back sales data and one would assume more qualative information.
Each of which has a Facebook page which I understand allows comments.
They have 30years of experience that should inform them of what advertising does/doesn't work for them.
They already update production tech and materials regularly, so I'm sure they have that covered.
Customer surveys have been held recently.
The have both postal and electronic addresses and customer service personnel where you can contact then and ask/feedback whatever you want.
True they don't have a forum but why would you when there are already ample enough wargaming forums that do that role (which we know GW employees look at). With the added bonus of not exposing your employees to abuse, which can happen.
Based upon the above I would imagine they already have more information on the wargaming industry than any other entity that I can think of.
I can only think of a loyalty card system for more detailed data mining so to better use the info they already have.
I'm just not seeing how more research will improve sales given the data they already possess/have access to?
They don't do any of that though, even if they have the data to hand. How do we know that? GW say it themselves in their business model:
Sales data clearly exists as it is needed to inform the Reports they publish and is a basic tool for management accounting.
We do no demographic research, we have no focus groups, we do not ask the market what it wants. These things are otiose in a niche.
Don't get me wrong Tom Kirby is a great one for grandiose self serving statements but taken in context I think we can see that he means 3rd part testing and testing within the greater toy market. I don't imagine for a second that the accountants and managers they already employ who are not using the information they generate from their own operations. How else would they know that Space Marines sell better than Hobbits?
How do you promote your Hobby? - Legoburner "I run some crappy wargaming website "
Most hobby stores would really feel losing 40k sales, as they would Magic, and probably Privateer Press, but they wouldn't care if they lost, for instance, Mantic or Dreamforge.
From what I gather, more stores are dropping GW than picking them up.
That's actually been one of the bigger things to come from the current surge of other games, coupled with GW's slow dwindling. 10 years ago, trying to keep a games store running without GW was practically unthinkable. Now, we hear store owners saying they've either ditched GW completely or have had GW sales drop to the point where they're considering it, with the shortfall being picked up by other games.
He's passed a motion for the last 2 years to allow GW to buy back stock that'd cover it, so I assume he's planning on selling it at face value internally when he leaves. But the dividend over that period will exceed the stock value, so again I assume he's aiming to maximize dividends rather than share price.
I'm not sure what the rules for the exchange GW trades on are, but that would be illegal in the US/Canada. An insider can't have the company buy their own shares, because it's not an arms-length transaction and the possibilities for abuse are awful.
On the other hand, if GW stock is low (I think it is) and GW has cash it can't do anything useful with, stock buybacks are a wonderful thing for shareholders, as it means less dilution (and therefore an increased value of each remaining share).
Most hobby stores would really feel losing 40k sales, as they would Magic, and probably Privateer Press, but they wouldn't care if they lost, for instance, Mantic or Dreamforge.
From what I gather, more stores are dropping GW than picking them up.
That's actually been one of the bigger things to come from the current surge of other games, coupled with GW's slow dwindling. 10 years ago, trying to keep a games store running without GW was practically unthinkable. Now, we hear store owners saying they've either ditched GW completely or have had GW sales drop to the point where they're considering it, with the shortfall being picked up by other games.
It's a whole new world out there.
Yeah, depends on the store I guess. There are some stores that don't do GW here, but mostly they just do CCGs -- any wargaming stuff they carry is just a pretense, without enough inventory to get anyone to buy anything. Interesting times, though! I'm sure we'll see more in the years to come.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/06/25 10:36:39
I'm sorry, but this is not factually accurate. I have worked for companies up to 10 times the size of Games Workshop (in revenue) that think that market research -- beyond the scope of what their people tell them -- is a waste of time.
In my experience though as a graphic designer for advertising every client we've had has done market research. You may be right not everyone does it, but if you're sales are declining I think it's a good idea for you to do it. And maybe the companies you've worked with are not the kind of companies who deal with their customers in a direct manner? I have no idea idea about your previous work experiene so I'm spitballing here.
It's always a good idea to know your customer better so you know what they want and how to serve them. Happy customers = more money, usually.
