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.

 keezus wrote:
@Enignwolf: I think the problem is that their stated target of the "enthusiast" and "premium" market is not borne out by their actions. Ignoring price entirely:

...

I don't disagree with any of this. I too do believe that there's a certain disconnect between some of their business actions (or lack thereof), and their stated goals/target market. However, I'm in no real position to assume that I would be able to do any better either, since I'm not the one in that role right now and I don't see the big picture that they do.

 Enigwolf wrote:

 keezus wrote:
@Enignwolf: I think the problem is that their stated target of the "enthusiast" and "premium" market is not borne out by their actions. Ignoring price entirely:

...

I don't disagree with any of this. I too do believe that there's a certain disconnect between some of their business actions (or lack thereof), and their stated goals/target market. However, I'm in no real position to assume that I would be able to do any better either, since I'm not the one in that role right now and I don't see the big picture that they do.

Something that's handy to consider is two-level bargaining, mostly because it models business interactions really well. Essentially the notion is that whenever you're looking at a decision between two parties, you also have to consider all the other decisions those two parties are involved in with any third parties, making what seems like stupid decisions taken in isolation to either be rational decisions in the context of all those other decisions, or simply the result of being overwhelmed by the complexity of how those decisions interact. It's hard to tell which is which. Much like it's hard to see the tactics in Warhammer because there's so much decoration around what's a fairly complex problem set. Which is a long-winded way of saying: Yeah, right on.

Nomeny wrote:

 Enigwolf wrote:

 keezus wrote:
@Enignwolf: I think the problem is that their stated target of the "enthusiast" and "premium" market is not borne out by their actions. Ignoring price entirely:

...

I don't disagree with any of this. I too do believe that there's a certain disconnect between some of their business actions (or lack thereof), and their stated goals/target market. However, I'm in no real position to assume that I would be able to do any better either, since I'm not the one in that role right now and I don't see the big picture that they do.

Something that's handy to consider is two-level bargaining, mostly because it models business interactions really well. Essentially the notion is that whenever you're looking at a decision between two parties, you also have to consider all the other decisions those two parties are involved in with any third parties, making what seems like stupid decisions taken in isolation to either be rational decisions in the context of all those other decisions, or simply the result of being overwhelmed by the complexity of how those decisions interact. It's hard to tell which is which. Much like it's hard to see the tactics in Warhammer because there's so much decoration around what's a fairly complex problem set. Which is a long-winded way of saying: Yeah, right on.

Exalted for being spot on. Talys has pointed out recently in this thread that it very well may be that GW's current course of action is actually earning them more profits than any other alternative courses of action, and we simply don't see that. If some keyboard warrior on Dakka thinks they can run GW better than its being run right now, I welcome them to try.

 Enigwolf wrote:


Exalted for being spot on. Talys has pointed out recently in this thread that it very well may be that GW's current course of action is actually earning them more profits than any other alternative courses of action, and we simply don't see that. If some keyboard warrior on Dakka thinks they can run GW better than its being run right now, I welcome them to try.

Regardless of what any "keyboard warrior" thinks, GW has boasted in plain black and white that they do no market research. They do not know if any other course of action with earn more profit.

 Daedleh wrote:

 Enigwolf wrote:


Exalted for being spot on. Talys has pointed out recently in this thread that it very well may be that GW's current course of action is actually earning them more profits than any other alternative courses of action, and we simply don't see that. If some keyboard warrior on Dakka thinks they can run GW better than its being run right now, I welcome them to try.

Regardless of what any "keyboard warrior" thinks, GW has boasted in plain black and white that they do no market research. They do not know if any other course of action with earn more profit.

I wouldn't say "boasted" is the right word. They have stated that they do not market research, because the perceived industry they are targeting is a niche one, and the properties of a niche market typically lends itself to not needing much in the way of year-over-year market research, unlike mainstream and commodity markets. This also does not mean that they have never conducted any market research in the past, because they have. Is the information that they gleaned from a decade ago still worthwhile today? Unless you work at GW, no one knows.

Perhaps tabletop games, like computer games, have changed from being a niche to a mass market industry in the past 20 years.

 Enigwolf wrote:

 Daedleh wrote:

 Enigwolf wrote:


Exalted for being spot on. Talys has pointed out recently in this thread that it very well may be that GW's current course of action is actually earning them more profits than any other alternative courses of action, and we simply don't see that. If some keyboard warrior on Dakka thinks they can run GW better than its being run right now, I welcome them to try.

Regardless of what any "keyboard warrior" thinks, GW has boasted in plain black and white that they do no market research. They do not know if any other course of action with earn more profit.

I wouldn't say "boasted" is the right word. They have stated that they do not market research, because the perceived industry they are targeting is a niche one, and the properties of a niche market typically lends itself to not needing much in the way of year-over-year market research, unlike mainstream and commodity markets. This also does not mean that they have never conducted any market research in the past, because they have. Is the information that they gleaned from a decade ago still worthwhile today? Unless you work at GW, no one knows.

The information from a decade ago when GW had a monopoly on wargaming? Versus now where several game systems have taken over the 2nd-5th highest selling spots? Since GW has dropped all product lines except for the main three and several competitors have stepped into that niche-niche? Since Kickstarter has sprung up, allowing small start ups to gather large amounts of capital for investment in their initial product offering?

You're right. That market research would be totally relevant in todays market.

 Daedleh wrote:

 Enigwolf wrote:

 Daedleh wrote:

 Enigwolf wrote:


Exalted for being spot on. Talys has pointed out recently in this thread that it very well may be that GW's current course of action is actually earning them more profits than any other alternative courses of action, and we simply don't see that. If some keyboard warrior on Dakka thinks they can run GW better than its being run right now, I welcome them to try.

Regardless of what any "keyboard warrior" thinks, GW has boasted in plain black and white that they do no market research. They do not know if any other course of action with earn more profit.

I wouldn't say "boasted" is the right word. They have stated that they do not market research, because the perceived industry they are targeting is a niche one, and the properties of a niche market typically lends itself to not needing much in the way of year-over-year market research, unlike mainstream and commodity markets. This also does not mean that they have never conducted any market research in the past, because they have. Is the information that they gleaned from a decade ago still worthwhile today? Unless you work at GW, no one knows.

The information from a decade ago when GW had a monopoly on wargaming? Versus now where several game systems have taken over the 2nd-5th highest selling spots? Since GW has dropped all product lines except for the main three and several competitors have stepped into that niche-niche? Since Kickstarter has sprung up, allowing small start ups to gather large amounts of capital for investment in their initial product offering?

You're right. That market research would be totally relevant in todays market.

You're putting words in my mouth (fingers? keyboard?) - I never said that that was what I believed, merely what was possible from their perspective. All I said definitively was that "we don't know" because we don't work at GW.

 Enigwolf wrote:

 Daedleh wrote:

 Enigwolf wrote:


Exalted for being spot on. Talys has pointed out recently in this thread that it very well may be that GW's current course of action is actually earning them more profits than any other alternative courses of action, and we simply don't see that. If some keyboard warrior on Dakka thinks they can run GW better than its being run right now, I welcome them to try.

Regardless of what any "keyboard warrior" thinks, GW has boasted in plain black and white that they do no market research. They do not know if any other course of action with earn more profit.

I wouldn't say "boasted" is the right word. They have stated that they do not market research, because the perceived industry they are targeting is a niche one, and the properties of a niche market typically lends itself to not needing much in the way of year-over-year market research, unlike mainstream and commodity markets. This also does not mean that they have never conducted any market research in the past, because they have. Is the information that they gleaned from a decade ago still worthwhile today? Unless you work at GW, no one knows.

"We do no demographic research, we have no focus groups, we do not ask the market what it wants."

That doesn't sound like boasting to you? Tom Kirby flat-out stated that finding out who their customers are and what they want is pointless.

Also, I find the idea that decade-old market research could even possibly be valid to be ridiculous. Ten years ago, GW games were still the only real choices for games, if you wanted to play outside of your own house. And even if old data still has some value, wouldn't current data be that much more valuable? The whole "we aren't GW so we can't know anything for sure" line is really getting old. There is plenty of information available and plenty of posters with financial experience to make some educated guesses.

 Guildsman wrote:

 Enigwolf wrote:

 Daedleh wrote:

 Enigwolf wrote:


Exalted for being spot on. Talys has pointed out recently in this thread that it very well may be that GW's current course of action is actually earning them more profits than any other alternative courses of action, and we simply don't see that. If some keyboard warrior on Dakka thinks they can run GW better than its being run right now, I welcome them to try.

Regardless of what any "keyboard warrior" thinks, GW has boasted in plain black and white that they do no market research. They do not know if any other course of action with earn more profit.

I wouldn't say "boasted" is the right word. They have stated that they do not market research, because the perceived industry they are targeting is a niche one, and the properties of a niche market typically lends itself to not needing much in the way of year-over-year market research, unlike mainstream and commodity markets. This also does not mean that they have never conducted any market research in the past, because they have. Is the information that they gleaned from a decade ago still worthwhile today? Unless you work at GW, no one knows.

"We do no demographic research, we have no focus groups, we do not ask the market what it wants."

That doesn't sound like boasting to you? Tom Kirby flat-out stated that finding out who their customers are and what they want is pointless.

Also, I find the idea that decade-old market research could even possibly be valid to be ridiculous. Ten years ago, GW games were still the only real choices for games, if you wanted to play outside of your own house. And even if old data still has some value, wouldn't current data be that much more valuable? The whole "we aren't GW so we can't know anything for sure" line is really getting old. There is plenty of information available and plenty of posters with financial experience to make some educated guesses.

Validity of old market research not withstanding, Kirby stated that they, as a company, feel they KNOW exactly what their target audience is. Arrogant or not, they, as a company, feel they do know exactly who their customers are and what they want (and in all honesty, I'm not entirely sure they are off base), and so it doesn't make sense to spend gobs of money on that sort of research. Can you honestly say that the miniature and table top game market has expanded or dramatically changed in the last 20 years? Just because there are more options for customers to choose from doesn't mean the target audience has really changed or grown significantly. GW knows there is competition, they don't need market research for that. However, because of GW's flawed view of itself as a "miniatures company", their way of addressing the competition is to increase the quality of their models (which its fair to say they have for the most part) instead of improving their rules writing (which is something many of us would like).

GW does half of its business (or maybe even more, I don't know) direct with the customer, so they have the raw sales data they need to determine what their customers want. Its why WHFB is getting replaced. Its why Space Marines have their model ranged updated regularly while others are still using 2nd edition models. Its why the Specialty Games was shuttered. We may not like it as fans of some of those games, but from purely business perspective, these are all good decisions. Market research is nice and certainly has its uses, but ultimately, sales are what drive GW to make the decisions it makes, good or bad.

For such a niche market, I'm not sure it would even be beneficial for GW to invest heavily in market research. For a publicly traded company that markets to a niche audience, every dollar spent has to have some kind of return to the bottom line. To get an idea of how useless, or even dangerous, market research can potentially be, look no further than the restaurant industry. McDonald's asked their customers what they wanted, and got a bunch of BS from the millenials about wanting fresh, all-natural ingredients, premiums options, more variety, etc. So McDonald's dramatically expanded its menu to include those things their customers claimed they wanted. Guess what, sales of those items were terrible, and has resulted in the closure of 100s of stores, all the while, the same old Big Mac and Quarter Pounder they've always had continue to keep their impressive sales numbers. Pizza Hut did the same thing, tried to go all artisan with their pizzas, and again, failed miserably. All because they listened too closely to market research and forgot their true audience (which largely has remained the same for decades). While a mistake like that is just a setback for a company as large as McDonalds or Yum!(owners of Pizza Hut), it would be catastrophic for a company the size of GW.

 ClassicCarraway wrote:

Validity of old market research not withstanding, Kirby stated that they, as a company, feel they KNOW exactly what their target audience is. Arrogant or not, they, as a company, feel they do know exactly who their customers are and what they want (and in all honesty, I'm not entirely sure they are off base), and so it doesn't make sense to spend gobs of money on that sort of research. Can you honestly say that the miniature and table top game market has expanded or dramatically changed in the last 20 years? Just because there are more options for customers to choose from doesn't mean the target audience has really changed or grown significantly. GW knows there is competition, they don't need market research for that. However, because of GW's flawed view of itself as a "miniatures company", their way of addressing the competition is to increase the quality of their models (which its fair to say they have for the most part) instead of improving their rules writing (which is something many of us would like).

GW does half of its business (or maybe even more, I don't know) direct with the customer, so they have the raw sales data they need to determine what their customers want. Its why WHFB is getting replaced. Its why Space Marines have their model ranged updated regularly while others are still using 2nd edition models. Its why the Specialty Games was shuttered. We may not like it as fans of some of those games, but from purely business perspective, these are all good decisions. Market research is nice and certainly has its uses, but ultimately, sales are what drive GW to make the decisions it makes, good or bad.

For such a niche market, I'm not sure it would even be beneficial for GW to invest heavily in market research. For a publicly traded company that markets to a niche audience, every dollar spent has to have some kind of return to the bottom line. To get an idea of how useless, or even dangerous, market research can potentially be, look no further than the restaurant industry. McDonald's asked their customers what they wanted, and got a bunch of BS from the millenials about wanting fresh, all-natural ingredients, premiums options, more variety, etc. So McDonald's dramatically expanded its menu to include those things their customers claimed they wanted. Guess what, sales of those items were terrible, and has resulted in the closure of 100s of stores, all the while, the same old Big Mac and Quarter Pounder they've always had continue to keep their impressive sales numbers. Pizza Hut did the same thing, tried to go all artisan with their pizzas, and again, failed miserably. All because they listened too closely to market research and forgot their true audience (which largely has remained the same for decades). While a mistake like that is just a setback for a company as large as McDonalds or Yum!(owners of Pizza Hut), it would be catastrophic for a company the size of GW.

I think there's certainly room for market research in wargaming. The games that people play and the way they spend their money have changed. Most of GW's competitors produce skirmish-sized games in 28mm, or other scales entirely. Is that a meaningful trend? Maybe, maybe not. Sales data is great for telling you what is being purchased, but not why. If I buy a set of Citadel Woods and a Garden of Morr (sp?) graveyard set, all they know is that I bought it, not that I'm intending to use it with Malifaux.

I guess we'd have to define what "heavily invested" means. GW certainly doesn't need the dedicated teams that McDonald's and Pizza Hut do, but they could use social media. Other companies use their forums and Facebook/Twitter/whatever to engage with fans and get their opinions. Sure, not everything is useful, but a good marketing team knows how to sift through the crap and find the useful info. GW used to have those avenues for customer outreach, but they decided to close them. Get two or three staff members to manage the accounts, and you'd have plenty to go through. A change in tack could be disastrous, or it could be miraculous. For every Pizza Hut failure, there's a Domino's that saved the brand.

Sure, this is all conjecture on my part. I don't have the sales data, or the market research to make serious proclamations. I don't know if their customer demographics have changed, or if modern customers prefer skirmish games, or if price reductions would actually have a positive effect on the bottom line. My point is, as long as GW refuses to interact with their customer base, neither do they.

 ClassicCarraway wrote:
Can you honestly say that the miniature and table top game market has expanded or dramatically changed in the last 20 years?

Categorically and without reservation.

Just because there are more options for customers to choose from doesn't mean the target audience has really changed or grown significantly.

It very much has, much like video games, there is now a generation of customers who have grown up with Warhammer, customers old enough to now have children of their own. Tabletop gaming is now more popular than ever, and even if one argued that a good percentage of that market wouldn't be interested in a full blooded wargame, there's undoubtedly untapped potential there. Well, that which hasn't already been tapped by the likes of FFG.

GW knows there is competition, they don't need market research for that. However, because of GW's flawed view of itself as a "miniatures company", their way of addressing the competition is to increase the quality of their models (which its fair to say they have for the most part) instead of improving their rules writing (which is something many of us would like).

They know there's competition, what they need the research for is to discover why an apparently increasing number of people are buying their products, in many cases instead of GW it would seem.

GW does half of its business (or maybe even more, I don't know) direct with the customer, so they have the raw sales data they need to determine what their customers want. Its why WHFB is getting replaced. Its why Space Marines have their model ranged updated regularly while others are still using 2nd edition models. Its why the Specialty Games was shuttered. We may not like it as fans of some of those games, but from purely business perspective, these are all good decisions. Market research is nice and certainly has its uses, but ultimately, sales are what drive GW to make the decisions it makes, good or bad.

But sales only tell you what, not why. The reality SG got cut is probably nothing to do with lack of interest but lack of promotion. If your goal is to keep your customers totally within your ecosystem, and within your ecosystem is a game of fleet based, capital ship combat, but you don't sell the game in your store, don't talk about it, promote it or support it, and make it exclusively available in a tucked away corner of your website, what do you think the likely fate of that game is?

To continue the BFG example, have you seen the number of similar products being launched to fill that gap? I can think of 4 without trying.

For such a niche market, I'm not sure it would even be beneficial for GW to invest heavily in market research.

They don't need to invest heavily, just check this thread for a variety of low cost options they could employ.

For a publicly traded company that markets to a niche audience, every dollar spent has to have some kind of return to the bottom line.

Like £4m on a website that returns 2% growth on your smallest channel by percentage of revenue?

To get an idea of how useless, or even dangerous, market research can potentially be, look no further than the restaurant industry. McDonald's asked their customers what they wanted, and got a bunch of BS from the millenials about wanting fresh, all-natural ingredients, premiums options, more variety, etc. So McDonald's dramatically expanded its menu to include those things their customers claimed they wanted. Guess what, sales of those items were terrible, and has resulted in the closure of 100s of stores, all the while, the same old Big Mac and Quarter Pounder they've always had continue to keep their impressive sales numbers. Pizza Hut did the same thing, tried to go all artisan with their pizzas, and again, failed miserably. All because they listened too closely to market research and forgot their true audience (which largely has remained the same for decades). While a mistake like that is just a setback for a company as large as McDonalds or Yum!(owners of Pizza Hut), it would be catastrophic for a company the size of GW.

The information you get from market research is a tool to inform your decisions, if you blindly follow everything it tells you without accounting for other factors, then frankly you deserve everything you get. But the difference between doing it and not doing it is like aiming at your target rather than throwing some bullets down range blindfolded, neither is a guarantee of a bullseye, but one does your chances an awful lot more good than the other.

 Enigwolf wrote:

 Daedleh wrote:

You're right. That market research would be totally relevant in todays market.

You're putting words in my mouth (fingers? keyboard?) - I never said that that was what I believed, merely what was possible from their perspective. All I said definitively was that "we don't know" because we don't work at GW.

People are drawing a line between, "we don't spend money on focus groups and market research" to, "we don't know or care about our customers, what they want, and our competitive landscape."

Ask someone who owns a vineyard, who makes toilets, manufactures roofing shingles, or grows cedar hedges. They all have a really good feel for their market, yet I'm sure none of them spend money on focus groups or formal market research. It doesn't mean they don't crack open a casket and ask people what they think. It doesn't mean they don't ask a seasoned roofer how he shingles looks and how it will hold up, or how much more people will pay for a hardier product.

If a vineyard decides to exclusively make fine wines or exceptionally sweet wines instead of a product with a broader appeal, that's a conscious decision. Maybe not the most profitable, but it's a decision as to what they want to do. They didn't do it because they're stupid and don't know what the biggest chunk of people want. Maybe, they think that one niche is underserved, or maybe the owner just likes making really sweet wines.

There are folks who seem to think that GW is clueless and don't understand that if they raise prices, or if they increase release cadence, that this will piss some people off. Quite to the contrary, I am certain that GW doesn't need to perform any market research on this subject, and they understand it just fine. I think they have a better pulse on their ideal customer than most people give them credit for; it's just that a lot of people don't fall into this demographic, and GW doesn't go out of its way to accommodate them.

What makes you believe they understand the market fine? What makes you believe they don't need to perform market research?

 Blacksails wrote:
What makes you believe they understand the market fine? What makes you believe they don't need to perform market research?

Well, they have hundreds of stores, and they have hundreds of employees. A lot of those people are hired to understand the market, and they do sell a lot of product. They have a large structure which invites the sort of customer that they want to come and spend time and I'm sure they talk with these customers.

How much money did Dreamforge or Mantic or CB or Anvil spend on market research? Or Advertising?

I'm not saying that funding market research would be a bad thing; just that they probably know more about the miniature wargaming industry than any of us.

You're equating their current position with the potential for future success. Much of their financial reports in recent time has indicated they're shrinking. Hence why I'm questioning why you believe they understand the market. If they're losing market share, it stands to reason they don't fully grasp the market.

 Blacksails wrote:
You're equating their current position with the potential for future success. Much of their financial reports in recent time has indicated they're shrinking. Hence why I'm questioning why you believe they understand the market. If they're losing market share, it stands to reason they don't fully grasp the market.

But it doesn't mean that at all.

At one point, they were a virtual monopoly. With ANY entrants into the market, they must necessarily lose market share. I mean, that's the definition of an industry that matures from a monopoly to any other type of competitive landscape. As I have previously stated, for all you know, PP profits are stagnant, too, despite industry growth. It's possible that there are more manufacturers, a lot of them making a little bit of money, and all nibbling away at a bigger pie. Also, miniature wargaming has not grown at the same rate as "the hobby" in general, particularly when including CCGs.

It is not only possible but likely that that they project that their profit maximization occurs by selling as much stuff as possible to superfans, rather than by having as many average fans as possible. Perhaps they have internal data to support this; we don't know

You'd think that the near monopolistic position GW held with their massive (comparatively) financial backing, they'd be able to out maneuver any incoming company by understanding and producing what the market wants, no? Either way, regardless of whether GW actually knows what the market wants, they're doing a pretty poor job reacting to it, which as has been pointed out, is a rather poor way to run a business, especially given their operating costs. They simply can't afford to become a garage operation making only what the designers want.

As for your last point, the reports we've seen so far indicates their plan isn't working, which, again, leaves you scratching your head.

The next report will shed more light one way or another, and for all we know, they magically turned everything around and saw an increase in revenue and profit.

No, they can't comport themselves like a couple of artists working out of a garage, because they have a lot of mouths to feed, and at least some investors that care.

At the same time, it's not incumbent upon them to ONLY do what the market demands, either. There are many companies that purposely make products only for a niche of a niche; and there are many companies that have calculated that their profit maximization occurs at serving their best customers best, even if it means losing some others.

Frankly, I don't think GW has ever been about stomping out the competition -- except in the sense that they don't want any competition specifically in the Warhammer space (bits manufacturers, etc). This is actually not a bad thing. And anyways, people hate big companies that do that, whether it's through buying out the competition or snuffing them out through predatory pricing or through bundling and vendor strongarming.

For example, Games Workshop, in some jurisdictions, could have legally said, "We'll give you a 20% discount on everything if you don't sell Privateer Press", followed by, "If you sell Privateer Press, we won't sell you Warhammer.". Intel has done this very successfully. At one point, it would have mattered. But they didn't.

GW aren't about stomping out the competition?

Games "Cease and Desist" Workshop aren't about stomping out the competition?

Just for clarity, you're talking about Games "we own 'halberd' and we'll sue any fether who dares to make money off something that requires a purchase from us first" Workshop?

That's Games "they're not competition, but they're using a term we can't prove we own? feth it, sue them anyway!" Workshop?

 Azreal13 wrote:
GW aren't about stomping out the competition?

Games "Cease and Desist" Workshop aren't about stomping out the competition?

Just for clarity, you're talking about Games "we own 'halberd' and we'll sue any fether who dares to make money off something that requires a purchase from us first" Workshop?

That's Games "they're not competition, but they're using a term we can't prove we own? feth it, sue them anyway!" Workshop?

Please reread what I wrote. I said, GW cares about people profiting off of Warhammer/40k IP, but not people who are competitors in the wargaming and miniatures space or in fantasy settings. Make a compatible part for a space marine (and advertise it as such) and they'll go after you. Make your Star Warrior miniature, and they could care less. Make an add-on for 40k, and they'll die trying to put you out of business, but write another scifi tabletop game, and they won't even acknowledge that you exist. Make a gun that happens to fit one of their 28mm miniatures, they don't care. Make a unique weapon that will fit a turret for a Rhino, but don't state it as such, and good on ya. But Make it look like an iconic 40k weapon, or say it's a las/plas turret for a Razorback and they'll care a lot.

They are par for the course for IP protectiveness, but they are not at all anticompetitive, from an antitrust perspective. They don't seek to kill off competitors, and they have never leveraged a monopoly position to win in another market. Really, they don't even care about the other markets.

Spots the Space Marine didn't put a toe into the Warhammer IP.

GW are just a dog chasing cars WRT their IP, trying to assert otherwise is going to put a heavy burden of proof on you.

 Talys wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
What makes you believe they understand the market fine? What makes you believe they don't need to perform market research?

Well, they have hundreds of stores, and they have hundreds of employees. A lot of those people are hired to understand the market, and they do sell a lot of product. They have a large structure which invites the sort of customer that they want to come and spend time and I'm sure they talk with these customers.

How much money did Dreamforge or Mantic or CB or Anvil spend on market research? Or Advertising?

I'm not saying that funding market research would be a bad thing; just that they probably know more about the miniature wargaming industry than any of us.

And those hundreds of stores are losing money. Not decreasing profits, like GW overall, but actually losing money.

Let's not devolve into the same old trenches of everything is either horrible or awesome. GW are not going out of business within the next few years, but simultaneously they clearly have no idea what they're doing. Almost halving in real size over the last decade, with enormous revenue decreases over the last two, is not something that happens to companies that are doing all the right things. Let's be real here.

And this whole "they're the big company, so they must know more than us, because they're the big company"-spiel is getting old. It's a business. Growth and profit is good. Decline is bad. Maybe they have all this elusive knowledge, that us peasants surely don't, but they do not have, or show, the necessary skills to successfully utilize it.

 Azreal13 wrote:
Spots the Space Marine didn't put a toe into the Warhammer IP.

GW are just a dog chasing cars WRT their IP, trying to assert otherwise is going to put a heavy burden of proof on you.

Yes, this was an overstretch of their IP. However, they're just not a big enough company to have won that one. Had they been Universal Pictures, the outcome would have been different.

For instance, Sky networks won against Microsoft, for the use of "SkyDrive", because the word "Sky" is a their trademark. SkyDrive had absolutely nothing to do with the television network, and nobody in their right mind connected the two to each other.

Ok, so they DON'T just go after "competition specifically in the Warhammer space?"

Huh.

Could've sworn you said different.

how many C&D's have they actually sent out???
i know of the Bloodbowl website...
i'm sure there have been a handful that i don't exactly recall the names of...
do we have a list???

how many companies have actually been taken to court???
i know of Chapterhouse...
a company that was selling a female Striking Scorpions Exarch model...
i know that they requested Amazon take down Spots, but i don't believe anyone was sued there...

this is not a defence, just a fact finding question...
i do think GW Legal have been very heavy-handed, and lost a lot of community goodwill, as well as customers...

what doesn't seem to be mentioned here, is that competition in the market is a good thing...
the fact that people have more options is great...
the fact that people are able to take their experience in the design studio, and start their own successful companies is wonderful...
the GW monopoloy is dead, and that can only be to the good...

we are here talking about a company that has what, £12 million in profits, after all expenses are paid???
do i have that right???
again, just asking to know, myself...

it seems like the answer to the OP's topic is simple...
that people are still buying GW product is what keeps GW financially alive, and the fact that they make a profit at the end of the year is why they do not tank...
will they in the future???
not a single one of us knows the answer to that...

until the day they die, i will be buying the stuff they make that seems cool to me, and not buying the stuff i don't like...
until the day i die, i will still be struggling to make it through painting the pile of minis i already own...

cheers
jah

We can't know about the cease and desists unless people speak about them publicly, and I'd imagine there's a non disclosure clause in most.

But, websites aside, there's stuff that went from Paulson's site (his not-Grotesques) which perhaps he can confirm about if he's lurking.

Then there was the Blighted Wheel event only model they got excited about because the sculpture resembled some of their drawn/painted work.

Many cite the heavy handed moderation on Warseer down to their getting hit with one back in the day.

I personally have had leaked images deleted from my Photobucket account back when the Knights were on their way.

Only Chapterhouse have made it to court because they secured pro bono representation, and the outcome of that suggests that many others who were served C+Ds may have won if they'd had the resources to stand their ground.

Legally, GW are a typical bully, big, ignorant and aggressive.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
That's just off the top of my head, I'm sure Google would throw up more.

 jah-joshua wrote:
how many C&D's have they actually sent out???
i know of the Bloodbowl website...
i'm sure there have been a handful that i don't exactly recall the names of...
do we have a list???

how many companies have actually been taken to court???
i know of Chapterhouse...
a company that was selling a female Striking Scorpions Exarch model...
i know that they requested Amazon take down Spots, but i don't believe anyone was sued there...

this is not a defence, just a fact finding question...
i do think GW Legal have been very heavy-handed, and lost a lot of community goodwill, as well as customers...

what doesn't seem to be mentioned here, is that competition in the market is a good thing...
the fact that people have more options is great...
the fact that people are able to take their experience in the design studio, and start their own successful companies is wonderful...
the GW monopoloy is dead, and that can only be to the good...

we are here talking about a company that has what, £12 million in profits, after all expenses are paid???
do i have that right???
again, just asking to know, myself...

it seems like the answer to the OP's topic is simple...
that people are still buying GW product is what keeps GW financially alive, and the fact that they make a profit at the end of the year is why they do not tank...
will they in the future???
not a single one of us knows the answer to that...

until the day they die, i will be buying the stuff they make that seems cool to me, and not buying the stuff i don't like...
until the day i die, i will still be struggling to make it through painting the pile of minis i already own...

cheers
jah

One question mark is enough. Really, it is.

 Azreal13 wrote:
We can't know about the cease and desists unless people speak about them publicly, and I'd imagine there's a non disclosure clause in most.

But, websites aside, there's stuff that went from Paulson's site (his not-Grotesques) which perhaps he can confirm about if he's lurking.

Then there was the Blighted Wheel event only model they got excited about because the sculpture resembled some of their drawn/painted work.

Many cite the heavy handed moderation on Warseer down to their getting hit with one back in the day.

I personally have had leaked images deleted from my Photobucket account back when the Knights were on their way.

Only Chapterhouse have made it to court because they secured pro bono representation, and the outcome of that suggests that many others who were served C+Ds may have won if they'd had the resources to stand their ground.

Legally, GW are a typical bully, big, ignorant and aggressive.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
That's just off the top of my head, I'm sure Google would throw up more.

Then there is BOLScon who were told by GW to change their convention name and threatened at least with withdrawing their prize support (not sure if there was a C&D there) because the ACRONYM was a term in their universe that GW had NOT even trademarked yet felt that they owned regardless. Ironically, the year they changed the name the website of the same name trademarked the term "bell of lost souls" later that same year.

thanks Az and Warboss...
nice refresher...

it would be interesting to get the inide scoop fom Paulson about how things went down...

i can't really blame GW legal for jumping on the Blight Wheel Loxatl, as it was pretty much a perfect version of the artwork...
GW should have bought the mini, and released it, instead of going on the attack...

GW Legal's actions are way too heavy-handed, for sure...
i would never argue that alienating the fan base, and being overly litigious is a good thing...
that is crazy that pics got deleted from your Photobucket, Az...

i'm just happy that the company is still able to release awesome new models like the Tech-Priest and Terminator Librarian...
as long as they keep making more impressive models, i will keep buying them, but only if they are not in Finecast:(...

cheers
jah