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.

burningstuff wrote:
I find Talys makes logical arguments. Other people seem to want to assassinate his character to delegitimize what he's saying.

I have met Talys in person and he is the most sincere guy and giving guy. We met when my boyfriend and I were picking out models for Warhammer 40,000 and he introduced us to the store owner who then gave us a permanent 10% off.

Another time, he spent over an hour showing us some painting tricks and it was amazing. I had no idea that holding my model a little differently would help so much in painting straight lines, what a difference really clean paintbrushes make, or how to properly thin my paints until he showed me. They're not hard things to do, but they sure make a difference!

Anyways, I don't agree with everything Talys says, but he presents his reasons pretty rationally. Some people with opposing viewpoints also have very logical responses (which are interesting to read, too), but others just have silly personal attacks that just beg for a flame war.

For myself, I really enjoy Age of Sigmar. I played Warhammer 40,000 and Hordes before that, and Age of Sigmar is definitely the game for me. I know it's not for everyone and I know that I'm not a great gamer, so with games like Hordes and Warhammer 40,000, I forget rules all the time. That part is a little frustrating, but I'm sure I'd get over it if I played more. What really annoys me is that every time I want to get a model, someone tells me that this model is better or why I shouldn't do that unless I want to get steamrolled. I mean, I am so sick of it, LOL. With Age of Sigmar, I just buy the models I want to buy, and I can play with as many or as few of the models I own against my opponent. I have not yet met another player that is mean-spirited and just wants to pull the wool over my eyes with their super powerful army that I'm unfamiliar with, which is something I ran into in both Warhammer and Hordes.

With regards to price, I think Games Workshop models and books are definitely expensive toys. But the outrage I sometimes see here just feels like some people feel entitled to affordable luxury goods, and that is pretty strange. There are all sorts of things that I would like, that I either can't have or have to save up for, so I guess, as someone who isn't a super-high-wage-earner (far from it), sure, I would like cheaper prices, but I would like cheaper prices on lots of other things, too. I'm not going to get mad at Games Workshop because they price things however way they price it, and if it gets out of reach for me, I just won't buy it.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
No, a 60% loss in purchasing power was my estimate, probably a little short, as many GW things have gone up 100% over the last ten years. Or if not, the amount dropped by 50% but price remained, which is the same thing.

On topic, I think that makes GW pretty darned intelligent, because they still see a rabid fan base despite it.

they are complete A-Holes who seem to despise a good portion of their fanbase, but they are intelligent ones,

But are GWs decision intelligent if what you are saying is true? From many others we hear that tabletop wargaming has seen lots of expansion for some time now and there are many more competitors for GW out there, but GWs revenue seems to keep decreasing. If they are focused on the high spender fanboy that doesn't care how much is spent on models/rules and doesn't care about the quality of the game (I mean good game balance) then aren't the signs indicating that perhaps they have made some bad decisions? Would they make more money by making good rules and dexes internally and externally balanced (not perfect but a serious attempt and a real effort to correct errors with errata) so that they get the fanboys/high spender money anyways but can also get hold of/keep the average gamer? Over the last few years is seems to me, anecdotally to be sure, that many, many former GW customers are very unhappy and moved away from buying GW product due to combinations of high prices, GW shenanigans and poor rules/lack of care in making 40k as a good, balanced game. Why deliberately turn away a large chunk of gamers that would buy your product? Do they think there is an endless supply or easily tapped supply of fanboys/super high spenders that will buy whatever they produce? Will the next dexes have a personalized intro by Kirby to "insert name here" (yes you will have to write your own name in) costing GW pennies but a nice looking page so the dex price can go up another 10-12 dollars? Or a bookmark of a space marine giving you the finger (the powerfist finger!) which only ups the price of the dex by $12.

burningstuff wrote:
^ I agree, and that's why I think I can't comment much more without seeing GW's real books. Marketing to high earners can work, but if it doesn't, then it doesn't.

I hope that they reduce the prices a little. I disagree with the people that say a little discount wouldn't make a big difference, because even between retail, 15% off, and 15% off plus another 10% off the discounted total is a pretty huge difference for me.

Generally speaking, people who earn higher than average wages also have less than average time to spend on hobby pursuits.

Another factor to consider. Just because someone earns more money, doesn't mean that they find value in a higher priced product. Ask anyone with wealth how they attained their money and keep it; nearly universally, they'll say that they don't spend it frivolously. Factually speaking, lower-income people are more apt to be subject to impulse buying than people with wealth. This is part of the reason why GW is losing market share so rapidly, they have hit the price elasticity wall and are now paying the price with their customer base. Customers are turning to lower-cost rivals like Mantic who may not have as high a quality of product but are able to sell at a reduced rate.

Similar to this, GW may in fact value their product higher than even higher wage earners value it. Just because someone is able to afford their products does not mean that they value it at the same level as GW. I earn a healthy salary but have little hobby time, a $50 model kit from GW represents an additional cost in valuable time spent in assembling and painting it before I may benefit from my purchase. I can model or I can game; I believe there are more gamers than modellers out there in the market and GW believes differently. GW is losing market value and sales volume which indicates to me that they are likely wrong.

So, no. I don't believe that GW is intentionally targeting a wealthy audience. I believe that they are aware and mildly comfortable with continuing to lose market share to their smaller rivals for the time being which tells me that management isn't concerned about the long-term health of the company. Healthy companies create growth strategies not hide from their customers behind "moats" and "walls".

Vyxen wrote:

burningstuff wrote:
^ I agree, and that's why I think I can't comment much more without seeing GW's real books. Marketing to high earners can work, but if it doesn't, then it doesn't.

I hope that they reduce the prices a little. I disagree with the people that say a little discount wouldn't make a big difference, because even between retail, 15% off, and 15% off plus another 10% off the discounted total is a pretty huge difference for me.

I'd like to see prices go down with volume. That's a system that gets me. I always buy as close to the price that gets me free shipping as I can. If 2 boxes of unit X cost 90% of what 1 plus 1 box would cost, I'd splurge and make bigger purchases. That's just my buying preference though.

Vyxen wrote:

burningstuff wrote:
I find Talys makes logical arguments. Other people seem to want to assassinate his character to delegitimize what he's saying.

I have met Talys in person and he is the most sincere guy and giving guy. We met when my boyfriend and I were picking out models for Warhammer 40,000 and he introduced us to the store owner who then gave us a permanent 10% off.

Another time, he spent over an hour showing us some painting tricks and it was amazing. I had no idea that holding my model a little differently would help so much in painting straight lines, what a difference really clean paintbrushes make, or how to properly thin my paints until he showed me. They're not hard things to do, but they sure make a difference!

Anyways, I don't agree with everything Talys says, but he presents his reasons pretty rationally. Some people with opposing viewpoints also have very logical responses (which are interesting to read, too), but others just have silly personal attacks that just beg for a flame war.

For myself, I really enjoy Age of Sigmar. I played Warhammer 40,000 and Hordes before that, and Age of Sigmar is definitely the game for me. I know it's not for everyone and I know that I'm not a great gamer, so with games like Hordes and Warhammer 40,000, I forget rules all the time. That part is a little frustrating, but I'm sure I'd get over it if I played more. What really annoys me is that every time I want to get a model, someone tells me that this model is better or why I shouldn't do that unless I want to get steamrolled. I mean, I am so sick of it, LOL. With Age of Sigmar, I just buy the models I want to buy, and I can play with as many or as few of the models I own against my opponent. I have not yet met another player that is mean-spirited and just wants to pull the wool over my eyes with their super powerful army that I'm unfamiliar with, which is something I ran into in both Warhammer and Hordes.

With regards to price, I think Games Workshop models and books are definitely expensive toys. But the outrage I sometimes see here just feels like some people feel entitled to affordable luxury goods, and that is pretty strange. There are all sorts of things that I would like, that I either can't have or have to save up for, so I guess, as someone who isn't a super-high-wage-earner (far from it), sure, I would like cheaper prices, but I would like cheaper prices on lots of other things, too. I'm not going to get mad at Games Workshop because they price things however way they price it, and if it gets out of reach for me, I just won't buy it.

Talys seems sincere about his views and as you say is a good guy. Some of his points are fine. I just find some things that are said almost seem like there are blinders on and it doesn't matter what arguments or evidence is provided the viewpoint will not/cannot be shifted. That is how it seems and why IMO some posters get exasperated, but I could be wrong.

I have tried AoS as well, bringing our the dwarfs which haven't seen the tabletop for years. Now locally this is only really possible because some people in our community have put together a comp system (since GW has decided 'balance' is not a real word) to try to provide some balance between units/armies. I find it odd that you would say you are sick of the 'model x is better so you should take it or you might get steamrolled' because AoS has the same issues. When you play how do you decide what to put on the table because you have to use some method to restrict/decide what will be played? You cannot bring 30 dwarf warriors and a regular lord and the other person puts 80 models with lots of multi-wound models on the table with 4 heroes, etc, etc, and you have a fair game.

With regard to price I also wish GW products were cheaper, but since they aren't I have drastically reduced what I buy which has been very little in the last 2 years.

 Ventus wrote:
I find it odd that you would say you are sick of the 'model x is better so you should take it or you might get steamrolled' because AoS has the same issues. When you play how do you decide what to put on the table because you have to use some method to restrict/decide what will be played? You cannot bring 30 dwarf warriors and a regular lord and the other person puts 80 models with lots of multi-wound models on the table with 4 heroes, etc, etc, and you have a fair game.

I'm not sure what other people do, but when we play, it just comes down to eyeballing it, guestimating, and both people taking a stab at what seems balanced. A lot of times, just looking at the models, without even knowing the special rules, you can sort of tell if you're going to be way out of the ballpark. That is, assuming that the other person isn't trying to trick you or they have one of these "I win in turn 1" things. But that's ok, I'll just punch them in the nose after if they do that.

I think the main difference is do you get bloodthirsty before the first turn or after? I am okay with after, even if I lose, because it just means I should have played better. But I am not really okay with before, because why bother playing if I can't ever win with the models that I want to play? So as long as my opponent will work with me a little and set up a table that seems decent, I am just fine with getting beat fair 'n square. In Warhammer 40,000, what am I going to do, ask my opponent to let me have more points because I think Burna Boyz look neat?

I mean, I do not go out of my way to pick the dumbest units in the game. But if I want to play an Ogre, I don't want someone to tell me that it's a bad unit because it's too many points, or that it's a bad unit because it works badly with Savage Orcs. Mostly because when I buy the Ogre, I am not checking the war scrolls first, I am buying what I think would be a neat monster and what would be something big and nasty to go with the Orcs. If it turns out really powerful, I am also happy to take something else out of my army to balance it out too.

Or, alternatively, you could have a better balanced game where people can honestly say "bring what you like" and it be true.

There's plenty out there where this is the case. Sure, some units in some games take more work than others to be really effective, but seldom is their such a disparity between power levels that the result almost a foregone conclusion, and most other games have a lot more in-game depth, meaning intelligent play can help overcome any imbalances there may be.

Nobody's asking for the moon here, basically what I think would be the top 3 most played non-GW games offer this, actually probably 4.

Vyxen wrote:

 Ventus wrote:
I find it odd that you would say you are sick of the 'model x is better so you should take it or you might get steamrolled' because AoS has the same issues. When you play how do you decide what to put on the table because you have to use some method to restrict/decide what will be played? You cannot bring 30 dwarf warriors and a regular lord and the other person puts 80 models with lots of multi-wound models on the table with 4 heroes, etc, etc, and you have a fair game.

I'm not sure what other people do, but when we play, it just comes down to eyeballing it, guestimating, and both people taking a stab at what seems balanced. A lot of times, just looking at the models, without even knowing the special rules, you can sort of tell if you're going to be way out of the ballpark. That is, assuming that the other person isn't trying to trick you or they have one of these "I win in turn 1" things. But that's ok, I'll just punch them in the nose after if they do that.

I think the main difference is do you get bloodthirsty before the first turn or after? I am okay with after, even if I lose, because it just means I should have played better. But I am not really okay with before, because why bother playing if I can't ever win with the models that I want to play? So as long as my opponent will work with me a little and set up a table that seems decent, I am just fine with getting beat fair 'n square. In Warhammer 40,000, what am I going to do, ask my opponent to let me have more points because I think Burna Boyz look neat?

I mean, I do not go out of my way to pick the dumbest units in the game. But if I want to play an Ogre, I don't want someone to tell me that it's a bad unit because it's too many points, or that it's a bad unit because it works badly with Savage Orcs. Mostly because when I buy the Ogre, I am not checking the war scrolls first, I am buying what I think would be a neat monster and what would be something big and nasty to go with the Orcs. If it turns out really powerful, I am also happy to take something else out of my army to balance it out too.

Vyxen, glad you have people you are happy playing with that sound reasonable. My area is pretty good as well but with a fair number of players you are getting pick-up games and each person has a different view on what is fair and balanced. I also like to be able to use the units I want, and I'm not interested in overpowered units anyways and would prefer they were good but not overpowered. The question is without a balance mechanism you might think you have a fair game and maybe you do - but maybe you don't and if so you are not necessarily getting beat fair and square (or vice versa). We are using wounds as a kind of point system for AoS and restrictions on certain things to try to keep armies somewhat balanced. And I do understand the appeal of ogres - back in 7th ed fantasy I was considering starting a second army and it would have been ogres as I really like the models, but never did as I wasn't a fan of 7th ed and 8th ed put me off completely. So I hope AoS works out and am glad our community has people working out a comp system otherwise from my perspective it wouldn't be very playable (using our Fantasy models - the AoS starter box might be balanced with the two forces in the box).

@vyxen - thanks very much. I was no trouble, really

I know what you mean about buying models without reading the rules first; I know a few people like that.

@ventus - I really don't think that GW is the most awesomest company ever. If I ran it, I would do so many things differently. But that doesn't change that 40k brings me the most happiness out of any hobby-related activity, and I've stuck with it for almost 3 decades, without any real period of dissatisfaction. I'm also pretty open about saying that I'm probably not representative of a lot of gamers or hobbyists.

I don't think that there is anything wrong with a models-first, games-second company, and I don't view RAW perfection as very important, and this seems to offend a lot of people. I also have a preference for GW models, but hey, that's exactly that, right? Preference. Nobody is ever going to convince me that PP makes more beautiful models, because it's my taste. On the other hand, I never try to convince anyone else to give up their PP, Wyrd, Malifuax or Gundam models.

@agnosto - I totally agree with you that many people who earn more work more hours. For nearly 20 years, I worked anywhere from 80-100+ hours a week, and took nearly no holidays. I still found time to play video games and play with miniatures here and there, though it is perfectly logical to conclude that time, rather than money, is the top constraint. And, that a good chunk of these potential customers aren't going to buy things just to shove into a closet BNIB, though some might have the painting commissioned out. There was someone at my local scene that recently paid a ton of money for such an Eldar army. As a comparative, people pay sometimes thousands for digital items in video games.

I wouldn't characterize a plurality of high income earners as being generally cheap though. Two things here. First of all, a good chunk of high income earners want to enjoy their life while they're young. But more significantly, if someone is making six figures, $50 or $100 here and there is just not a lot if it brings you happiness.

Finally, most luxury goods are purchased in higher quantities as disposable income increases. Every study of the price of luxury goods has found that their rate of inflation far exceeds CPI (which defines inflation of necessity goods).

@Az - You should suggest some games for Vyx. She's pretty adventurous in her gaming Just keep in mind she didn't like Hordes, has a pretty heavy interest in fluff/fiction and likes her models quite a lot. You get huge bonus points if there are green-skinned Orcish-looking critters

@Talys,

Though I agree with the gist of what you are saying, we'll have to disagree on GW as a luxury good. In economics, a luxury good is one where demand increases more than proportionally as income rises. Arguably, since demand for GW products has markedly decreased while the overall economic environment has improved, there leaves little doubt that GW does not fit in this category. Rather, I would categorize GW products as a normal good; one for which income and demand rise in proportion.

Irregardless of what type of good their products represent. I don't believe that they are intentionally targeting their "marketing" (laugh) at higher wage earners. They might like to but such people are actually not spending their money on stuff but rather on things that will build further wealth.

As families become richer, they spend a little bit more on entertainment, but significantly more on financial products such as insurance, annuities and retirement programs. The bottom 10% contribute 1.4% of their funds to these sources, or about $300. The top 10% allocate 17% to these sources, or a bit over $20,000 a year.

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2015/04/06/how-the-rich-and-poor-spend-and-earn-their-money/

Sure, wealthy people could buy all the hottest toys but they don't, not as a representative percentage of their income at least. No, the people who spend a higher percentage of their income on entertainment are much lower down the income ladder. Companies don't succeed by targeting one potential population but by attempting to create broad appeal.

So, who does GW "target"? Well, it appears to me that their current model stresses the importance of "buy big and buy now" or the impulse buying crowd. Such people will be male in the 18-29 age range as these are the people most likely to drop large sums of money on a whim.
http://www.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/impulse-purchase-survey.php

It would be exceedingly stupid for a company to target its products at a tiny segment of a population. Yes, there are companies that do so successfully but these are real luxury or veblen goods, GW products are certainly not in this category or they would be increasing sales volume as the world economy improves, not the opposite. You seem to think that GW wants a minuscule population of "super-fans" who will buy everything that they make and are so price elastic that GW can charge whatever they like and purchases will still be made. I would argue that no company, anywhere in the world, will long survive if their mindset is such; not to mention that this belief runs counter to GW's own stated goals of expansion as you can't aggressively expand into a smaller market than you have been serving, that's called retraction, not expansion.

@agnosto - I really don't think we're actually very far apart, to be honest.

In recent years, a lot of wealth has been generated, but the income gap between the wealthy and the poor has become stunning. So what you have is more wealth in the world, but a much smaller middle class compared the 80s, particularly a middle class not really worried about money.

The problem is, GW's best customers in years past were the people who were "a little bit rich" -- in other words, they have paid everything they need and the things that dramatically improve their lifestyle (including a home, cars, kids' tuition, someone else to mow the lawn, whatever food they want, a reasonable amount of eating out, a plan to retire at 55, etc.) -- this demographic has shrunk dramatically. I would hazard to say, "almost to non-existence". It's limited to a small group of highly skilled professionals and successful entrepreneurs; whereas before it would have included many skilled labourers and technical workers. And like you said before, this group largely works long hours.

I think that you and I could probably agree on the above.

Now, regarding luxury goods --

There are only 2 types of goods (in economic terms): necessity goods and luxury goods, and toys of any type are definitely not necessity goods. Not all luxury goods increase in demand as income rises, but this is a characteristic of many luxury goods. Also, keep in mind, luxury goods don't necessarily imply quality.

There are all sorts of luxury goods. For example, Dyson vacuum cleaners are, what, $400-$600? But they're no more functional than a $60 Hoover (especially if it just sits in your closet). Channel handbags can cost anywhere from $5,000 to $50,000. Yet it is not any more functional than a $25 knockoff. But does GW fall into this category? I think not, because GW models are generally not status symbols.

I don't think the 18-29 crowd is the perfect fit for GW, because at that age, most will REALLY want other luxury goods, like a car, first. And a lot more people in that range who are professionals now have student loans -- some lawyers and doctors go into their FORTIES still paying off their loans, and they sure aren't going to spend $5,000 a year on 40k models.

Instead, I think 35-55 will yield much more success. People in the prime of their life, who are in comfortable jobs, have extra time and extra money, and have plotted out "the path". Particularly those who fulfill all of these criteria with extra TIME and who enjoy hobby, as opposed to, for example, sport. I think the issue is that this group is not large now.

For the group that is 18-29? I think a lot of them will wistfully look at spectacular dioramas and photographs, and think OMG, SWEET! but never be able to actually have the time or money to build something like that. And since 40k falls short for many as the type of game they want to play, they end up not liking GW very much.

The ones in that age category that will like GW more are the ones that place a heavier emphasis on the models, because I genuinely think that GW's relative price on models and quality of models is pretty good -- and it's well marketed (nice boxes, displays, etc), and reasonably accessible. They won't be able to enjoy the hobby the way GW envisions it, but they will still like the product and the game.

Edit -- incidentally, despite not conducting "market research" I think GW has a really good handle on the number of dedicated fans and what their ideal demographic is, because they have a good idea of what they sell, and they have information from when they were a virtual monopoly in the market. They can pair statistical information available today with their sales data. For instance, if you want to open an online account, you have to tell them your age, and obviously, they can mine purchasing trends from online purchases easily. As I've said before, it's entirely possible that they know pretty much who/what their fanbase is, and their current strategy is what they think is the equation to maximize profits (or minimize attrition of profits).

Of course, I'm making generalizations, and there will be many edge cases and exceptions. Also, sorry this is so long :(

Not sure what the background of the red shirts are?
In Berlin I've met a red shirt with a bachelor in Japanese. This guy is smart.
I guess most of the red shirts don't have a high school diploma.
The need attitude in the first place.

Recently I spoke to about 30 Magic the Gathering players that were once former GW 40K/Fantasy players, but no more, why, because GW is too expensive to play, so I asked what would GW needs to do to get you back, they told me that GW needs to drop their prices, so I asked again by how much, and the consensus was about 35% off current prices would tempt these guys back.

Right here if GW dropped their prices by 35% they would get a 100% increase in sales.

But for some dumb decision they won't listen to folks, dumb, dumb, just dumb.

Drop prices is the consensus around here too. No one I know has bought any new product from GW for a few years now. We still look at it, then gently put it back on the shelf.

 Achaylus72 wrote:
Recently I spoke to about 30 Magic the Gathering players that were once former GW 40K/Fantasy players, but no more, why, because GW is too expensive to play, so I asked what would GW needs to do to get you back, they told me that GW needs to drop their prices, so I asked again by how much, and the consensus was about 35% off current prices would tempt these guys back.

Right here if GW dropped their prices by 35% they would get a 100% increase in sales.

But for some dumb decision they won't listen to folks, dumb, dumb, just dumb.

I don't think GW can just lower prices by 35% and get more sales.

I can't remember how much it costs GW to make the models, but I thought it was around the 20% mark. So that means for every $1 they sell, they make $0.80. If they lowered the price by 35%, instead of selling for $1 it would be $0,65, but they'd only make $0.45. So they'd have to sell 78% more product to make the same amount of money, and that's not considering they'd have to spend more money holding on to larger amounts of stock and spend more on shipping.

I think what GW should do is offer bigger discounts the more you buy and offer more package deals that offer savings so that people buy in larger quantities. You don't want people buying 10 Orks and then deciding they don't like painting Orks and not buying any more of them. You want them to buy 100 Orks up front because they save 35% compared to buying them in packs of 10.

I reckon GW should be aiming to get the most out of each transaction by offering bigger discounts on packages rather than worrying about how much plastic they shift per $.

"Buy 3 items, get the cheapest at 50% off"

Doesn't hurt them much, and I'd take it.

 Selym wrote:
"Buy 3 items, get the cheapest at 50% off"

Doesn't hurt them much, and I'd take it.

They used to do this at grand openings. One friend wanted to start a Khorne army so he showed up at the local GW's grand opening with 2 'buy 2 boxes, get one of equal or lesser value free' coupons and got 6 boxes of Berzerkers for the price of 4. Another friend grabbed 3 Eldar Battleforces for the price of 2. There was also the usual 20%, 30% off coupons and others.

The stores on these days were jam packed. It was basically a line out of the shop for a hundred meters or so, and all you could do was queue up and slowly trudge through and hand over your money. Went all day as people came later and jumped on the line. Games Workshop decided these sales devalued the product and stopped doing them.

 -Loki- wrote:
Games Workshop decided these sales devalued the product

Thanks GW.

*tips hat*

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Achaylus72 wrote:
Recently I spoke to about 30 Magic the Gathering players that were once former GW 40K/Fantasy players, but no more, why, because GW is too expensive to play, so I asked what would GW needs to do to get you back, they told me that GW needs to drop their prices, so I asked again by how much, and the consensus was about 35% off current prices would tempt these guys back.

Right here if GW dropped their prices by 35% they would get a 100% increase in sales.

But for some dumb decision they won't listen to folks, dumb, dumb, just dumb.

I don't think GW can just lower prices by 35% and get more sales.

I can't remember how much it costs GW to make the models, but I thought it was around the 20% mark. So that means for every $1 they sell, they make $0.80. If they lowered the price by 35%, instead of selling for $1 it would be $0,65, but they'd only make $0.45. So they'd have to sell 78% more product to make the same amount of money, and that's not considering they'd have to spend more money holding on to larger amounts of stock and spend more on shipping.

I think what GW should do is offer bigger discounts the more you buy and offer more package deals that offer savings so that people buy in larger quantities. You don't want people buying 10 Orks and then deciding they don't like painting Orks and not buying any more of them. You want them to buy 100 Orks up front because they save 35% compared to buying them in packs of 10.

I reckon GW should be aiming to get the most out of each transaction by offering bigger discounts on packages rather than worrying about how much plastic they shift per $.

This is an interesting take on it.

From my view, though GW did use to set their prices 35% or more lower a few years ago, and they at that point sold a lot more stuff than they do now. It's true that unit sales were starting to decline in the late 2000s after some savage price hikes on models, but the revenue graph tipped definitvely downwards after the 100% increase in army books and codex prices, and 60% rise of the rulebook price, in 2011-2012.

That said, maybe GW can't afford to turn the clock back. Players who abandoned GW games in the past five years might not flock back just because the price dropped 35%.

I wouldn't 'flock' back, but id actually buy some more Tyranids. The new kits have been very nice.

I'm not sure I'd flock back either, at least in terms of gaming. But I'd probably buy most of the larger plastic kits at 35% off (Knight, most of the fantasy altars and so on) just to paint up.

Price wasn't what put me off the games. Them becoming crappy games is what put me off.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Achaylus72 wrote:
Recently I spoke to about 30 Magic the Gathering players that were once former GW 40K/Fantasy players, but no more, why, because GW is too expensive to play, so I asked what would GW needs to do to get you back, they told me that GW needs to drop their prices, so I asked again by how much, and the consensus was about 35% off current prices would tempt these guys back.

Right here if GW dropped their prices by 35% they would get a 100% increase in sales.

But for some dumb decision they won't listen to folks, dumb, dumb, just dumb.

I don't think GW can just lower prices by 35% and get more sales.

I can't remember how much it costs GW to make the models, but I thought it was around the 20% mark. So that means for every $1 they sell, they make $0.80. If they lowered the price by 35%, instead of selling for $1 it would be $0,65, but they'd only make $0.45. So they'd have to sell 78% more product to make the same amount of money, and that's not considering they'd have to spend more money holding on to larger amounts of stock and spend more on shipping.

I think what GW should do is offer bigger discounts the more you buy and offer more package deals that offer savings so that people buy in larger quantities. You don't want people buying 10 Orks and then deciding they don't like painting Orks and not buying any more of them. You want them to buy 100 Orks up front because they save 35% compared to buying them in packs of 10.

I reckon GW should be aiming to get the most out of each transaction by offering bigger discounts on packages rather than worrying about how much plastic they shift per $.

This is an interesting take on it.

From my view, though GW did use to set their prices 35% or more lower a few years ago, and they at that point sold a lot more stuff than they do now. It's true that unit sales were starting to decline in the late 2000s after some savage price hikes on models, but the revenue graph tipped definitvely downwards after the 100% increase in army books and codex prices, and 60% rise of the rulebook price, in 2011-2012.

That said, maybe GW can't afford to turn the clock back. Players who abandoned GW games in the past five years might not flock back just because the price dropped 35%.

The other problem with regaining lost customers is that GW has created a 'perfect storm' - rising prices, cheaper material, bad public relations, and awful rules.

There was little reason for people to stick with GW, and many reasons to leave.

I doubt that GW could get me back as a customer - there are other companies doing a better job for lower prices.

Mantic may not make the best minis in the world (though their undead are top notch) - but the rules are excellent. Perry Miniatures does not make fantasy figures or rules - but makes excellent historicals in the right scale and for the right period. If I use Perry Miniatures with Kings of War then I have better than GW miniatures and better than GW rules, at a much better than GW price.

GW is just not worth the money.

On topic - I think that the best reason to think GW are 'somehow unintelligent' is to go and read the thread on the case with Chapterhouse.

It makes the question akin to 'Why do some people think that water is somehow wet?'

And makes it pretty obvious that the folks handling the GW side have very little by way of business ethics.

The Auld Grump

 Talys wrote:
@agnosto - I really don't think we're actually very far apart, to be honest.

In recent years, a lot of wealth has been generated, but the income gap between the wealthy and the poor has become stunning. So what you have is more wealth in the world, but a much smaller middle class compared the 80s, particularly a middle class not really worried about money.

This much is true in the US, not so much in other countries; some countries like Japan have a very large middle class. Your home country, Canada, actually met and surpassed the US in terms of the strength of the middle class in recent years. The Luxembourg Income Study generates some interesting data for data nerds, check it out some time if you're inclined.

The problem is, GW's best customers in years past were the people who were "a little bit rich" -- in other words, they have paid everything they need and the things that dramatically improve their lifestyle (including a home, cars, kids' tuition, someone else to mow the lawn, whatever food they want, a reasonable amount of eating out, a plan to retire at 55, etc.) -- this demographic has shrunk dramatically. I would hazard to say, "almost to non-existence". It's limited to a small group of highly skilled professionals and successful entrepreneurs; whereas before it would have included many skilled labourers and technical workers. And like you said before, this group largely works long hours.

I think that you and I could probably agree on the above.

*moved this since it makes sense here.
I don't think the 18-29 crowd is the perfect fit for GW, because at that age, most will REALLY want other luxury goods, like a car, first. And a lot more people in that range who are professionals now have student loans -- some lawyers and doctors go into their FORTIES still paying off their loans, and they sure aren't going to spend $5,000 a year on 40k models.

Instead, I think 35-55 will yield much more success. People in the prime of their life, who are in comfortable jobs, have extra time and extra money, and have plotted out "the path". Particularly those who fulfill all of these criteria with extra TIME and who enjoy hobby, as opposed to, for example, sport. I think the issue is that this group is not large now.

Actually, I think we'll have to disagree with the above; I feel that GW has always marketed towards that age group, 18-29 year old males, as they are the people most likely to be interested in GW products. More discerning, older people would generally turn away from the cartoonish nature of GW's universes on average. That's not to say that there aren't people in the groups that you've indicated who are interested in GW products, it's just that they are not the larger bulk of GW's customers, traditionally. I would argue that whether they intend it or not, the 30+ middle-high income earner is who they're going to get but that is not a route I think that they should take because the number of people willing to purchase their products from that category are much, much smaller than the 18-29 bracket due to a number of economic reasons.

Depending upon when they entered the field, most lawyers and doctors have their college debt paid off very rapidly; sure, you said "some" but some is a very small number in this instance; even smaller in the case of doctors who have the opportunity to have others pay their debt for them by working in high-need areas for a few years. The average life of student loan debts for doctors in the US is about 12 years for those who do not take advantage of such systems, based upon an average of $176,000 in debt accrued.

Now, regarding luxury goods --

There are only 2 types of goods (in economic terms): necessity goods and luxury goods, and toys of any type are definitely not necessity goods. Not all luxury goods increase in demand as income rises, but this is a characteristic of many luxury goods. Also, keep in mind, luxury goods don't necessarily imply quality.

There are all sorts of luxury goods. For example, Dyson vacuum cleaners are, what, $400-$600? But they're no more functional than a $60 Hoover (especially if it just sits in your closet). Channel handbags can cost anywhere from $5,000 to $50,000. Yet it is not any more functional than a $25 knockoff. But does GW fall into this category? I think not, because GW models are generally not status symbols.

I'm sorry but this is not accurate. There are many types of goods; the most basic are Inferior, Normal and Luxury but there are also Complementary, Substitute, Giffen, Veblen, etc. I really don't understand where people arrive at GW products being a luxury good, it's a true head scratcher and a gross misuse of a real economic term. You simply cannot compare GW products to Chanel or Porsche or any other true luxury good. Why? Because GW products have proven to be price inelastic whereas luxury goods have a high price elasticity or elasticity of demand. Here's a test, as people earn more, do they spend a much higher percentage of their income on GW products? Some might but the majority won't because then they would wind up with a garage full of boxes that collects dust. People only have so much time in their lives and someone who is able to spend thousands on GW products likely will not spend every waking moment playing with plastic army men.

Let me try to explain how luxury goods work:
Someone picks up GW in college, they are earning $19,000 per year. They spend about $300/year that's about 1.6% of their income.
This person continues on and when they're in their 40s, they're now earning $50,000 per year and an army costs about $600 to build or 1.2% of their income.

So, did the percentage of their income spent on GW products go up disproportionately to their income? Nope. Sure there may be outliers here, these mystical "super-fans" that you like to talk about, but most people do not have limitless time to devote to piles of plastic army men. At some point, people have lives, families, work and other time commitments that will prevent them from buying 100 boxes of $50 kits.

True luxury goods would see demand go up disproportionately to increases in wealth. At $19,000 per year a student will spend $0 on Porsche but at $150,0000 per year, they'll spend a great deal more; going from 0% to some other percent.

No, GW products are normal goods (a real economic term) which means that demand increases at a like percentage to income. In my example above, there's really not that great a difference between percentage of income spending between 1.6% and 1.2%.

Someone may pay someone to build and paint their army but GW doesn't benefit from that and it has zero impact on what type of good is produced. After-market, 3rd party business are complementary goods and services, not the goods themselves.

Edit -- incidentally, despite not conducting "market research" I think GW has a really good handle on the number of dedicated fans and what their ideal demographic is, because they have a good idea of what they sell, and they have information from when they were a virtual monopoly in the market. They can pair statistical information available today with their sales data. For instance, if you want to open an online account, you have to tell them your age, and obviously, they can mine purchasing trends from online purchases easily. As I've said before, it's entirely possible that they know pretty much who/what their fanbase is, and their current strategy is what they think is the equation to maximize profits (or minimize attrition of profits).

Of course, I'm making generalizations, and there will be many edge cases and exceptions. Also, sorry this is so long :(

Nope. That's not how it works. If you were to have a direct line to the decision makers at GW and they told you this and you have a modicum of business or analytics experience/training and did not laugh at them, you should be ashamed. You don't base current decisions on 20 year old reality, in the case of knowing who their customers were way back when they had a veritable monopoly on mini wargaming and a company which bases their entire corporate strategy on the results of who is shopping in their online store (a relatively small proportion according to their financials) is doomed....doomed I say.

Note: I don't think any of this is actually happening. I believe your assumption of GW being supported nearly completely through "super-fans" to be incorrect, otherwise I would not own stock in GW because that's just bat-gack crazy talk in the world of business.

At this point if GW had a big 35% off sale, I'd probably just buy enough to finish off my WHFB Orc and Gobbo army and maybe enough to finish off my Bretonnian and/or Lizardmen armies. I have no interest in AoS and I have those half finished armies sitting on my shelf, but when I added up the price of filling out those armies my response was "feth it, not worth it for a game that isn't even supported". I guess they'll just sit there forever gathering dust now.

GW would have to make much bigger changes than just price to get me back as a regular customer though. Their games are thoroughly unappealing to me and if I'm painting models just to sit on my shelf, there's a lot of models I'd sooner buy than GW's bobble headed models.

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:
Price wasn't what put me off the games. Them becoming crappy games is what put me off.

Same here.

 agnosto wrote:
Your home country, Canada, actually met and surpassed the US in terms of the strength of the middle class in recent years.

The earning power of the middle class in Canada is declining. Net worth is increasing due to ever skyrocketting (and dare I say unsustainable) value in real estate. Due to the rock bottom interest rates, average household spending is 163% of disposable income. The strength you describe is artificial.

 keezus wrote:

 agnosto wrote:
Your home country, Canada, actually met and surpassed the US in terms of the strength of the middle class in recent years.

The earning power of the middle class in Canada is declining. Net worth is increasing due to ever skyrocketting (and dare I say unsustainable) value in real estate. Due to the rock bottom interest rates, average household spending is 163% of disposable income. The strength you describe is artificial.

Nationally, Canada is in much better shape than other comparable countries in Europe and the US. It may be declining (though not in 2010) as you say but it is doing so at a less rate than other countries.




All of this though has little to do with the actual topic as I just used Canada as an example. I'm sure that if I had used Sweden, someone would have said the exact same thing as you.

Risking going further OT: However, trends in disposable income are relevant.

Two comments about Canada's performance in the recent years. You'll notice the tail end of the graph is flattening out. (Its awful small, but it looks like your graph starts at 1900???)

1. The graph shows increase against USD presumably? I'd be interested if this graph also takes into account the actual increase vs inflation.

2. I wonder if this graph takes into account fluctuations in currency. Canadian buying power growth in recent years would have been buoyed by the strong Canadian dollar (as a byproduct of oil prices). Our dollar has gone into the toilet (as a byproduct of gov't pro-oil policy), so it'd be interesting to see where this all stands in 2015.

Looking at the GW years in the graph... They are raising prices like crazy in the face of what I might be considered relatively stagnant increases middle class buying power.