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.
2015/08/19 16:29:27
Subject: Open Letter to GW from a CEO prospect (text wall warning)
Greetings to everyone who has taken the time to read through what I have to say.
Earlier in the year when GW was looking for a CEO I had applied and was creeped by a few of their management members on my linked in profile. Shortly afterwards I was sent a rejection letter and they hired a new CEO internally.
Why this is important is because I believe I was at least slightly considered for the position, and although I gave no mention as to what I would actually do should I be given the position, I made a strong enough case that they decided to at least take a gander at who I am. I was hoping that my letter would be enough to entice them into an interview where I would discuss some of these ideas.
Sadly I think because my background is more in the financial services industry, and I don’t have an MBA I believe I was rejected on those reasons and lack of experience in a CEO position. However, I felt that some of my fantastic ideas should be shared so that maybe, just maybe, GW would listen and learn.
Spoiler:
First of all, being a long time 40k fan, and an extremely long time dakka lurker who only recently made an account, I believe that given my expertise in finances, investing, business, and rolling dice, I can make a few constructive recommendations.
Ultimately Games Workshop is a business, a publicly traded business, and it has an insatiable need to generate reliable long term profits. Much like the blood gods need for blood and skills, GW needs people to buy stuff from them. This is the fundamental goal of a CEO is to either maintain the company and profits, or expand them.
As an investor, I look at the GW stock and compare it to what else is on the market. If the ultimate goal is to attract investment and expand the company then you will need to do a stock split. At your current share price it is just too high to attract new buyers, especially seeing how the values have been in a steady decline for a long time. Dividends are fairly good compared to what else is out there, but let’s face it, I am comparing you to energy and financial institutions who have a 1/10th the entry cost, and a comparable or better dividend rate. Realistically the only people who would be buying these shares are fans of the company, and not really real investors looking to make a profit.
Based on the core model of company, the one man store formula may have worked 15 years ago, but is not working anymore. The inflexibility of the GW staff when it comes to hosting tournaments, house ruling game breaking problems, and the price of the products sold in these stores is doing nothing but costing you money every day. This is tough news to swallow for a company, but let me elaborate. Most locations are in high cost areas such as malls and plazas, secondly you do not own these spots and merely rent them. The money spent is being burned instead of building any real equity and thus I consider a hole in the bucket.
Games Workshop has a serious issue with channel management, you put these stores all over the globe and force them to sell product at its highest possible MSRP. Any other FLGS can get an immediate discount, and considering this is even a problem online (Amazon hello) you are essentially forcing people to buy from anyone else other than your stores because of pricing. Next you might argue that well, it is because people need a place to meet and have games, which I completely agree with, but given how you have been managing the game design aspect, and being quoted as a “miniatures company” and not a “game design” company, you have essentially contradicted your entire business model at the most fundamental level. I cannot walk into a GW today and “forge the narrative” with my own set of rules I made up for your models, yet as a company you are blatantly writing poor rules and it is obvious that they are being written for the sole purpose of selling more models instead of providing a good experience to customers. As a consumer I am actually getting rather upset with how the rules are currently going and find that I do feel rather abused at times by your current business model.
The price of your products is making it more and more difficult for people to enter into the hobby, you may say that it is because of a number of reasons, such as loss of customers, resale of miniatures, Chinese knock offs, and what else you can throw at me, but at the end of the day it boils down to people are no longer having a good experience with your products, and are thus choosing to exit “your” game. Many of these people who are leaving are finding other miniature systems that they feel are providing them with a better gaming experience. This is why we are seeing such large growth in other games, not because the market is expanding necessarily, it is because you are losing market share.
Age of Sigmar is currently an attempt to grow the market and bring new people back to Games Workshop. It is a bold move, and I believe it may have some success, but ultimately I feel that it will not really change much of anything in the long run. I reserve judgment till a later date, but I feel that personally it will have a cannibalistic impact on your product line. From what I hear a large portion of the sales from this line are actually coming from Chaos players in 40k whose model range is severely under serviced.
Which brings me to my next point, market research. I have no idea if you do any at all, I believe it was said in your last financial report that your company does no market research, which as an investor and marketing expert, scares me completely away from ever investing in your company. If your ultimate goal is to make a profit, you need to understand how you achieve this goal, and the most important part of that is becoming intimately knowledgeable with the source of your profit. This is why companies spend obscene amounts of money on finding out how their consumers think, what they want, and how they go about getting it. Just a simple example, dakka had a poll on which race you play in 40k, Chaos was tied with vanilla Space Marines, yet once again they are completely under serviced and you are leaving huge piles of cash untapped. Market research, start doing it.
Why does White Dwarf even have a price tag? Large department stores give away massive phone book size catalogues all the time just to get people to buy their stuff. Take every White Dwarf ever made, put them in PDF format, and post them for free on your website. Next take every new White Dwarf you make, and put it on your website. This magazine helps make people into “brand lovers” and you are seriously wanting to charge people money for it? Make them digital only, and stop printing them to save on the costs.
This part is going to hurt, and you may not want to hear it, but you need to completely stop with the single man stores and shut them all down. They are doing nothing but eroding your profits, you need to pass this burden onto the FLGS (friendly local gaming stores) and consolidate the savings into small factory operations for producing your miniatures in your other markets. The cost of shipping your products alone exceeds the cost of manufacturing them in many of these markets so it is therefore a poor decision. The cost savings would be astronomical, and if you pass even 30% of the savings onto the consumer, your products will be less expensive, and your profits will be even higher. If we also factor in the significant reduction in monthly expenses being used on rent we can already see a much healthier profit margin. But this strategy has another side, and that is being very supportive of FLGS and making them your ultimate friends. Independent business owners are far better at evaluating and placing stores than a large corporation, let the market decide where your products are being sold and played. I know this is a scary proposition, your products sitting next to some of those heretical box sets of other miniatures for games you are directly competing with.
Which is why you need to update your game system, and bring it to the next level. I dream of all the rules and codex’s being available online for free, with constantly updated rules and FAQ’s that fix game breaking issues. Remember that this company can be even more profitable if you take a step back and realise that you are taking on too much, and that streamlining the customer experience, and removing the financial risks to Games Workshop is the much better long term strategy. There is no reason why I can’t play your game with any model I want, but at the same time, if I get the rules for free, White Dwarfs all the time for free, and the models cost less, I will most likely want to buy more stuff.
The rules need to be fundamentally changed in the aspect that the “you go then I go” is very much out dated. I have played many 40k games using rules like Bolt Action and it is so much more in depth and fun. I don’t believe an exact clone is appropriate, but many of these glaring balance issues become so much smaller when the first turn boils down to a single unit being able to do damage, vs the entire army being able to do damage.
If you want to grow long term, you need a product that people will want. As both a video game player and 40k player I have an amazing dream/vision. That is 40k table top on my computer, but wait a second, that will completely destroy our entire business model! Hold on now, just hear me out. I’m a very busy guy, and finding the time to play a table top game at a GW whose hours of operation are horrendous makes it rather difficult sometimes. But I would love to play my lists online if it were possible, and it should be for many reasons I will get into now. Every model you sell should have a unique QR code sticker, which represents that unit’s online version. Players cannot sell or trade those “online versions” of the model and therefore are required to get new models to expand their online collections. Initially when the game first comes out people should be able to bring in their armies and buy these unique QR stickers and put them on the bottoms of their model bases. Now when you buy a set of models, you should get to play the game for free for a month, there should also be a monthly subscription option of say $5-$10 to play your online army, and lastly there should be a premium membership which grants access to every possible model in the entire line for online use. Personally I would prefer to play the game on the table vs on the pc, however I would love to play the game more than I get to right now, and this is the best way to achieve that.
The importance of the online version of the game has many aspects. First it will generate a reliable monthly income as well as initial capture of profit as people “add” their armies onto the online game. This allows the company to recapture losses from knock offs and armies that have been sold second hand. Next it provides a platform to collect statistical data on how the game is actually being played, personally if I were to run the development of the game, I would make sure that every single battle played collected stats, and not only that but also a replay of each battle is saved onto our server so we could watch it and see what happened. The program would flag battles with severe anomalies which would then be reviewed by the design team, which would then make an appropriate fix (could be a rules paradox for example, aka Kharn vs invisible) which can be fixed in the video game first, then in rules and FAQ changes for the table top. Data collected from unit performance can be used to determine an actual real cost that is derived from the average performance of a unit over thousands of battles instead of making them up to sell models. Fundamentally a balanced game will create the most profit because it will have a cyclical meta, and also mean higher consumer happiness, which will in turn attract more consumers. Personally being an experienced IT consultant in my earlier years I can understand that the whole dice aspect and random number generators would really create disconnect. What I suggest is actually using a physics engine, creating varying types of dice and cups, and have the RNG figure out what the dice facing is inside the cup (done server side only of course) let people click and hold the cup and swish it around a bit, and when they release the mouse it pours out the dice. This way we are making the dice a game within the game. I feel that this would really make the game feel like I’m playing it on the table.
I have a lot more ideas with regards to 3d printing and other aspects of the business, but after many years of being a consumer and a business professional I figured I would throw in my 2 cents for Games Workshop.
I am open to discuss the potential impacts of any of the ideas I listed here, they are merely starting points and obviously require a lot more flushing out and strategy to be made feasible business plans.
Cheers and thanks for reading.
3000 Points Tzeentch
2015/08/19 16:56:00
Subject: Re:Open Letter to GW from a CEO prospect (text wall warning)
I agree with a good portion of what you say, but I have some concerns as a consumer of the wargame.
making the rules free and posting them online
While I like free items as much as the next person, I believe that this would be detrimental to the quality of the rules. Maybe not the same degree as Age of Sigmar, but there would certainly be a drop if there's little incentive to make a quality product. As someone to whom modelling places a distant second to gaming, this is a prime concern. Also, it should be noted that a physical book is very much superior as a reference guide to a PDF, especially if one is walking around a gaming table. Finally, army codices are usually filled with artwork and lore background. These could still theoretically be present in an online version, but the aforementioned reduced incentive wouldn't make them a priority.
Placing QR codes on models for online use
This seems like it would just encourage the pay-to-win mentality even further, especially on an online setting where there's no requirement to build and paint the units. If you must have a digital version, I would suggest divorcing it entirely from the tabletop game.
When the only tool you have is a Skyhammer, every army begins to resemble a nail.
2015/08/19 16:58:31
Subject: Open Letter to GW from a CEO prospect (text wall warning)
I believe your application was rejected because you weren't already a GW executive and weren't friends with Kirby.
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
asorel wrote: I agree with a good portion of what you say, but I have some concerns as a consumer of the wargame.
making the rules free and posting them online
While I like free items as much as the next person, I believe that this would be detrimental to the quality of the rules. Maybe not the same degree as Age of Sigmar, but there would certainly be a drop if there's little incentive to make a quality product. As someone to whom modelling places a distant second to gaming, this is a prime concern. Also, it should be noted that a physical book is very much superior as a reference guide to a PDF, especially if one is walking around a gaming table. Finally, army codices are usually filled with artwork and lore background. These could still theoretically be present in an online version, but the aforementioned reduced incentive wouldn't make them a priority.
Placing QR codes on models for online use
This seems like it would just encourage the pay-to-win mentality even further, especially on an online setting where there's no requirement to build and paint the units. If you must have a digital version, I would suggest divorcing it entirely from the tabletop game.
I would disagree but that comes more from my interpretation of how it should be implemented. Later I go into how it would be used to help balance the game to try to achieve a cyclical meta which would in turn discourage the pay to win, and endorse the pay to play mentality.
The rules on the other hand I agree with what you are saying, and perhaps a meld of the two would be good, it would honestly need to be researched more as to what would be effective financially as well as provide the experience they would be looking for.
I fully disagree with the "play online" premise. I play 40k to get away from the computer and get out of the house. I want the social interaction. Furthermore, online play introduces the whole notion of toxic online communities. You think an unfriendly meta is bad? Those have nothing on the a hostile online culture can do.
That's a deal-killer for me. I want no part of it.
Sadly I think because my background is more in the financial services industry, and I don’t have an MBA I believe I was rejected on those reasons and lack of experience in a CEO position.
You sound grossly unqualified to be making any recommendations to a company in an industry you have never worked in with a lack of applicable work experience and education...
How is this different than the dozens of other armchair QB 'GW management' threads which already exist and why isn't in one of those?
Or is this the 'this weeks FESTIVUS thread' where people re-air grievances with GW?
My Models: Ork Army: Waaagh 'Az-ard - Chibi Dungeon RPG Models! - My Workblog! =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
RULE OF COOL: When converting models, there is only one rule: "The better your model looks, the less people will complain about it."
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
MODELING FOR ADVANTAGE TEST: rigeld2: "Easy test - are you willing to play the model as a stock one? No? MFA."
2015/08/19 17:22:12
Subject: Open Letter to GW from a CEO prospect (text wall warning)
curran12 wrote: I fully disagree with the "play online" premise. I play 40k to get away from the computer and get out of the house. I want the social interaction. Furthermore, online play introduces the whole notion of toxic online communities. You think an unfriendly meta is bad? Those have nothing on the a hostile online culture can do.
That's a deal-killer for me. I want no part of it.
Thanks for your feedback, there would be nothing stopping you from completely ignoring the online side of the game. Honestly I would play as many games as possible on the table that I can, but sometimes it isn't possible / too difficult.
You would need to buy the models to get them online, and this would help reduce knock offs and resales of armies if people are more interested in playing online. It would also help bring the cost down of the models actually and thus allow you to grow your collection more easily by getting better market penetration.
Sadly I think because my background is more in the financial services industry, and I don’t have an MBA I believe I was rejected on those reasons and lack of experience in a CEO position.
You sound grossly unqualified to be making any recommendations to a company in an industry you have never worked in with a lack of applicable work experience and education...
How is this different than the dozens of other armchair QB 'GW management' threads which already exist and why isn't in one of those?
Or is this the 'this weeks FESTIVUS thread' where people re-air grievances with GW?
Sorry I didn't know I would need to drop a resume on here to get any traction. I'm a certified financial planner managing about 65 million CAD for clients and I have an advanced diploma in business management, marketing, and operations management.
I may not be a CEO, but I am a business owner that deals with investing, and has enough of an education to at least make a few observations.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/08/19 17:25:44
3000 Points Tzeentch
2015/08/19 17:26:06
Subject: Open Letter to GW from a CEO prospect (text wall warning)
Actually, there are things stopping me from playing in your plan. By axing all GW shops and shifting the burden to FLGSes, you further reduce the ability for me to play in store because now I have to hope that there is room for me, and that other games are not present at the time.
That is assuming I even HAVE an FLGS to play it. Most people do not. For me, I do, but it is a 40 minute commute with urban traffic, and a 15-20 dollar parking fee.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/08/19 17:26:26
Im going to agree with Alpha on this....Telling them you have been with Dakka is probably not a great idea. that could mean a lot of things to them. In his shoes he could think- Possible leaks , giving information that shouldn't be given. That is obviously one of the fears GW has...having some publicity. They don't want someone on a site that have a news/rumours page, a lot of ranting/hate threads about GW, etc. That might've been a huge deal breaker for them . It don't tell them something like that unless it is one of their sites/ they have very close ties with them,etc.
Wyzilla wrote: Saying the Eldar won the War in Heaven is like saying a child won a fight with a murderer simply because after breaking into his house, shooting his mother and father through the head, the thug took off in a car instead of finishing off the kid.
2015/08/19 17:30:52
Subject: Open Letter to GW from a CEO prospect (text wall warning)
curran12 wrote: Actually, there are things stopping me from playing in your plan. By axing all GW shops and shifting the burden to FLGSes, you further reduce the ability for me to play in store because now I have to hope that there is room for me, and that other games are not present at the time.
That is assuming I even HAVE an FLGS to play it. Most people do not. For me, I do, but it is a 40 minute commute with urban traffic, and a 15-20 dollar parking fee.
I appreciate your feedback, the removal of stores would be gradual at first, some of the higher traffic locations may remain or at least move to locations where the company could own the property and build long term equity. I understand completely that a sudden and complete exit would kill the company.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
DaKKaLAnce wrote: Im going to agree with Alpha on this....Telling them you have been with Dakka is probably not a great idea. that could mean a lot of things to them. In his shoes he could think- Possible leaks , giving information that shouldn't be given. That is obviously one of the fears GW has...having some publicity. They don't want someone on a site that have a news/rumours page, a lot of ranting/hate threads about GW, etc. That might've been a huge deal breaker for them . It don't tell them something like that unless it is one of their sites/ they have very close ties with them,etc.
Lol sorry I very much doubt that they would even consider most of what I'm saying. However in my initial letter to them I made no mention about being a dakka member. To be completely honest I think the fear that gw has of dakka and open discussion with its fans is unhealthy and does nothing but foster problems.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/08/19 17:33:37
3000 Points Tzeentch
2015/08/19 17:37:15
Subject: Open Letter to GW from a CEO prospect (text wall warning)
I may not be a CEO, but I am a business owner that deals with investing, and has enough of an education to at least make a few observations.
And yet, your recommendations read like a distracted 12-year olds wishlist for his birthday and has nothing to do with actual business acumen except the 'I would like it so it *must* be a million dollar idea! If we wanted to play skylanders... we would buy skylanders. Recommending a company who makes a physical product invest deeply in technology is a *HUUUUUUUUUUUUGE* mistake, especially given how warhammer online went. Licencing out IP is much more productive and a lot less risk, not becoming a video game company with a miniature tie-in line. What a sloppy disaster of a plan.
Honestly, most of your ideas are simply awful and not backed up with any form of business science behind them on how or why they would be 'better' except that they appeal to you personally. How can you accuse GW of doing zero market research when you make bold recommendations to change entire core competencies of their entire company on a whim with zero market research?
And if your ideas were 'the next big thing' you would think *someone* in the gaming industry would have done at least SOME of it by now. You are not special or unique or a visionary. The truth is, there simply isn't a business case for a lot of what you suggest outside of catering to unreasonable fan dreams.
GW has a lot to fix but your recommendations would drive them to bankruptcy... Unless that is your plan. Instead of telling the titanic to veer away from the iceburg and have reasonable ideas for righting the ship, you are telling them to build a train across the atlantic... which solves nothing for a cruise liner company.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/08/19 17:38:55
My Models: Ork Army: Waaagh 'Az-ard - Chibi Dungeon RPG Models! - My Workblog! =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
RULE OF COOL: When converting models, there is only one rule: "The better your model looks, the less people will complain about it."
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
MODELING FOR ADVANTAGE TEST: rigeld2: "Easy test - are you willing to play the model as a stock one? No? MFA."
2015/08/19 17:39:58
Subject: Open Letter to GW from a CEO prospect (text wall warning)
Did GW interview anyone from outside before making an internal appointment? Or is that not something they have to abide by or disclose despite public ownership?
2015/08/19 17:44:19
Subject: Open Letter to GW from a CEO prospect (text wall warning)
Sadly I think because my background is more in the financial services industry, and I don’t have an MBA I believe I was rejected on those reasons and lack of experience in a CEO position.
You sound grossly unqualified to be making any recommendations to a company in an industry you have never worked in with a lack of applicable work experience and education...
How is this different than the dozens of other armchair QB 'GW management' threads which already exist and why isn't in one of those?
Or is this the 'this weeks FESTIVUS thread' where people re-air grievances with GW?
If we're playing this game, what qualifies you to judge if he's qualified?
Or is this just hypocrisy in action?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/08/19 17:44:36
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
I may not be a CEO, but I am a business owner that deals with investing, and has enough of an education to at least make a few observations.
And yet, your recommendations read like a distracted 12-year olds wishlist for his birthday and has nothing to do with actual business acumen except the 'I would like it so it *must* be a million dollar idea! If we wanted to play skylanders... we would buy skylanders. Recommending a company who makes a physical product invest deeply in technology is a *HUUUUUUUUUUUUGE* mistake, especially given how warhammer online went. Licencing out IP is much more productive and a lot less risk, not becoming a video game company with a miniature tie-in line. What a sloppy disaster of a plan.
Honestly, most of your ideas are simply awful and not backed up with any form of business science behind them on how or why they would be 'better' except that they appeal to you personally. How can you accuse GW of doing zero market research when you make bold recommendations to change entire core competencies of their entire company on a whim with zero market research?
And if your ideas were 'the next big thing' you would think *someone* in the gaming industry would have done at least SOME of it by now. You are not special or unique or a visionary. The truth is, there simply isn't a business case for a lot of what you suggest outside of catering to unreasonable fan dreams.
GW has a lot to fix but your recommendations would drive them to bankruptcy... Unless that is your plan. Instead of telling the titanic to veer away from the iceburg and have reasonable ideas for righting the ship, you are telling them to build a train across the atlantic... which solves nothing for a cruise liner company.
I actually played warhammer online, and to be honest it was just a bad game. Great potential, but poor execution.
Maybe no one has done it yet is because they aren't able to execute it right, and that doesn't mean it's a bad idea but difficult to achieve.
Secondly I prefer that you would refrain from personal attacks as it is in poor taste.
Next I can only speak from my own observations and experience because I have no statistical data or spread sheets to work with and I do t think GW really does at this time either.
Lastly many of my suggestions explain how they would either cut costs, increase market penetration, grow brand loyalty, and various other aspects that the company has been neglecting.
I accept your criticism for what it is, and given that I wrote this on a whim this morning more out of frustration I feel that some of these ideas have merit and may be worth exploring further.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Howard A Treesong wrote: Did GW interview anyone from outside before making an internal appointment? Or is that not something they have to abide by or disclose despite public ownership?
Sadly I think because my background is more in the financial services industry, and I don’t have an MBA I believe I was rejected on those reasons and lack of experience in a CEO position.
You sound grossly unqualified to be making any recommendations to a company in an industry you have never worked in with a lack of applicable work experience and education...
How is this different than the dozens of other armchair QB 'GW management' threads which already exist and why isn't in one of those?
Or is this the 'this weeks FESTIVUS thread' where people re-air grievances with GW?
If we're playing this game, what qualifies you to judge if he's qualified?
Or is this just hypocrisy in action?
Lol good point.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2015/08/19 17:47:36
3000 Points Tzeentch
2015/08/19 17:52:10
Subject: Open Letter to GW from a CEO prospect (text wall warning)
Sadly I think because my background is more in the financial services industry, and I don’t have an MBA I believe I was rejected on those reasons and lack of experience in a CEO position.
You sound grossly unqualified to be making any recommendations to a company in an industry you have never worked in with a lack of applicable work experience and education...
How is this different than the dozens of other armchair QB 'GW management' threads which already exist and why isn't in one of those?
Or is this the 'this weeks FESTIVUS thread' where people re-air grievances with GW?
If we're playing this game, what qualifies you to judge if he's qualified?
Or is this just hypocrisy in action?
Ooh, ooh. Let's all whip out our CVs and measure them to see who would be the most qualified to not get the position because they already knew who was going to get it before they posted it.
Six mistakes mankind keeps making century after century: Believing that personal gain is made by crushing others; Worrying about things that cannot be changed or corrected; Insisting that a thing is impossible because we cannot accomplish it; Refusing to set aside trivial preferences; Neglecting development and refinement of the mind; Attempting to compel others to believe and live as we do
2015/08/19 17:54:05
Subject: Open Letter to GW from a CEO prospect (text wall warning)
I thought that spoiler was the letter you sent , my bad. Just don't say you have any connection to Dakka or any other online forum site. I doubt GW would like someone who is connected to such pages
Wyzilla wrote: Saying the Eldar won the War in Heaven is like saying a child won a fight with a murderer simply because after breaking into his house, shooting his mother and father through the head, the thug took off in a car instead of finishing off the kid.
2015/08/19 17:57:33
Subject: Open Letter to GW from a CEO prospect (text wall warning)
Sadly I think because my background is more in the financial services industry, and I don’t have an MBA I believe I was rejected on those reasons and lack of experience in a CEO position.
You sound grossly unqualified to be making any recommendations to a company in an industry you have never worked in with a lack of applicable work experience and education...
How is this different than the dozens of other armchair QB 'GW management' threads which already exist and why isn't in one of those?
Or is this the 'this weeks FESTIVUS thread' where people re-air grievances with GW?
If we're playing this game, what qualifies you to judge if he's qualified?
Or is this just hypocrisy in action?
Ooh, ooh. Let's all whip out our CVs and measure them to see who would be the most qualified to not get the position because they already knew who was going to get it before they posted it.
Lol I completely agree with you, I feel it was more of a PR stunt than a genuine search for a fresh outlook.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
DaKKaLAnce wrote: I thought that spoiler was the letter you sent , my bad. Just don't say you have any connection to Dakka or any other online forum site. I doubt GW would like someone who is connected to such pages
No worries I should have been more clear, perhaps I will amend my application for privacy reasons and post it as well so people can see what I wrote.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/08/19 17:58:39
3000 Points Tzeentch
2015/08/19 18:02:17
Subject: Open Letter to GW from a CEO prospect (text wall warning)
I think that the last Executive position filled from outside was for a Board position when they hired someone with a background in M&A (interestingly).
Six mistakes mankind keeps making century after century: Believing that personal gain is made by crushing others; Worrying about things that cannot be changed or corrected; Insisting that a thing is impossible because we cannot accomplish it; Refusing to set aside trivial preferences; Neglecting development and refinement of the mind; Attempting to compel others to believe and live as we do
2015/08/19 18:03:04
Subject: Open Letter to GW from a CEO prospect (text wall warning)
Sadly I think because my background is more in the financial services industry, and I don’t have an MBA I believe I was rejected on those reasons and lack of experience in a CEO position.
You sound grossly unqualified to be making any recommendations to a company in an industry you have never worked in with a lack of applicable work experience and education...
Your point? GW themselves say they hire for attitude over skill.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/08/19 18:04:21
Games Workshop Delenda Est.
Users on ignore- 53.
If you break apart my or anyone else's posts line by line I will not read them.
2015/08/19 18:39:04
Subject: Open Letter to GW from a CEO prospect (text wall warning)
Sadly I think because my background is more in the financial services industry, and I don’t have an MBA I believe I was rejected on those reasons and lack of experience in a CEO position.
You sound grossly unqualified to be making any recommendations to a company in an industry you have never worked in with a lack of applicable work experience and education...
Your point? GW themselves say they hire for attitude over skill.
DaKKaLAnce wrote: I thought that spoiler was the letter you sent , my bad. Just don't say you have any connection to Dakka or any other online forum site. I doubt GW would like someone who is connected to such pages
Lol sorry I very much doubt that they would even consider most of what I'm saying. However in my initial letter to them I made no mention about being a dakka member. To be completely honest I think the fear that gw has of dakka and open discussion with its fans is unhealthy and does nothing but foster problems.
I agree - GW retreating from the Internet and from contact with its customers was...not a good thing.
2015/08/19 19:54:31
Subject: Open Letter to GW from a CEO prospect (text wall warning)
Alpharius wrote: Applying to be the CEO of GW isn't 40K Specific!
It was for about a week, before AoS was released.
Six mistakes mankind keeps making century after century: Believing that personal gain is made by crushing others; Worrying about things that cannot be changed or corrected; Insisting that a thing is impossible because we cannot accomplish it; Refusing to set aside trivial preferences; Neglecting development and refinement of the mind; Attempting to compel others to believe and live as we do
2015/08/19 20:01:28
Subject: Open Letter to GW from a CEO prospect (text wall warning)
As another high level business professional who also happens to be a long time gamer, I too applied for the position.
I do agree, that they never were going to hire outside - hopefully mr Roundtree will do well, but we will see - he had already been indoctrinated into the kirby mentality which has been handicapping the company for years (they could be a billion dollar company).
Some feedback on your letter;
Overall;
I would not have put "what I would change" in the letter.
If they disagree with the underlying assumptions, that right there would kill it (note, I did not say you were wrong specifically, just an observation).
Getting rid of the stores;
Without more detailed data, this is a hard call - also a lot would depend on how they are breaking up the costs on 'restructuring' - are hey using cost pools, are they cross subsidizing? just what is the data?
I have poured over their financial reports, their stock holder meeting notes (they are fascinating....) and their board reports (again, interesting reading). I honestly did not find any good data at the level required to cut the stores.
I DO agree with the thought of a single person store has issues hosting events, running games, etc. But an overall abandonment strategy - I have not seen the detailed P&L to make that call (maybe I missed something).
The "we don't do any marketing" call out.
I would have skipped this - again, they think its not necessary, and thus could disqualify you as "being a bad fit".
I DO agree they need to be VERY active in marketing and consumer/customer relations. But I would not have called it out in that manner (i.e. negative - I would have pointed out ways to do subtle marketing to grow profits).
The video game tie in;
Video games are not in their core competency, and in the past they have chosen to use licensing to manage this.
I think your idea is interesting, but shows such a major departure to their established directions, I think this again might be too divergent to get your considered.
Thank you for sharing your information, however.
for others who might wonder how I am qualified to turn around a company that is no where near its potential - that is my day job - I work with fortune 100 companies in large scale global projects to make/save the millions (sometimes hundreds of millions) of dollars. I have worked in large numbers of industries - which gives me an unprecedented perspective and experience in a variety of situations and business models (they also looked at me in linked in).
I think the biggest problem GW has is they don't understand who the majority of their market really is, and what their product is to those who are buying it.
This is a common problem, a lot more than people think. They are the epitome of the 90s business case buzzword "paradigm paralysis".
again, thank you for sharing.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/08/20 02:13:14
DavePak
"Remember, in life, the only thing you absolutely control is your own attitude - do not squander that power."
Fully Painted armies:
TAU: 10k Nids: 9600 Marines: 4000 Crons: 7600
Actor, Gamer, Comic, Corporate Nerd
2015/08/20 03:03:41
Subject: Open Letter to GW from a CEO prospect (text wall warning)
davethepak wrote: As another high level business professional who also happens to be a long time gamer, I too applied for the position.
I do agree, that they never were going to hire outside - hopefully mr Roundtree will do well, but we will see - he had already been indoctrinated into the kirby mentality which has been handicapping the company for years (they could be a billion dollar company).
Some feedback on your letter;
Overall;
I would not have put "what I would change" in the letter.
If they disagree with the underlying assumptions, that right there would kill it (note, I did not say you were wrong specifically, just an observation).
Getting rid of the stores;
Without more detailed data, this is a hard call - also a lot would depend on how they are breaking up the costs on 'restructuring' - are hey using cost pools, are they cross subsidizing? just what is the data?
I have poured over their financial reports, their stock holder meeting notes (they are fascinating....) and their board reports (again, interesting reading). I honestly did not find any good data at the level required to cut the stores.
I DO agree with the thought of a single person store has issues hosting events, running games, etc. But an overall abandonment strategy - I have not seen the detailed P&L to make that call (maybe I missed something).
The "we don't do any marketing" call out.
I would have skipped this - again, they think its not necessary, and thus could disqualify you as "being a bad fit".
I DO agree they need to be VERY active in marketing and consumer/customer relations. But I would not have called it out in that manner (i.e. negative - I would have pointed out ways to do subtle marketing to grow profits).
The video game tie in;
Video games are not in their core competency, and in the past they have chosen to use licensing to manage this.
I think your idea is interesting, but shows such a major departure to their established directions, I think this again might be too divergent to get your considered.
Thank you for sharing your information, however.
for others who might wonder how I am qualified to turn around a company that is no where near its potential - that is my day job - I work with fortune 100 companies in large scale global projects to make/save the millions (sometimes hundreds of millions) of dollars. I have worked in large numbers of industries - which gives me an unprecedented perspective and experience in a variety of situations and business models (they also looked at me in linked in).
I think the biggest problem GW has is they don't understand who the majority of their market really is, and what their product is to those who are buying it.
This is a common problem, a lot more than people think. They are the epitome of the 90s business case buzzword "paradigm paralysis".
again, thank you for sharing.
Thank you for the wonderful feedback I really appreciate it. Forgive my tone of how I try to get my ideas across but you are right, there would need to be a lot more data involved before even considering implementing any plan that would have such a major impact on the company.
I think with the gaming platform there are so many engines available now that are widely used that it would be entirely possible to adopt one which will be supported and updated for a long period of time. With that in mind hiring a company to develop a bulk of the product and to build an internal team that would carry it after that would best.
This way GW could actually become a pc game company as well with a monthly revenue model that both reinforces their core products while expanding their profit opportunities into a market they have had issues penetrating.
To be honest it sounds like you were an excellent candidate yourself and I'm surprised that they didn't interview you.
As far as the marketing goes, you can ignore it all you want but at the end of the day they will most likely adopt it once they become desperate enough and by then it may be too late.
3000 Points Tzeentch
2015/08/20 04:00:09
Subject: Re:Open Letter to GW from a CEO prospect (text wall warning)
I would not want to play 40k in any online capacity, and I don't think that would benefit the game. I'm not a financier by any stretch, but I think the model you suggest would have as many problems as the current model, just different ones. A lateral move in quality wouldn't be worth the hassle to me, as a consumer.
