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.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Kimchi Gamer wrote:
I've never understood their insistance that most of their customes are collectors and hobbyists. I have only anecdotal evidence to go by but we see the bulk of our GW sales being the powerful in game miniatures and they are bought in multiples by the same customers. Perhaps if they would just ASK their retailers for that kind of information instead of coming up with their numbers?

I imagine it's a pretty hard thing to quantify. I'd imagine very few people who buy products from a store actually play games at that store for the owner to know if they're gamers. And even if they are people who never game, they might still know the rules and might still build armies for gaming even though they never play games. I know several people like that, and indeed I myself have a couple of armies that have never seen the table (both from GW and from other companies).

Short of asking every customer how many games they play per month and doing that in a lot of different regions, it would be a very difficult thing to gauge.

I could totally believe that most purchases go to people who collect and don't game much or at all.... I could also believe most sales go to gamers. I know a bunch of people from both camps but I'd have no idea on a global scale which group is larger.

You can tell quite easily actually. Because Collectors and Gamers will have very different buying habits.

A collector will only want to collect something. Meaning he'll be satisfied with only one of something.

A gamer on the other hand, due to how GW writes rules, will be buying in more bulk. He'll buy 3 tactical squads instead of the 1 which the collector will do. He may buy 2-3 of the new "shiny" release model because that is what is competitive, the collector will only want one for his collection.

 Grey Templar wrote:
A collector will only want to collect something. Meaning he'll be satisfied with only one of something. .

Not necessarily. For some collectors, it's about collecting as much as possible, not just one of everything. Others will collect armies or army-like collections, without having any intention of gaming with them.

 Grey Templar wrote:

A collector will only want to collect something. Meaning he'll be satisfied with only one of something.

A gamer on the other hand, due to how GW writes rules, will be buying in more bulk. He'll buy 3 tactical squads instead of the 1 which the collector will do. He may buy 2-3 of the new "shiny" release model because that is what is competitive, the collector will only want one for his collection.

This is a misconception.

I pretty much only play Dark Eldar, Blood Angels (sometimes as Vanilla marines), Eldar and Grey Knights.

However, I collect Necron, Orks, Space Wolves, Tau, and Imperial Guard, and have TONS of each, with lots of multiples of many kits. It's because there are collector/modelers, especially in the 40k world, whose idea of a collection isn't "one of everything", but rather "a full army of something". Really, no space marine army will be complete unless I have the full chapter, and that probably isn't ever going to happen -- but boy would it be glorious. And if I ever did it? I'd just start another chapter

Now, I'm not saying that as a gamer for one faction, I won't buy more models for them -- I probably do, because after all, I wouldn't have bought a half dozen more new razorbacks if not for Gladius. But if I decide to build Dark Angels (which I've thought of many times), for example, even if I don't game them, I'll probably build a full company to start, and then go from there to have the models to match various cool formations, even if I don't intend to ever game with them -- basically much like the Decurion I'm building (I'm never, ever going to play them, because, with the exception of Dark Eldar, I only like to play "the good guys"... whatever that means in 40k).

Even for WMH, which I don't build armies for, I buy multiples of models I really like, such as Victoria Haley 1 (I have like 6 of her painted different ways). Same with Infinity: I have many duplicates of various panoceania (infinity) models. No game purpose at all, since I don't even play it.

 Grey Templar wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Kimchi Gamer wrote:
I've never understood their insistance that most of their customes are collectors and hobbyists. I have only anecdotal evidence to go by but we see the bulk of our GW sales being the powerful in game miniatures and they are bought in multiples by the same customers. Perhaps if they would just ASK their retailers for that kind of information instead of coming up with their numbers?

I imagine it's a pretty hard thing to quantify. I'd imagine very few people who buy products from a store actually play games at that store for the owner to know if they're gamers. And even if they are people who never game, they might still know the rules and might still build armies for gaming even though they never play games. I know several people like that, and indeed I myself have a couple of armies that have never seen the table (both from GW and from other companies).

Short of asking every customer how many games they play per month and doing that in a lot of different regions, it would be a very difficult thing to gauge.

I could totally believe that most purchases go to people who collect and don't game much or at all.... I could also believe most sales go to gamers. I know a bunch of people from both camps but I'd have no idea on a global scale which group is larger.

You can tell quite easily actually. Because Collectors and Gamers will have very different buying habits.

A collector will only want to collect something. Meaning he'll be satisfied with only one of something.

A gamer on the other hand, due to how GW writes rules, will be buying in more bulk. He'll buy 3 tactical squads instead of the 1 which the collector will do. He may buy 2-3 of the new "shiny" release model because that is what is competitive, the collector will only want one for his collection.

Thats not true at all. I have multiple spitfire models to make up a squadron even though there are no rules to go with them.

A collector will often buy multiples, to build a diorama, to build an army for display or simply because they enjoy building a specific model and so want to do it multiple times.

In fact I'd say its often the collectors who buy multiples of things even at times when it makes no sense from a gaming perspective (I own more Tiger tank models than I will ever use in an actual game).

If it's really about collecting then why the fuss about look-alike pieces from other companies? Collectors only want the real thing not similar designs from others. Yet GW are very hostile towards other companies producing similar products. It's almost like the public want the miniatures and options for conversion for a purpose beyond merely 'collecting GW'.

I think a lot of the non-gamers would game if they had the time and community. I think lots buy rules and codexes to read the background and with the intention that they can play one day even if they don't get around to it, or they play once a year. But if there were no viable rules available, and it's a game they would never have any intention of playing, would there still be a reason to collect as much?

 jonolikespie wrote:

Incomplete, but far from worthless.

It is still the best insight to the industry we have and to dismiss it is to say 'we don't know 100% of how this works therefore it might as well be magic'.

Which is why I said largely worthless. Its far too weak a data source to base anything of worth on though.

From my own experience, I would say only 20% of there custermers being gamers is a bit crazy. Unless they have pushed away many of there custermers.

For us we only really have 1 dedicated collector, that still games semi regularly. Everyone other is really inbetween I think.
With my own, I am a collector as GW puts it. But I am also a gamer, I find as I mature and as GW seems to push there games focus into more of a Neiche. I have lost a lot more desire to collect there minis.
For me the world and the game go hand in hand with my desire to collect, and to have a grand army become far less desirable as there game become less thoughtful in design. And with it I think the story's and the universe has become far more bland trying to twist its game world to suit there miniature design.

I collect minis I like first, but I get miniatures I want to play with.
I will get a game based on Its minis before the rules, but as I get into it more. The world and the rules need to support that more, as both motivates me to do something more with it.
( I am not short of things to display, and my own skills as a painter are hindered to make it far less worth. I think a lot of my comunity would be)

In the end I think GW as a company is kinda daft, pushing away lots of custermers for silly reasons.
I take there hobby as a whole, and find as a whole it's beginning to lack.

The 'models company, not a games company' shtick is baffling to me.

Sure, they might consider themselves to be primarily a models company.
But they still produce all the bits and pieces that a games company would. They do rulebooks and dice and tokens and templates and supplements. And when you're already doing all of that... why not spend the minuscule amount of effort required to make it better?

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 agnosto wrote:

It's largely anecdotal but with a wide distribution but ICV2 runs a survey several times per year of stores that seems to mirror what we see in GW's financial reports, that WHFB fell out of the top 5 and was axed in favor of a total reboot instead of a refresh and XWing moving up into dominance.

ICV2's data is largely worthless though given that 60% of GW's sales are direct, it only has data for North America and it misses lots of sources (such as Ebay).

Incomplete, but far from worthless.

It is still the best insight to the industry we have and to dismiss it is to say 'we don't know 100% of how this works therefore it might as well be magic'.

The other problem with ICV2 is it's extrapolated data and can be wildly inaccurate. I mentioned this in a thread a while back....

"I noticed in their 2014 sales report (the one that came out most recently) they had to revise one of their estimates from 2013 from $75M to $100M.... that's a 33% "correction" If they can't even get within $25M/33% on one of their estimates I'm not sure I trust any of them."

I think ICV2 is dodgy enough to say: "well, this is probably true, but I'm not going to stake my reputation on it".

That's true but the ICV2 information tallies up with all the other indicators, such as the increase in board game meet-ups, increase in Kickstarters, increase in game forum traffic, to form a picture that shows the games market as a whole growing, while GW's own financial reports show their sales falling.

From an investment viewpoint, GW is profitable and throws off large amounts of cash dividends. The worry is whether they can stem the tide of falling sales before it gets to the point of making them unprofitable.

 jonolikespie wrote:

 Mymearan wrote:
I think it's strange that GW claims they are a model company, yet they always present their models in the context of a game, they sell the models in boxes with options and model amounts optimized for a game, the always make sure that all the models they release are usable in one of their games, they have heavily accelerated their game-related releases lately, the list goes on... If they were a model company, why go to all this trouble? They obviously consider their games to be extremely important to their success (otherwise they wouldn't go to all this trouble), yet they still make statements like this... It all seems contradictory. They used to be a model company, back in the 80s, before Warhamer and before Rogue Trader... The current GW is nothing like that.

That's a rather good point, especially when you look at the other, real, model companies out there like Reaper, Scale 75, Nocturna, etc.

If GW were a true model company and not a game company I'd be able to buy a space marine bust in metal or resin at a 50 or 75 mm scale dammit!

Not to mention they wouldn't make figures in the grotesque 28mm "heroic" scale, but in a scale with proper proportions like 1:72 or 1:35.

 Aszubaruzah Surn wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:

 Mymearan wrote:
I think it's strange that GW claims they are a model company, yet they always present their models in the context of a game, they sell the models in boxes with options and model amounts optimized for a game, the always make sure that all the models they release are usable in one of their games, they have heavily accelerated their game-related releases lately, the list goes on... If they were a model company, why go to all this trouble? They obviously consider their games to be extremely important to their success (otherwise they wouldn't go to all this trouble), yet they still make statements like this... It all seems contradictory. They used to be a model company, back in the 80s, before Warhamer and before Rogue Trader... The current GW is nothing like that.

That's a rather good point, especially when you look at the other, real, model companies out there like Reaper, Scale 75, Nocturna, etc.

If GW were a true model company and not a game company I'd be able to buy a space marine bust in metal or resin at a 50 or 75 mm scale dammit!

Not to mention they wouldn't make figures in the grotesque 28mm "heroic" scale, but in a scale with proper proportions like 1:72 or 1:35.

You can have properly proportioned 28mm models. Which is what we'd call non heroic 28mm, it's not limited to just the 1:** scales.

Infinity miniatures are 'true' 28mm as far as I am aware. They look tiny compared to GW models with itty bitty sticks for arms and tiny hands, but they look like real people, not cartoons or apes.

 jonolikespie wrote:
Infinity miniatures are 'true' 28mm as far as I am aware. They look tiny compared to GW models with itty bitty sticks for arms and tiny hands, but they look like real people, not cartoons or apes.

Lord of the Rings models are realistic scale 28mm models I believe.

When you get to realistic scale, you often want a slightly larger scale just so the head looks a bit more detailed.

I think true 32mm works out about the same size as heroic 28, but with the correct proportions.

Even changing that much would be a big step towards being a real 'miniatures' company.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
Infinity miniatures are 'true' 28mm as far as I am aware. They look tiny compared to GW models with itty bitty sticks for arms and tiny hands, but they look like real people, not cartoons or apes.

Lord of the Rings models are realistic scale 28mm models I believe.

Pretty sure LotR are 25mm.

 Baragash wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
Infinity miniatures are 'true' 28mm as far as I am aware. They look tiny compared to GW models with itty bitty sticks for arms and tiny hands, but they look like real people, not cartoons or apes.

Lord of the Rings models are realistic scale 28mm models I believe.

Pretty sure LotR are 25mm.

I just measured some of my models. Rohan infantry looks to be 26-27mm tall to the eye, 28-29mm overall height (not including base or helmet). My Boromir model is bang on 28mm to the eyes and 30mm tall overall (not including base).

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Baragash wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
Infinity miniatures are 'true' 28mm as far as I am aware. They look tiny compared to GW models with itty bitty sticks for arms and tiny hands, but they look like real people, not cartoons or apes.

Lord of the Rings models are realistic scale 28mm models I believe.

Pretty sure LotR are 25mm.

I just measured some of my models. Rohan infantry looks to be 26-27mm tall to the eye, 28-29mm overall height (not including base or helmet). My Boromir model is bang on 28mm to the eyes and 30mm tall overall (not including base).

My recollection is from White Dwarf articles rather than measuring, also IIRC we (I was a red shirt at the time) were told that the license didn't allow them to make them in the same size as WHF to further prevent cross-system "contamination".

LotR stuff was specifically meant to be in a different scale to the rest of GW's products to prevent "cross-contamination", where people might want to buy a Rohan army to field as Bretonnians and vice versa.

EDIT: And..I was ninja'd.

 Baragash wrote:
My recollection is from White Dwarf articles rather than measuring, also IIRC we (I was a red shirt at the time) were told that the license didn't allow them to make them in the same size as WHF to further prevent cross-system "contamination".

IIRC millimetre scales (20mm, 28mm, 54mm, etc) are measured as average height to the model's eyes. So if they're 25mm, they're wrong Unless they're measuring to the shoulder or the chin or something.

I was told something similar by a red shirt, but I think the REAL reason is because LotR is based on real actors, so if they'd made them the typical WHFB hero scale they would have looked extremely derpy. I think it had less to do with cross contamination and more to do with New Line, PJ or whoever organised the license wanting a more realistic scale.

LotR was also done (again, if IIRC) by the Perry twins, I think the Perry twins prefer more realistic scales as all their models outside of 40k/WHFB are done in more realistic scales. The Perry's also did the original Bretonnians in 4th or 5th edition which were more realistically scaled than the current Bretonnians.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
A collector will often buy multiples, to build a diorama, to build an army for display or simply because they enjoy building a specific model and so want to do it multiple times.

I think that those are more traits of a modeler than a collector.

Modelers may also be collectors - but the building and the painting for the pure joy of it, that is modeling.

When I really enjoy painting a mini, I may do another of the same figure - but one of them is going to be given away or sold. (Unless it is part of an army - but that is the gamer aspect, not collecting or modeling.)

The fact is that none of that is an either or - and the result is more of a Venn diagram than a list.

And that is what GW may be confusing - that because somebody collects that somehow means that that person isn't also a gamer.

The Auld Grump - if it weren't for gaming, I likely would have started model railroading....

"Collector" is a broad enough term that in the context of wargaming it can be synonymous with "modeller".

The aspect of modelling that is independent of collecting (in a Venn diagram) is so small and obscure I'd say it almost doesn't exist.

But it's all just a semantic argument on terminology that can have very broad meanings. When I said "collector" I obviously just meant someone who purchases models without the express intention of gaming with them.

I haven't met the person who collects wargame miniatures simply to have them independently of modelling or gaming.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
"Collector" is a broad enough term that in the context of wargaming it can be synonymous with "modeller".

The aspect of modelling that is independent of collecting (in a Venn diagram) is so small and obscure I'd say it almost doesn't exist.

But it's all just a semantic argument on terminology that can have very broad meanings. When I said "collector" I obviously just meant someone who purchases models without the express intention of gaming with them.

I haven't met the person who collects wargame miniatures simply to have them independently of modelling or gaming.

I have - but it was prepainted minis. (Clix and D&DM....)

*EDIT* Met such a collector, I mean - I very much dislike most prepainted minis, though some can be salvaged with decent paint jobs....

The Auld Grump

I think GW have been very successful in spoting the shift in customer from gamer to collector. I would say this has been a gradual shift as their customer base got older. Yes it leaves a rump of unhappy gamers but as anyone who is on here with their eyes open they will know that gamers are rather difficult to please! GWs very healthy margins show how good they have been at capturing the collector or infrequent gamer who collects outside his regular armies. Pretentious or not I love collecting and I collect outside GW too! Military swords, vanity fair cartoons and old bibles. I hope that GW continue to produce higher and higher quality books and models that are of interest to a collecting audience. And I might, if I get any time, play a game the odd time too!

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
"Collector" is a broad enough term that in the context of wargaming it can be synonymous with "modeller".

The aspect of modelling that is independent of collecting (in a Venn diagram) is so small and obscure I'd say it almost doesn't exist.

But it's all just a semantic argument on terminology that can have very broad meanings. When I said "collector" I obviously just meant someone who purchases models without the express intention of gaming with them.

I haven't met the person who collects wargame miniatures simply to have them independently of modelling or gaming.

I have - but it was prepainted minis. (Clix and D&DM....)

*EDIT* Met such a collector, I mean - I very much dislike most prepainted minis, though some can be salvaged with decent paint jobs....

The Auld Grump

I can imagine such a person in the context of prepainted minis (or commission painted I guess), I do know a few people who collect non-wargaming pre painted models. But for typical wargaming models it seems like an oddity to have someone who just buys a Space Marine then puts it on their shelf, then an Ork, then a Necron, etc. I guess it's not inconceivable but I don't think that's really what we're talking about when we are discussing "collector" in the wargaming context.

Remembering that in general a "collector" is simply someone who collects stuff.... so really we're all collectors whether we game with them or not It's pretty much impossible to be a wargamer without first being a collector by the general definition of the word. We're just assigning the specific definition to the word "collector" to mean "not a gamer".

 Knockagh wrote:
I think GW have been very successful in spoting the shift in customer from gamer to collector. I would say this has been a gradual shift as their customer base got older. Yes it leaves a rump of unhappy gamers but as anyone who is on here with their eyes open they will know that gamers are rather difficult to please! GWs very healthy margins show how good they have been at capturing the collector or infrequent gamer who collects outside his regular armies. Pretentious or not I love collecting and I collect outside GW too! Military swords, vanity fair cartoons and old bibles. I hope that GW continue to produce higher and higher quality books and models that are of interest to a collecting audience. And I might, if I get any time, play a game the odd time too!

As opposed to higher quality rules?

Sorry, but given the stagnation that GW is suffering from, I think that 'very successful' is a wild exaggeration. (My actual thought is less printable.)

If sales were growing in the face of a shrinking industry, then the argument might have some merit.

Stagnation in a growing industry?

Not much merit to be had.

The Auld Grump

*EDIT* Because of an amazing disappearing quote....


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
"Collector" is a broad enough term that in the context of wargaming it can be synonymous with "modeller".

The aspect of modelling that is independent of collecting (in a Venn diagram) is so small and obscure I'd say it almost doesn't exist.

But it's all just a semantic argument on terminology that can have very broad meanings. When I said "collector" I obviously just meant someone who purchases models without the express intention of gaming with them.

I haven't met the person who collects wargame miniatures simply to have them independently of modelling or gaming.

I have - but it was prepainted minis. (Clix and D&DM....)

*EDIT* Met such a collector, I mean - I very much dislike most prepainted minis, though some can be salvaged with decent paint jobs....

The Auld Grump

I can imagine such a person in the context of prepainted minis (or commission painted I guess), I do know a few people who collect non-wargaming pre painted models. But for typical wargaming models it seems like an oddity to have someone who just buys a Space Marine then puts it on their shelf, then an Ork, then a Necron, etc. I guess it's not inconceivable but I don't think that's really what we're talking about when we are discussing "collector" in the wargaming context.

Remembering that in general a "collector" is simply someone who collects stuff.... so really we're all collectors whether we game with them or not It's pretty much impossible to be a wargamer without first being a collector by the general definition of the word. We're just assigning the specific definition to the word "collector" to mean "not a gamer".

Which brings us back to my Venn diagram.

The Auld Grump - and I play RPGs... it is amazing the size of a collection you can justify as 'well, I'll use it for something, sometime....'

Yes, most certainly in preference to more rules better or worse.

As someone who owns and runs several businesses I can assure you despite any school diagrams GW are doing ok.

And as someone who has owned and run businesses and also managed for other people and studied business academically (I can do appeals to authority too) I can assure you it very much depends on your definition of "ok."

 Azreal13 wrote:
And as someone who has owned and run businesses and also managed for other people and studied business academically (I can do appeals to authority too) I can assure you it very much depends on your definition of "ok."

Crops withering and all that.

Can we define "OK" as turning a profit?

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
If it's really about collecting then why the fuss about look-alike pieces from other companies? Collectors only want the real thing not similar designs from others. Yet GW are very hostile towards other companies producing similar products. It's almost like the public want the miniatures and options for conversion for a purpose beyond merely 'collecting GW'.

What GW wants is for people who want to buy parts to buy 'authentic' GW parts, rather than compatible alternatives, because the latter is a slippery slope to *cheaper* alternatives -- in their view.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

I think a lot of the non-gamers would game if they had the time and community. I think lots buy rules and codexes to read the background and with the intention that they can play one day even if they don't get around to it, or they play once a year. But if there were no viable rules available, and it's a game they would never have any intention of playing, would there still be a reason to collect as much?

I think you're right: a lot of people just don't have enough time to play. I'm not sure that community is a problem; maybe in some areas, but I don't think in most areas where there are stores that sell stuff and can sell enough stuff to stay in business.

On the other hand, as I said, even for armies that I have no intention of playing, I like collecting (modelling) cohesive battleforces, not single display units. So even if I'll never play Necron, I'll buy and model the Decurion that I imagine would be a fearsome army. Frankly, the armies that I collect and don't play get a lot of add-on units that just look cool; since I'm not really worried about how good they'll be in the game, for instance, the Night Stalker fleet is just as big as I think would be cool (I think I want 5 eventually, and I'd never field that if I were playing the faction, probably would not buy more than 2); whereas for Eldar, I had exactly 1 Fire Prism before 2015 codex, and now have 3 Fire Prisms; sans rules making a bigger formation, I probably won't buy more.