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.

 Ghaz wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
Another option was not to raise prices at all. They have incredible profit margins. It wasn't a case that they needed to do this to stay afloat. There's no rule of the universe that says that they need to maintain the same profit margin even during a global catastrophe.

No. That's not an option and you know it. The world has gotten more expensive for everybody, Games Workshop included.

Do you have any data at all to back up the claim that GW would not have been able to turn a profit at the prior price level?

Because the last I saw, GW's profit margins are incredible, in the 20%+ range. Given that the price increase was about 10% on about half their line, it's about a 5% overall increase in prices. If they have 20% margins, they could have not only increased prices, but cut them significantly, and still been profitable even on identical sales.

This is about maintaining their very large profit margin, not about staying afloat. If you have any data to suggest otherwise feel free to cite it, but everything I've seen suggests that GW would still be making hefty profits without the price hike.

https://markets.ft.com/data/equities/tearsheet/financials?s=GAW:LSE

This shows 28% net profit margins for 2019. That's immense.

So perhaps they should increase prices a bit more, get the margins up to 30% and then give all their employees payouts in stock/profit sharing to the point that their margins are back at 20%

Just because they have high margins doesn't mean the right thing to do is lower prices. It could be the right thing to do is increase the ownership of the company itself among employees to bolster morale and productivity and make the workplace more democratic.

 zedmeister wrote:

deano2099 wrote:
For a lot of people, GW, or 40K, is the hobby. Not "mini wargaming".

 Blackie wrote:
It's not the single hobby I have but I'm not into mini wargaming, I'm only interested in 40k, more specifically in 40k orks.

I think it is important to point out that even if people stick with a single brand, it still is the miniature wargaming hobby. Whether GW or other popular games like Infinity, Bolt Action, Kings of War, Frostgrave and myriads of other fantasy and historical games they're all related and share the same general methodolgy in that you're pushing painted models around a table to simulate the field of battle.

I mean, that's true, if they're pushing painted models around a table to simulate the field of battle. God knows the game is the least interesting part of 40K to me. I enjoy the setting and building and painting the models but the game doesn't see that much play versus the few hundred other board games I have as an option.

I'd wager a significant portion of GW's audience don't play either at all, or in any significant way.

 Overread wrote:
I suspect that 3rd party model makers will also have done generally ok -

Indeed. April was our best month in almost two years, even without any current releases thanks to production being shut down. Slowed down somewhat once GW announced their plans to reopen, but was nice while it lasted

I mean, that's true, if they're pushing painted models around a table to simulate the field of battle. God knows the game is the least interesting part of 40K to me. I enjoy the setting and building and painting the models but the game doesn't see that much play versus the few hundred other board games I have as an option.

I'd wager a significant portion of GW's audience don't play either at all, or in any significant way.

That's kind of irrelevant.

However you consume 40K, you're still in a sub set of a wider interest, even if all you do is consume 40K related stuff.

40K is not a verb.

 Azreal13 wrote:
So oil has dropped so low that it was negatively priced, and many businesses have reduced or ceased trading and therefore demand on shipping services will also be proportionately affected, yet plastic and logistics have gone up?

I don't have any evidence to tell you you're wrong, but I'd be interested if you have any to support that idea.

Some years back, when they were discussing the volatile tin prices, there was a mention in GW's financials that material cost is a very, very small percentage of the overall cost of production (less than 3%, IIRC). So oil bottoming out would presumably have a much lower effect on their prices than just about everything else.

yukishiro1 wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
Another option was not to raise prices at all. They have incredible profit margins. It wasn't a case that they needed to do this to stay afloat. There's no rule of the universe that says that they need to maintain the same profit margin even during a global catastrophe.

No. That's not an option and you know it. The world has gotten more expensive for everybody, Games Workshop included.

Do you have any data at all to back up the claim that GW would not have been able to turn a profit at the prior price level?

Because the last I saw, GW's profit margins are incredible, in the 20%+ range. Given that the price increase was about 10% on about half their line, it's about a 5% overall increase in prices. If they have 20% margins, they could have not only increased prices, but cut them significantly, and still been profitable even on identical sales.

This is about maintaining their very large profit margin, not about staying afloat. If you have any data to suggest otherwise feel free to cite it, but everything I've seen suggests that GW would still be making hefty profits without the price hike.

https://markets.ft.com/data/equities/tearsheet/financials?s=GAW:LSE

This shows 28% net profit margins for 2019. That's immense.

It wasn't half their line. Their announcement, which was quoted in the OP of this thread, states it was about 400 items out of more than 3,000. That's what, just over 13%. Mostly older stuff or big monsters and vehicles rather than Start Collecting boxes and game books. Not particularly things that will stop new players coming in.

We know that only a few years ago GW was struggling. Now they are doing well, but no-one knows the full effect of coronavirus. They run their own factories, they have a global network of stores, they have loads of staff, they need raw materials, they need to use international shipping, and they get various components (including books?) manufactured in China. This is a lot of areas of potential vulnerability. The notion that they have been earning too much money and should cut down their profits voluntarily is ludicrous. Why would they be expected to do that?

 insaniak wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
So oil has dropped so low that it was negatively priced, and many businesses have reduced or ceased trading and therefore demand on shipping services will also be proportionately affected, yet plastic and logistics have gone up?

I don't have any evidence to tell you you're wrong, but I'd be interested if you have any to support that idea.

Some years back, when they were discussing the volatile tin prices, there was a mention in GW's financials that material cost is a very, very small percentage of the overall cost of production (less than 3%, IIRC). So oil bottoming out would presumably have a much lower effect on their prices than just about everything else.

Oh I agree, but the price of plastic increasing was nevertheless cited and I fail to see how the price of the raw material needed to make it being at record low prices could somehow drive prices up.

If producers had shut down and therefore that price drop was offset by limited supply then that might be different, hence I sought clarification, as knowledge of the no doubt complex supply chain of petroleum based manufacturing isn't top of my CV

soviet13 wrote:
The notion that they should cut down their profits voluntarily is ludicrous. Why would they be expected to do that?

The notion that GW expect people to absorb year on year price rises is ludicrous also. Most people's incomes don't work like that.

Well as I said before it vanished into the void, GW is making the game cheaper with the raised point values this coming edition, punishing multiple detachments with costing CP. In a way they are making you need less so at least for the short term you may be able to avoid buying stuff, and have less incentive to pick up allies. At least until they change their mind on that.

As for them citing plastic costs for price rises I think that was all a line anyways to try and justify cost rises. At this point they don't even bother explaining why things go up other than to say " We want to raise the prices " Can't have anything looking like cheap buys after all.

 Chamberlain wrote:
So perhaps they should increase prices a bit more, get the margins up to 30% and then give all their employees payouts in stock/profit sharing to the point that their margins are back at 20%

Just because they have high margins doesn't mean the right thing to do is lower prices. It could be the right thing to do is increase the ownership of the company itself among employees to bolster morale and productivity and make the workplace more democratic.

I didn't say it was. I was just refuting the claim that raising prices was required to keep themselves in the black.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

soviet13 wrote:



It wasn't half their line. Their announcement, which was quoted in the OP of this thread, states it was about 400 items out of more than 3,000. That's what, just over 13%. Mostly older stuff or big monsters and vehicles rather than Start Collecting boxes and game books. Not particularly things that will stop new players coming in.

We know that only a few years ago GW was struggling. Now they are doing well, but no-one knows the full effect of coronavirus. They run their own factories, they have a global network of stores, they have loads of staff, they need raw materials, they need to use international shipping, and they get various components (including books?) manufactured in China. This is a lot of areas of potential vulnerability. The notion that they have been earning too much money and should cut down their profits voluntarily is ludicrous. Why would they be expected to do that?

Ok, so if it was on an even smaller percentage of their line, it work out to an even smaller revenue increase. Making the argument that it was an economic necessity even weaker.

And again, I didn't say they should cut prices. Just that they could, and still be very profitable. I was refuting the claim that they were required to raise prices to stay profitable. This is simply not true.

Rob Lee wrote:

The notion that GW expect people to absorb year on year price rises is ludicrous also. Most people's incomes don't work like that.

Given the news about Combat Patrols and Incursions having scenarios actually meant for smaller games in the new version of 40k and how the last General's Handbook for AoS was all about smaller games on smaller areas, I think GW is hoping that people will accept fewer miniatures for more money. But given that a start collecting and maybe one other thing is pretty much a Combat Patrol army, even price hikes, it's not really out of reach.

I honestly do think there are enough people who will simply accept less miniatures for the same money and play smaller games.

yukishiro1 wrote:

 Chamberlain wrote:
So perhaps they should increase prices a bit more, get the margins up to 30% and then give all their employees payouts in stock/profit sharing to the point that their margins are back at 20%

Just because they have high margins doesn't mean the right thing to do is lower prices. It could be the right thing to do is increase the ownership of the company itself among employees to bolster morale and productivity and make the workplace more democratic.

I didn't say it was. I was just refuting the claim that raising prices was required to keep themselves in the black.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

soviet13 wrote:



It wasn't half their line. Their announcement, which was quoted in the OP of this thread, states it was about 400 items out of more than 3,000. That's what, just over 13%. Mostly older stuff or big monsters and vehicles rather than Start Collecting boxes and game books. Not particularly things that will stop new players coming in.

We know that only a few years ago GW was struggling. Now they are doing well, but no-one knows the full effect of coronavirus. They run their own factories, they have a global network of stores, they have loads of staff, they need raw materials, they need to use international shipping, and they get various components (including books?) manufactured in China. This is a lot of areas of potential vulnerability. The notion that they have been earning too much money and should cut down their profits voluntarily is ludicrous. Why would they be expected to do that?

Ok, so if it was on an even smaller percentage of their line, it work out to an even smaller revenue increase. Making the argument that it was an economic necessity even weaker.

And again, I didn't say they should cut prices. Just that they could, and still be very profitable. I was refuting the claim that they were required to raise prices to stay profitable. This is simply not true.

To be fair they (and we) don't know how things are going to pan out and it may well be true. Who can say.

But as I posted in the early days of this thread, I suspect the primary motivation here is as a short term cash drive. They're just re-opening after an extended period of not trading, they have a bunch of old stock taking up space in the warehouse, why not make some room and generate a quick cash injection by getting everyone who was planning to buy these kits in the future to go ahead and buy them right now? That's why they trailed it in advance rather than just doing it overnight.

 Chamberlain wrote:

I honestly do think there are enough people who will simply accept less miniatures for the same money and play smaller games.

Oh, I'm sure there are...

 Azreal13 wrote:

Oh I agree, but the price of plastic increasing was nevertheless cited and I fail to see how the price of the raw material needed to make it being at record low prices could somehow drive prices up.

That's easy to explain, if the cost of labour, electricity, transport (ie: everything else involved in the process) went up by more than enough to offset the amount the raw material went down.

Or simply because those places producing the raw plastic were all shut down for the last 5 months, resulting in shortages and therefore increased price of the dwindling supplies of raw plastic. The cost of the oil is irrelevant if nobody's actually currently using it to buy plastic, or is still using up their supplies purchased at a previous, higher price.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rob Lee wrote:
The notion that GW expect people to absorb year on year price rises is ludicrous also. .

They don't. From previous chatter, they expect that most people who buy into the hobby don't last more than a year, and those who do generally only last 3-5. Their prices aren't aimed at vets who have already largely collected an army, they're aimed at the people walking into a store prepared to drop the contents of their wallet on a new game. A strategy that, despite the criticism from the internet, seems to have been largely working for them for the last 30 years to varying degrees of actual success.

yukishiro1 wrote:
My point was simply that when a company presents itself as a friend of hobbyists and as a moral force for good rather than a faceless corporation intent only on maximizing its own profits, it naturally opens itself up to accusations of hypocrisy

I'll ignore your quite offensive remarks to my previous post, however, I can't ignore your later comment, which is quite patently false and absurd, and shows a fundamental lack of understanding on your part.

Quite simply: GW does not present itself as a moral force for good. The notion that they do is completely fabricated by you, and exists only in your head. Furthermore, it's clear at this stage that you don't understand what the term 'moral' means, nor indeed what 'ethics' are in the context of this discussion.

Ok, so sure, GW raises prices and you have a problem with that -- I get it. However, it is in no way unethical or hypocritical.

I'd ask that you take your snide, rude comments about myself and my background elsewhere.

I apologize for referencing your background; even though you brought it up yourself to try to grant yourself an unwarranted aura of authority, I should have resisted the temptation to do turn that back around against you. Your profession is completely irrelevant to this discussion, and the fact that you behaved otherwise doesn't mean I should have as well. I should have been the bigger person, and I apologize for failing.

In my defense, I simply cannot stand condescension, and your posts here were absolutely dripping with it. It is a form of intellectual bullying, and I cannot abide by it, especially when it is not backed up by substance.

Of course GW presents itself as a moral force for good. We literally just had three pages of posts here about a statement they recently released doing just that. I will assume you are not even contesting the friend of hobbyists part of the statement, as it is so obvious.

The rest of your post is essentially just an admission that you have lost the argument. "You clearly don't understand" is not an argument. Nor is repeating "it is in no way unethical or hypocritical" an argument either.

I have stated my position, and instead of refuting it through explanation, you've simply said "you're wrong and you don't understand." Which is fine - this is the internet, after all - but it's not going to convince anybody.

yukishiro1 wrote:
Another option was not to raise prices at all. They have incredible profit margins. It wasn't a case that they needed to do this to stay afloat. There's no rule of the universe that says that they need to maintain the same profit margin even during a global catastrophe.

They made a choice to raise prices, probably before the pandemic. Then they made another choice to go through with it despite the pandemic. These were both choices that GW made and is responsible for. You can say it was a foregone conclusion because GW raises prices no matter what, and that may be true - but that itself is a choice they are responsible for making.

Yes they could keep prices same. That would result in less profits than with.

You keep thinking gw is doing this just for kind heart and charity. It's not. It's in for profit. If move a gives more profit than move b it's what gw does. In fact what companies do.

It's even hard for them to increase sales as they can't keep things stocked all the time as well. Demand is basically greater than supply. This in itself shows price can be raised.

There's no rule in universe that says gw must take lower profits voluntarily.

tneva82 wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
Another option was not to raise prices at all. They have incredible profit margins. It wasn't a case that they needed to do this to stay afloat. There's no rule of the universe that says that they need to maintain the same profit margin even during a global catastrophe.

They made a choice to raise prices, probably before the pandemic. Then they made another choice to go through with it despite the pandemic. These were both choices that GW made and is responsible for. You can say it was a foregone conclusion because GW raises prices no matter what, and that may be true - but that itself is a choice they are responsible for making.

Yes they could keep prices same. That would result in less profits than with.

You keep thinking gw is doing this just for kind heart and charity. It's not. It's in for profit. If move a gives more profit than move b it's what gw does. In fact what companies do.

It's even hard for them to increase sales as they can't keep things stocked all the time as well. Demand is basically greater than supply. This in itself shows price can be raised.

There's no rule in universe that says gw must take lower profits voluntarily.

I have never once said anywhere in this thread that I think GW doing this for "kind heart and charity." Please don't ascribe positions to people they haven't made in order to make it easier to refute their argument. It's not a good way of arguing. It just makes everyone waste time.

My statement was specifically refuting someone who said the only options were raising prices this year, or raising prices by 2x as much next year instead. I was simply pointing out that this is objectively wrong. The fact that they did not need to raise prices does not mean I think they needed to not raise prices; you can't reverse logical propositions that way. My point was simply that they made a choice to raise prices during a global catastrophe so it is fair to hold them responsible for it; it was not forced upon them by necessity or circumstance.

[EDIT]: I did not see the mod notice. Whoops.

soviet13 wrote:
Historically GW have not been overly concerned with what discontented fans post on the internet.

That is an exceptionally salient point.

But doesn't that serve to illustrate an important point - namely, that nobody actually, really buys into the idea that corporations should be soulless profit-maximizers with no responsibilities to their customers or the world as a whole beyond self-enrichment?

That's always been the problem with the "greed is good" philosophy of maximizing shareholder gains: nobody (well, maybe 1% or 0.1%) actually believes in it when push comes to shove. The average customer certainly doesn't buy into it.

GW and every other major corporation in the world at least pretends to care about more than just its own bottom line because being perceived to care about more than just your own bottom line sells.

 Azreal13 wrote:
So oil has dropped so low that it was negatively priced, and many businesses have reduced or ceased trading and therefore demand on shipping services will also be proportionately affected, yet plastic and logistics have gone up?

I don't have any evidence to tell you you're wrong, but I'd be interested if you have any to support that idea.

I can't tell you details for obvious reasons, but I'm working for a large company selling premium product (read: overly expensive stuff you could easily substitute with similar things costing a fraction) and the sales figures for Italy, Spain and Germany have only decreased slightly or even increased during the lock-down.
People who have not taken a financial hit because they could continue working as before (home office, well-paid essential personal) now have an abundance of cash due to the lack of possibilities to spend it, since people can't go out, attend festivals or go in vacation. Apparently, those people invest that cash in things they can use while staying at home, and I'd be surprised if GW were vastly different in that regard than our company.

GW obviously suffered a hit to sales when its factory was closed. That was what, about two months?

But it also got absolutely slammed with orders as soon as it opened up, suggesting that a large portion of those losses have probably been recouped or are in the process of being recouped, with or without a price increase. Most of those sales weren't lost, they were just delayed.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
So oil has dropped so low that it was negatively priced, and many businesses have reduced or ceased trading and therefore demand on shipping services will also be proportionately affected, yet plastic and logistics have gone up?

I don't have any evidence to tell you you're wrong, but I'd be interested if you have any to support that idea.

I can't tell you details for obvious reasons, but I'm working for a large company selling premium product (read: overly expensive stuff you could easily substitute with similar things costing a fraction) and the sales figures for Italy, Spain and Germany have only decreased slightly or even increased during the lock-down.
People who have not taken a financial hit because they could continue working as before (home office, well-paid essential personal) now have an abundance of cash due to the lack of possibilities to spend it, since people can't go out, attend festivals or go in vacation. Apparently, those people invest that cash in things they can use while staying at home, and I'd be surprised if GW were vastly different in that regard than our company.

I'm sure all of that is correct. But GW's business model is dependent on a whole load of potential vulnerabilities such as their staff, their shops, distribution networks, foreign manufacturers for some components, etc. No-one knows what the impact of coronavirus will be in the medium or long term and the pressures that could put on various businesses. No-one, GW included, is going to feel on solid enough ground to say 'no, that's enough profit for me thank you'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

yukishiro1 wrote:
GW obviously suffered a hit to sales when its factory was closed. That was what, about two months?

But it also got absolutely slammed with orders as soon as it opened up, suggesting that a large portion of those losses have probably been recouped or are in the process of being recouped, with or without a price increase. Most of those sales weren't lost, they were just delayed.

If I ran a business selling non-essential goods, and the second my webstore opened up again after a break it was slammed with orders to the extent that I have to impose a queue system for a while, I would probably think 'I can get away with increasing some of my prices'.

I don't think anyone is disputing whether they can "get away with it." At least not any of the regulars responding to this thread. Though I think that choice of phrasing is telling for the larger discussion re: morality. We don't generally use the phrase "get away with" for morally positive or even morally neutral actions.

yukishiro1 wrote:
I don't think anyone is disputing whether they can "get away with it." At least not any of the regulars responding to this thread. Though I think that choice of phrasing is telling for the larger discussion re: morality. We don't generally use the phrase "get away with" for morally positive or even morally neutral actions.

?

'I wonder if I can get away with stopping for some food before the movie starts'.

You keep assigning these vague moral obligations to GW regarding the prices they charge and I don't think I've seen you explain why.

Is GW wrong to raise its prices and if it is, why?

I don't think it's wrong for GW to raise its prices in the abstract. I do think it is out of keeping with the corporate image GW tries to construct for itself to raise prices during a global pandemic. If you didn't see my prior posts explaining this, I can type it out again, but it's right there if you go looking.

Essentially, the point is that GW presents itself as more than a faceless corporate behemoth interested only in maximizing its own profits. It presents itself as a friendly partner in "the hobby" and a promoter of good values (see: statement on anti-racism, recent press release on the catachan colonel model being distributed for free to FLGS to help them out during a difficult time, etc). It does seem pretty inconsistent with this image to raise prices right at the precise time when hundreds of millions of people all over the world have lost their jobs as a result of a massive global catastrophe.

In other words, the problem is that GW loves to talk the talk, but it doesn't walk the walk. And it's in significant contrast to the actions taken by many other major corporations, which have responded to the crisis not by raising prices but by cutting them, or by adopting other customer-friendly policies (e.g. granting customers forbearance on payments, not cutting people off monthly services if they can't pay, etc etc). Now very likely these corporations have done this not out of true compassion but because they believe it will help their sales in the long run - but the point is that GW has reacted in the exact opposite of the way many corporations have reacted, and in a way that is difficult to square with the image it tries to construct.

yukishiro1 wrote:
I don't think it's wrong for GW to raise its prices in the abstract. I do think it is out of keeping with the corporate image GW tries to construct for itself to raise prices during a global pandemic. If you didn't see my prior posts explaining this, I can type it out again, but it's right there if you go looking.

Essentially, the point is that GW presents itself as more than a faceless corporate behemoth interested only in maximizing its own profits. It presents itself as a friendly partner in "the hobby" and a promoter of good values (see: statement on anti-racism, recent press release on the catachan colonel model being distributed for free to FLGS to help them out during a difficult time, etc). It does seem pretty inconsistent with this image to raise prices right at the precise time when hundreds of millions of people all over the world have lost their jobs as a result of a massive global catastrophe.

I don't see why. GW is a luxury, a hobby, not an essential that people absolutely must purchase.

It seems to me that if someone has lost their job and is in some state of financial peril, the fact that Khorne Berzerkers went up by £2.50 is not that relevant.

yukishiro1 wrote:
In other words, the problem is that GW loves to talk the talk, but it doesn't walk the walk. And it's in significant contrast to the actions taken by many other major corporations, which have responded to the crisis not by raising prices but by cutting them, or by adopting other customer-friendly policies (e.g. granting customers forbearance on payments, not cutting people off monthly services if they can't pay, etc etc). Now very likely these corporations have done this not out of true compassion but because they believe it will help their sales in the long run - but the point is that GW has reacted in the exact opposite of the way many corporations have reacted, and in a way that is difficult to square with the image it tries to construct.

Those companies that have granted forebearance and so on have done so because they provide essential services and if people were evicted from their homes or had their phones and electricity cut off, etc, then it would do those people great harm (and therefore ultimately give those companies a lot of bad PR). What great harm is caused by someone suddenly not being able to afford that Land Raider they wanted?

So here is my attempt at trying to restate yukishiro1's position in a way that he would accept.

1) There are some number of people who could purchase at the previous price but now can't afford it.
2) Being able to no longer buy something you previous could buy causes some amount of mental anguish
3) Keeping the prices where they were avoid causing that anguish
4) GW does not actually need to protect their margins at their current levels, so the price increases are not necessary for the stability of the company or the well being of the employees
5) The more people that can't get into GW games the less participants there will be in a given local area

Now, I disagree with the importance of some points and conclusions drawn from them.

Not being able to buy a kit at the current price but being able to buy it at a previous price is not actually human suffering worth considering. A massive financial reversal like a job loss, house burning down, getting sick are all the kinds of things that do require our compassion, but have 50 pounds to spend and the thing you want is now 55 is not one of those things.

Money is fungible. Money spent on more expensive land raiders is money that can't be spent on other things. Raising prices even on non-essential goods during a time of economic difficulty makes it more difficult for people to make ends meet while still enjoying the things they enjoy doing. Just because something isn't "essential" doesn't mean that raising its price does not impact peoples' standards of living. GW's raising prices negatively impacts the lives of at least a significant number people who buy GW products, at a time when they are struggling. That doesn't change just because they can choose not to buy land raiders at all.

But if you disagree that raising prices during a pandemic is out of keeping with GW's image as a friend of hobbyists and a general force for good in the world, we're obviously not going to be able to come to any consensus on this point, because that's just a fundamental disagreement about basic ethical propositions.