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.

 BertBert wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:


Indeed folk have been advocating pretty straight forward stuff that to be honest, any business interested in growth would do. Ensuring you’re not putting people off unnecessarily.

I believe the issue is that different people have different ideas of what exactly might be putting people off, and to extrapolate from individual experience/opinion to entire groups of people who happen to share similar features along one dimension, but are quite different along others.

Kind of. But data sets for that do exist, and many companies make use of them for marketing purposes.

It can be relatively superficial/straight forward. But it starts by hearing Other has to say. Not necessarily about your product and company, but their life experiences in general.

If anyone cares for more info, look into Whoopi Goldberg’s reaction to Lt Uhura in Star Trek, and the Sun-Man line of toys from the 80’s, which have now been folded into the MOTU Classics.

In short? Representation matters to kids. If a kid can see themself in the setting? You’re going to hold their attention for longer, maybe even long enough to turn them into a fan and customer. And yes, representation matters to adults, and parents. Also look at how black Americans were traditionally portrayed in movies. Here’s a hint, it wasn’t terribly positive or empowering.

That doesn’t take a lot for GW to arrange. Have different skin tones on ‘Eavy Metal Models. Have different ethnicities shown on book covers, without them being stereotypes. That’s…that’s about it. Those are statements. Those are simple windows of representation.

You don’t even need to provide sculpts of specific and obvious ethnicity. Indeed that can be shooting your self in the foot, as you risk causing offence if it’s seen as a stereotype or caricature. I’d refer folks to the new Cadian kit. On the box, a variety of skin tones on show. But the faces are…pretty generic. If you paint them all in a certain skin tone, they’re not going to look out of place or odd.

Simple barriers removed to widen your appeal as much as possible. It’s all stuff you were going to do anyway, so it’s not costing you anything. And if an existing customer starts to feel alienated because it’s not a white man sosigfest anymore? Sorry to say, but that sort of person is hardly a great loss.

Another thing is you don't have to change the product, just the presenter.

Have more diversity in your public facing positions. Key staff and such of different groups and backgrounds and such can help promote the game and show how fun and engaging it is without having to change the product at all.

This can extend from those on things like video (eg Warhammer+, art tutorials and soforth); all the way down to, for GW, shop staff.

Got to have the applicants first though.

And that starts with aforementioned simple steps to remove barriers you didn’t originally realise were there, and being welcoming.

 Overread wrote:
Another thing is you don't have to change the product, just the presenter.

Have more diversity in your public facing positions. Key staff and such of different groups and backgrounds and such can help promote the game and show how fun and engaging it is without having to change the product at all.

This can extend from those on things like video (eg Warhammer+, art tutorials and soforth); all the way down to, for GW, shop staff.

It's also a pretty thin line between centering people that you actually employ that are from diverse backgrounds and using people with diverse backgrounds as window-dressing, i.e. 'pinkwashing' or 'rainbow-washing'. In TV and movie productions that is often the case when you have your 'token minority' characters in front of the camera, but the technical and production staff remains as it has always been, i.e. supermajority white, middle-aged, men.

I find it a bit funny that Polonius got all fussed up over what I said about the diversity quota thing not being relevant but somehow we've looped into talking about diversity hires for GW being the next thing they should focus on.

 Grimskul wrote:
I find it a bit funny that Polonius got all fussed up over what I said about the diversity quota thing not being relevant but somehow we've looped into talking about diversity hires for GW being the next thing they should focus on.

Diverse recruitment and diversity quotas simply aren’t the same thing. Like. At all.

Best person for the job is still the best rule. But, diversity training can help remove unconscious bias from the recruitment process, so no candidate is written off unfairly.

If all your applicants are say, cis-het white males? All your applicants are cis-het white males.

However, if the applicants are a diverse group, but you’re seeing only cis-het white males progressing to interview? You need to ask honest questions why. It could very well be they’re just the folk with the mix of skills and experience you’re looking for. But it can also be bias in play. And unconscious bias is the trickiest one to tackle. Because let’s face it, if your Recruiter (in any business, not GW specifically) is a screaming racist, that problem is pretty easily solved. You, y’know, can sack them or move them to another position. But if it’s unconscious bias? That takes introspection by company and individual, and work to push past it.

Orlanth wrote:

Do you even remotely think that the 40k community is making it as open and accessible as possible for women and people of color? I don't think that's the case. You seem very concerned about something happening that nobody is remotely considering.

What you are missing here Polonius is that if a minority group has a low proportion of Warhammer players there may be a reason why, and that reason may be beyond the ability of hobbyists to manipulate.

I cut a whole bunch of stuff out, that honestly has been covered in depth and while I agree with, it doesn't actually answer my question, which is simple: is there more the community could do at low cost/low effort to be more inclusive. The answer is so obviously yes that nobody can really argue it, so instead you have to argue that they need to be more inclusive. Which is both true and besides the point.

I don't live in some fantasy land where I think warhammer would or should have some weird quota system. I just think that so very many events are literally 100% white guys, that there seems to be at least some stuff we could do on the margins to grow the hobby.

Let’s change it up a bit for an example, and consider Oxbridge Universities.

They’re prestigious. They have a high standard of any applicant. And they’ve, in recent years, been called out for discriminatory practices. Essentially, they could have two identical applicants.

Same grades. Same subjects. Same height. Same gender. Same eye colour. Same hair colour and style. In identical clothing.

But one is from the state school system, the other went to Public School.

And without outside pressure? The place went to the Public School Boy from a wealthy background.

That….that can’t be properly justified beyond snobbery, classist prejudice and Old Boy’s Club.

This has significant societal impact, as it forcibly shuts otherwise solid applicants from gaining a more prestigious degree - which in turn, can shut them out of certain jobs.

That’s the sort of bias you need to tackle. That because someone has a hyphenated surname and went to The Right School, they’re somehow More Suitable for your University. And the same with jobs.

Quotas aren’t ideal. And I don’t particularly endorse them myself. But, they can be the first, sometimes necessary, step to societal change. The sort of societal change where in turn, you just won’t need such a Quota, because diverse hiring has become the norm.

 Grimskul wrote:
I find it a bit funny that Polonius got all fussed up over what I said about the diversity quota thing not being relevant but somehow we've looped into talking about diversity hires for GW being the next thing they should focus on.

I'm not particularly concerned about what GW can do. They're a multi-national corporation, and their hiring practices are their business, and diversity in England looks very different then in the US or Canada. It would be smart to have more diversity on camera, especially if they think they can use their videos to bring in more folks, but that's just solid business sense.

But this doesn't apply to what you or I or your local community can do. There are no quotas or limits on who can join a Crusade or enter a painting contest.

Consider my place of work. As I’ve mentioned in other threads, at my level we’re a proper diverse bunch.

But as you climb the tree? The ranks get whiter and whiter.

Management are currently asking why.

Now the answer isn’t necessarily sexist or racist hiring. It could be that only white folk are applying for those positions in the first place. The “but why?” of that is currently being looked into. Because you want the best people in every role. And if some folk don’t feel the application would be successful the Why is a useful and important question.

It may turn out there’s issues the organisation can’t overcome quickly, because society is a complex and sometimes deeply stupid organism, and it feeds into people’s personal expectations.

This has so far lead to anonymised applications, at least at the early stage. You sing your own praises, set out your stall, and wait to hear if you’ve progressed. Is that working? I’ve….genuinely no idea, because I’m not party to that process. But the anonymisation of initial application is intended to encourage anyone to have a stab at it.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

That’s the sort of bias you need to tackle. That because someone has a hyphenated surname and went to The Right School, they’re somehow More Suitable for your University. And the same with jobs.

Quotas aren’t ideal. And I don’t particularly endorse them myself. But, they can be the first, sometimes necessary, step to societal change. The sort of societal change where in turn, you just won’t need such a Quota, because diverse hiring has become the norm.

Invariably in threads like this, somebody will simply say "well, let the best person get the job" which is a really quick way to letting everybody know that you haven't done much hiring, or if you have, you're really crappy at it.

Here's the thing with a lot of hiring: you have a person's resume, their interview, and references. Guess how often the same person is top in all three? What about a person with a higher level degree, vs. a person who went to a more prestigious university? What if an interview was bad because the person is bad at interviewing, but they seem to have the skills? What if the interview was bad because they didn't listen to questions and have limited experience? How confident are you that you can tell them apart?

I do a lot of hiring, both external and internal to my government agency. Our stuff has to be documented thoroughly, and we have go to great lengths to avoid bias... and let me tell you, hiring officials still get to decide what's important to them when making a choice. Being aware of biases, and looking at unorthodox candidates is actually a good approach when hiring.

I'm just wondering how the dynamics of the former ages of 40K history ended up with Anglo demographics in the far future with our world setting up for a shift of powers already.

Maybe in the far future the Primarchs should be African or Asian?

*psst, I know why, and it's merely that GW is located where it is, but probably never expected to reach the global audience it has now.

I did say “you want the best person for the role”, but not in the sense you referred to.

But I don’t need to tell you how to suck those eggs

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 Grimskul wrote:
I find it a bit funny that Polonius got all fussed up over what I said about the diversity quota thing not being relevant but somehow we've looped into talking about diversity hires for GW being the next thing they should focus on.

Diverse recruitment and diversity quotas simply aren’t the same thing. Like. At all.

Best person for the job is still the best rule. But, diversity training can help remove unconscious bias from the recruitment process, so no candidate is written off unfairly.

If all your applicants are say, cis-het white males? All your applicants are cis-het white males.

However, if the applicants are a diverse group, but you’re seeing only cis-het white males progressing to interview? You need to ask honest questions why. It could very well be they’re just the folk with the mix of skills and experience you’re looking for. But it can also be bias in play. And unconscious bias is the trickiest one to tackle. Because let’s face it, if your Recruiter (in any business, not GW specifically) is a screaming racist, that problem is pretty easily solved. You, y’know, can sack them or move them to another position. But if it’s unconscious bias? That takes introspection by company and individual, and work to push past it.

I mean, the location of where they work matters a lot. It's one thing if there was more remote work opportunities, but from what I remember, most of the corporate jobs require you to move into Nottingham, where I'm sure is fairly expensive to live in, which limits the number of candidates that can actually or want to move there, meaning you're more likely to hire people more locally in the UK, which again is a predominantly white country, and it's a brand that is mostly known and built among that demographic, (it's not a universal brand like Harry Potter or Star Wars), so it's unsurprising you'd mainly get white guys. But I doubt you would tell GW HQ to uproot and move to a more "diverse" place to address that.

A bit funny, because research shows otherwise, even as far back in 2016 by Harvard Business Review. The idea that you can consciously control something that is unconscious is patently absurd, and is the equivalent of saying you can train yourself to control automotive functions in your body, like mentally choosing not to clot your blood when you get a paper cut.

https://stratserv.co/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Why-Diversity-Programs-Fail.pdf

That and there's research that Unconscious Bias Training also doesn't actually do anything.

https://www.bi.team/blogs/unconscious-bias-and-diversity-training-the-evidence/

 Adeptekon wrote:
I'm just wondering how the dynamics of the former ages of 40K history ended up with Anglo demographics in the far future with our world setting up for a shift of powers already.

Maybe in the far future the Primarchs should be African or Asian?

*psst, I know why, and it's merely that GW is located where it is, but probably never expected to reach the global audience it has now.

The Emperor is said to have been born in Ancient Turkey (Anatolia, if memory serves?)

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 Adeptekon wrote:
I'm just wondering how the dynamics of the former ages of 40K history ended up with Anglo demographics in the far future with our world setting up for a shift of powers already.

Maybe in the far future the Primarchs should be African or Asian?

*psst, I know why, and it's merely that GW is located where it is, but probably never expected to reach the global audience it has now.

The Emperor is said to have been born in Ancient Turkey (Anatolia, if memory serves?)

Anatolia indeed. I always imagined that that's a nice little easter-egg for the fans of OG 'Ancient Aliens' dude Erich von Däniken (who was a big star in the late 60s to the mid-80s) and his weird theories about ancient spacefarers influencing humanity, because Anatolia is where Göbelki Tepe is situated, which held the record for things like the oldest known megaliths, oldest known human settlement, and oldest known place of worship until very recently and features in von Dänikens writing prominently

 Adeptekon wrote:
I'm just wondering how the dynamics of the former ages of 40K history ended up with Anglo demographics in the far future with our world setting up for a shift of powers already.

Maybe in the far future the Primarchs should be African or Asian?

*psst, I know why, and it's merely that GW is located where it is, but probably never expected to reach the global audience it has now.

You're using the term "Anglo" in the American sense to refer to non-Hispanic white people, which covers about half of Europe. On this side of the pond, Anglo-Saxons were a very specific cultural group that settled in the Southeast of England before the Norman invasions and were largely made up of Germanic migrants. Calling someone from Scotland or Ireland an Anglo would be a good way of getting stabbed as well.
From a cultural perspective, we have multiple Nordic tribal cultures, ancient Roman/Greek-inspired cultures, post-apocalyptic gang cultures, Eastern Steppe cultures, and medieval European cultures, the list is long. The only ones we could really view as "Anglo" would be the Victorian Britain "Workshop of the World" idea on worlds that are heavily industrialised.
If you a referring to GW painting a lot of their miniatures as white, yes that is an issue of representation. However, the company has been a lot better at not having full white armies anymore.

Wow, good job Dakka for not getting this topic locked in 3 pages! Legitimately.

Anyways, as a white male in my 30s I like seeing diversity in my miniature lines because it is more interesting than not. Put differently, in my experience more diverse model lineups are simply better.

As for diversity of gaming peers I have plenty of racial diversity at my FLGS, but being on the south end of California a good bit of that is likely just population demographics. Lack of women is rather glaring, though better than 10+ years ago.

I haven't gone and looked at the WarhammerTV YouTube channel, as this was more of a passing thought, but have GW done much in the way of "how to" painting videos to achieve different skin tones?

Angronsrosycheeks wrote:
Normally I wouldn't bother creating an account just to leave a comment, but this thread was brought to my attention so here we go.

If one looks at internet at large, there's a lot of people with little rainbow flags and pronouns painting, gaming or just talking about lore. To the point where one of the most common jokes among trans people is "I don't play D&D, Magic or Warhammer, am I even trans?".

Obviously it doesn't mean every single queer person is or wants to be into tabletop games,but it's definitely not a case of lack of interest if queer people are not represented in local clubs or at the LGS.

True, but... well, if I don't ask, how would I know? It's not like LGBTQ people look different than straight people.

And isn't asking a little inappropriate in a gaming venue?

There’s at least one on Dark Skin on a cursory check.

 Adeptekon wrote:
And I'm sure wherever one lives someone's heard the line that goes something like this: "instead of blowing your money on toys you could be helping feed the poor"

Or "Why are you wasting your time on those toys when you should be studying!"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
If anyone cares for more info, look into Whoopi Goldberg’s reaction to Lt Uhura in Star Trek...

Yes, and it's worth noting some younger people call Gene Roddenberry a racist [censored] because he didn't allow Lt. Uhura do actually do anything, and they and want Star Trek cancelled over it.

They just cannot comprehend how different society was back then and just how breathtaking progressive actually having a black woman in a position of ANY authority on a TV show was at the time. Even if she never really got to do anything.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Overread wrote:
Another thing is you don't have to change the product, just the presenter.

Have more diversity in your public facing positions. Key staff and such of different groups and backgrounds and such can help promote the game and show how fun and engaging it is without having to change the product at all.

This can extend from those on things like video (eg Warhammer+, art tutorials and soforth); all the way down to, for GW, shop staff.

True, but if the minorities don't apply for the position... what then?

 Vulcan wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Overread wrote:
Another thing is you don't have to change the product, just the presenter.

Have more diversity in your public facing positions. Key staff and such of different groups and backgrounds and such can help promote the game and show how fun and engaging it is without having to change the product at all.

This can extend from those on things like video (eg Warhammer+, art tutorials and soforth); all the way down to, for GW, shop staff.

True, but if the minorities don't apply for the position... what then?

Honestly? Go hire someone.

Ergo shift from passive ads where you wait for responders or promoting up from within the company*; to going and hiring someone specifically for that role.
If the person you find is more a presenter or such then train them up in hobby stuff. As long as they are motivated, energetic (without being childishly so) and engage well with their audiences then you can do a heck of a lot even if the person really isn't into Warhammer or Wargaming at all.

Yes ideally they'd find someone to employ who would have an undrestanding and would be invested enough to learn and all.

Sure there are going to be demographics that will be easier to fill. There's a huge range of, for example, women they could hire on. Heck GW could even do short term contracts for social media personalities and such. Find those who already have channels, hire them for 6 months or 10 articles/videos or such and then move on. Allowing them a diverse range of people with talent and such.


*GW already does this so we might assume that the company might not have people they can promote up who fit the criteria

Well, we've progressed from 'hire the best person for the job' to 'hire based on race', so that's... progress..?

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Well, we've progressed from 'hire the best person for the job' to 'hire based on race', so that's... progress..?

Well not really.
We identified that one method to improve diversity is to have presenters/community engagers who come from the same background as identified different diverse groups.
Therefore to improve diversity of a target group the "best person for the job" IS a person from that background.


As an example. If you identify that you want more women to join the hobby; then having at least one or more women in your video displays (tutorials, battle reports, painting etc...) is one means to help encourage others to join up. Thus a woman is 100% the best person for that role.

 Vulcan wrote:


True, but... well, if I don't ask, how would I know? It's not like LGBTQ people look different than straight people.

And isn't asking a little inappropriate in a gaming venue?

I was also thinking that. For all I know most of my regular opponents from the club or tournaments could be gay. When we meet we ask questions about threat ranges or armour saves not who we have been sleeping with recently.

 Overread wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Well, we've progressed from 'hire the best person for the job' to 'hire based on race', so that's... progress..?

Well not really.
We identified that one method to improve diversity is to have presenters/community engagers who come from the same background as identified different diverse groups.
Therefore to improve diversity of a target group the "best person for the job" IS a person from that background.


As an example. If you identify that you want more women to join the hobby; then having at least one or more women in your video displays (tutorials, battle reports, painting etc...) is one means to help encourage others to join up. Thus a woman is 100% the best person for that role.

Not going into this too much, but given the current online climate, even defining what a woman nowadays is somehow contentious, so good luck with that.

 Grimskul wrote:

 Overread wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Well, we've progressed from 'hire the best person for the job' to 'hire based on race', so that's... progress..?

Well not really.
We identified that one method to improve diversity is to have presenters/community engagers who come from the same background as identified different diverse groups.
Therefore to improve diversity of a target group the "best person for the job" IS a person from that background.


As an example. If you identify that you want more women to join the hobby; then having at least one or more women in your video displays (tutorials, battle reports, painting etc...) is one means to help encourage others to join up. Thus a woman is 100% the best person for that role.

Not going into this too much, but given the current online climate, even defining what a woman nowadays is somehow contentious, so good luck with that.

It's not, unless you're looking to exclude people.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Grimskul wrote:

 Overread wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Well, we've progressed from 'hire the best person for the job' to 'hire based on race', so that's... progress..?

Well not really.
We identified that one method to improve diversity is to have presenters/community engagers who come from the same background as identified different diverse groups.
Therefore to improve diversity of a target group the "best person for the job" IS a person from that background.


As an example. If you identify that you want more women to join the hobby; then having at least one or more women in your video displays (tutorials, battle reports, painting etc...) is one means to help encourage others to join up. Thus a woman is 100% the best person for that role.

Not going into this too much, but given the current online climate, even defining what a woman nowadays is somehow contentious, so good luck with that.

It's not, unless you're looking to exclude people.

Agreed, it shouldn't be contentious, but some people like to avoid explaining some of the clear biological aspects since it's controversial somehow. Though if you're hiring specifically for women, wouldn't you have to exclude people (i.e. men) by definition?

I phrased that poorly.
It's easy to define women, unless you're trying to exclude women. Adult human female.
If you try to exclude trans women, such as by saying it has to relate to childbirth, you also exclude older women, women with some health conditions, etc. etc.