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.

 Overread wrote:
In fairness to GW - GW paid their Covid money back to the government pretty quickly. I think generally because GW holds this "no loans" policy very strongly and that was basically a loan.

So I don't think GW really profited in that way from Covid. The government money more kept the lights on. I think they did profit because a LOT of people got stuck at home and had nothing to do thus restarted/started a hobby and one of those big choices was Warhammer.

I don't think Haighus was implying that GW were taking extra money from covid, more that the wealthy people were doing better, and they were spending it on GW products.

 Gimgamgoo wrote:

 Overread wrote:
In fairness to GW - GW paid their Covid money back to the government pretty quickly. I think generally because GW holds this "no loans" policy very strongly and that was basically a loan.

So I don't think GW really profited in that way from Covid. The government money more kept the lights on. I think they did profit because a LOT of people got stuck at home and had nothing to do thus restarted/started a hobby and one of those big choices was Warhammer.

I don't think Haighus was implying that GW were taking extra money from covid, more that the wealthy people were doing better, and they were spending it on GW products.

I know my job transitioned to WFH with no cut in pay, I saved money not having to commute, and got a stimulus check. Part of that boost (plus the magic of contrast paints) let me start the tyranid army I always dreamed about. Would not have happened without the government splashing money around in the pandemic. Not that I needed more for the Pile of Shame to keep busy during lockdown, but it was nice to add some new fanged maws to the crowd.

Lockdown landed just as my commute season ticket ended, so straight off the bat I wound up £240 a month better off.

Add in reduced lunch costs, no pub etc and I had a decent chunk of extra cash in hand.

Apple fox wrote:
I was getting so many suggestions on YouTube about GW sales collapse I thought was suspicious over the last few months.
It’s humorous.

I had someone not even a week ago unironically tell me GW was staying afloat due to all the licensed material they've been doing.

Clickbait youtubers got to clickbait. When one isn't capable of generating income with actual content got to settle with clickbaits.

This might surprise folks here but I absolutely despise the GW drama clickbait channels.

Belthanos wrote:
Clickbait youtubers got to clickbait. When one isn't capable of generating income with actual content got to settle with clickbaits.

It doesn't help that right now (and for a good chunk of time) the Youtube Algorithm 100% has a bias toward heavily promoting clickbait videos.
Heck just doing a Games Workshop video alone will get a creator a LOT more exposure through the system than if they do any other game system. It's why smaller firms have a harder time getting exposure because any youtube creator doing another game system has to accept a hit on exposure of the video when its not GW based - unless its "This game will kill GW" type titles and so forth.

It's a rock-and-hardplace situation for some aspects of content creation and when its their job, not just a hobby, its hard to blame them entirely when the system is setup to promote a certain kind of article and content.

Belthanos wrote:
Clickbait youtubers got to clickbait. When one isn't capable of generating income with actual content got to settle with clickbaits.

My encounter wasn't a Youtuber, though, just an ignorant Battletech player that took his FLGS' lack of GW sales to incorrectly assume it was something widespread.

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:

 Londinium wrote:

 The Phazer wrote:


9) The Amazon deal also contains an option for them to acquire the Warhammer Fantasy (which I believe in context means AOS, not Old World/WFB, but they might be rolled in) rights too later if they wish.

That was one picked up in the mid-year report as well. As it's capitalised I believe that it's Old World not AOS (every other usage of fantasy in the document is lower case), they're usually very careful about deliniating the difference between the two rather than lumping them together. Makes sense, WHFB still remains more culturally relevant than AOS in the licencing world - the one big budget AOS game utterly flopped. Amazon could probably do a lot of good stuff in the animation world for WHFB, I'm less convinced about live action but you never know.

That encapsulates all fantasy games under their brand. It's called warhammer old world, warhammer fantasy doesn't exist anymore.

Warhammer Fantasy does exist from a licencing perspective. It's what CA has the licence for, when it comes to Total War. Rather interestingly (or oddly depending on your perspective) it seems like GW licences out the End Times as a separate IP aswell, thus why you barely see any End Times stuff in Total War. Mordheim is also a totally separate licence (Andy Law confirmed this on Youtube) although that makes sense as it was a separate game. GW were also particularly picky on how much Dread Fleet was used in the Vampire Coasts expansion for Total War. They really do break down their licencing into some odd sub-brands and do not provide overarching 'Fantasy' licences, they don't even provide a licence that covers all content set within the Old World.

TBH a lot of their licensing stems from peeps coming to them and asking for a Blood bowl licence or whatever. Then they make it work.

Spearhead and Combat Patrol are solid ideas, and whilst I appreciate its very early days? Spearhead has had a warm reception.

The idea you just need the free version of the rules and your chosen box is a solid one. And, should it tickle your fancy sufficiently, the boxes are easy enough to build up into full sized armies, without said armies all looking cookie cutter.

I remember quite a few years ago now, not long after Kirby retired I think, an annual report saying they were going to examine and work on their price points. Whilst we can still only really speculate, it seems Combat Patrol, Spearhead and the various skirmish/warband level games are the result.

I understand a decent part of Underworld’s appeal is to painters. Spend a relatively modest amount, get a selection of unique and sometimes bonkers models. And once painted, you totally could get some games in, even if the competitive side is the X-Wing “chase the cards” model. But, every sale is a bit more money in the coffers.

I’m relieved to see they are still strong - especially given the current state of the UK economy. For all the mis-steps outright blunders that they make (looking at the new Coteaz model), my world would be poorer without GW (even if my bank account would be richer). I’ve been in this hobby since RT launched, and it’s really a necessity as far as I’m concerned. I hope they carry on.

I think people exaggerate the issues with the website. It needs some work, but it’s by no means a “nightmare”. The fluctuating stock levels are very frustrating though. This must be costing them a fortune. The rollout of LI seemed to have been tripped up badly by inadequate production or messed-up logistics. And finding FW items is pretty hopeless.

It’s good to see AoD is in good shape - that’s where most of my money goes. I do worry about WH40k though. They lost me with 10th Edition, and while I see a lot of comments about how balanced it is, it’s not the game I want to play. I’m only in it for the models now, and there hasn’t been much that’s generated real enthusiasm (the only new Ork model is a bit of a mess aesthetically). AoS seems to be where all the creativity and energy has gone.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Spearhead and Combat Patrol are solid ideas, and whilst I appreciate its very early days? Spearhead has had a warm reception.

The idea you just need the free version of the rules and your chosen box is a solid one. And, should it tickle your fancy sufficiently, the boxes are easy enough to build up into full sized armies, without said armies all looking cookie cutter.

I remember quite a few years ago now, not long after Kirby retired I think, an annual report saying they were going to examine and work on their price points. Whilst we can still only really speculate, it seems Combat Patrol, Spearhead and the various skirmish/warband level games are the result.

I understand a decent part of Underworld’s appeal is to painters. Spend a relatively modest amount, get a selection of unique and sometimes bonkers models. And once painted, you totally could get some games in, even if the competitive side is the X-Wing “chase the cards” model. But, every sale is a bit more money in the coffers.

I think the investment in smaller format games is GW's move to help deal with recruitment and improve it. One big hurdle in the older days, esp for Old World was that the games got big and they only really worked when you had lots of models. This then fed through to local players really only playing big games each week. So a new person had a huge hurdle of buying and at least building (if not also painting) a 1K-2K point army to get started. Even existing fans could easily start a new army and "burn out" on it.
Meanwhile things like Killteam were regarded mostly as a demo/starter game that wasn't "serious" or supported all that much and Old World didn't even really have such a system.

Today there are so many ways you can grab even just 1 small box and start playing very quickly.


Recruitment is so so so important and GW have always, IMO, had a good eye too it and I think it sets them apart from a good many other hobbies where the firms behind them either don't care, or haven't really worked out how to connect with new customers. I'd also say GW is ahead in that they don't bend to new generations. They stick primarily to doing what they've always done and create marketing, outreach (licencing), products and so forth that encourage new people to come into their world and hobby. Which in turn means they don't bleed out existing customers (though in some of the Kirby days that was distinctly an issue)

 Snord wrote:
I do worry about WH40k though. They lost me with 10th Edition, and while I see a lot of comments about how balanced it is, it’s not the game I want to play. I’m only in it for the models now, and there hasn’t been much that’s generated real enthusiasm (the only new Ork model is a bit of a mess aesthetically). AoS seems to be where all the creativity and energy has gone.

Oh worry not, buying their minis despite what is exactly the only thing GW asks from you.

 Overread wrote:
I'd also say GW is ahead in that they don't bend to new generations.

Curious of what you would consider this "bending" to be then?

I was interested in the employee pay. 75% of GW staff earn 40k or less.

CEO 25th percentile 50th percentile 75th percentile
Total pay (£000) 1,800 29 33 40
Base salary (£000) 739 25 26 34

The_Real_Chris wrote:
I was interested in the employee pay. 75% of GW staff earn 40k or less.

CEO 25th percentile 50th percentile 75th percentile
Total pay (£000) 1,800 29 33 40
Base salary (£000) 739 25 26 34

Pretty close to figures for the entire UK though. Median wages aren't brilliant across the board.

Well, I did partially read the report. My favorite parts were these:

GW Annual report wrote:The third element is that we are customer focused. We aim to communicate in an open, fun way.

Oh hey, remember the open, fun way they communicated when The Cursed City initially sold out? Weren't we all having a good laugh with GW, those joke-cracking rascals.

GW Annual report wrote:Our customers can be found anywhere, and we seek them out all over the world.
They’re a passionate bunch with an interest in science fiction and fantasy. They’re collectors, painters, model builders, gamers, book lovers and much more. And while no two customers engage with Warhammer in exactly the same way, they’re all deeply invested in the rich characters and settings of our IP

From literally saying that no two customers engage in the hobby the same way to assuming everyone is into their lore? I'm sure all collectors, painters and model builders who might buy their products are neck deep into the lore.

GW Annual report wrote:The fifth element is being focused on cash.

Big bada boom, what a shocker when GW is in question.

I also liked how they stressed importance of GW stores, calling them places "where we recruit majority of our new customers" yet would not hesitate to close any of them if they were not profitable enough:

GW Annual report wrote:...The performance of each store will be kept under review and any stores that do not meet our financial model will be closed.

...We also have 136 multi-staff stores, which, like our single staff stores, are constantly reviewed to ensure they remain profitable. If not, they will probably be converted to single staff stores.

I can only imagine the stress of working at one of their stores in some less than ideal location and trying to sell enough of their overprice product to keep my job.

Do you not understand how to run and effective business?

Hah, yes I do understand. Running a business is not exactly rocket science - just concentrate on making a profit and there you have it.
And sure, parts that I quoted were from section of the report intended to give stake holders general view of what's going on and what's going to happen in the future and as such written in as easily understandable language as possible for those who might not quite understand what it is that GW sells. Still, I did find them funny.

 Haighus wrote:

The_Real_Chris wrote:
I was interested in the employee pay. 75% of GW staff earn 40k or less.

CEO 25th percentile 50th percentile 75th percentile
Total pay (£000) 1,800 29 33 40
Base salary (£000) 739 25 26 34

Pretty close to figures for the entire UK though. Median wages aren't brilliant across the board.

40K! Ahem, sorry. Well there was the joke, but yes it is interesting that over the majority of a vertically integrated company the salary doesn't vary much. That is a lot of different trades and job groups being valued in a similar way. Certainly in my organisation we see a lot more variation driven by market shortages or certain employee types (who promptly leave). Are GW employees more sticky in that regard?

 Overread wrote:


*snip*

Heck just doing a Games Workshop video alone will get a creator a LOT more exposure through the system than if they do any other game system.

*snip*

This isn't my experience at all. I've tried a few GW based videos and every single one has tanked badly. That said, they have generally been positive "I'm looking forward to this" rather than "GW = bad". Oddly, Mantic content did pretty good numbers (considering my channel size) but I've stepped away from that as I was always getting overlooked when it came to Mantic sharing or promoting the content.

Tiera wrote:
Hah, yes I do understand. Running a business is not exactly rocket science - just concentrate on making a profit and there you have it.
And sure, parts that I quoted were from section of the report intended to give stake holders general view of what's going on and what's going to happen in the future and as such written in as easily understandable language as possible for those who might not quite understand what it is that GW sells. Still, I did find them funny.

Saying you "understand" while you've just gone from basically saying "They'll close stores that aren't worthwhile because they aren't profitable?! bad!" to in the very next post go "They just need to concentrate on making a profit!"...

You are asolutely right; getting rid of unprofitable venues is definitely the right call business-wise and I'm not arguing against that.
I could have phrased it more clearly, but my point was this:

Tiera wrote:
I can only imagine the stress of working at one of their stores in some less than ideal location and trying to sell enough of their overprice product to keep my job.

It's not automatically employee's fault or "lack of enthusiasm" or something if store doesn't generate the cash flow GW requires from it. Then again, no-one's forced to the job so business is business, I guess.

Tiera wrote:
You are asolutely right; getting rid of unprofitable venues is definitely the right call business-wise and I'm not arguing against that.
I could have phrased it more clearly, but my point was this:

Tiera wrote:
I can only imagine the stress of working at one of their stores in some less than ideal location and trying to sell enough of their overprice product to keep my job.

It's not automatically employee's fault or "lack of enthusiasm" or something if store doesn't generate the cash flow GW requires from it. Then again, no-one's forced to the job so business is business, I guess.

You said that right at the end, but before that you were making out that they "would not hesitate" to close unprofitable shops is a bad thing that's worth emphasizing.

Quite right, I should have phrased it better and left that part you mentioned off completely.

The_Real_Chris wrote:

 Haighus wrote:

The_Real_Chris wrote:
I was interested in the employee pay. 75% of GW staff earn 40k or less.

CEO 25th percentile 50th percentile 75th percentile
Total pay (£000) 1,800 29 33 40
Base salary (£000) 739 25 26 34

Pretty close to figures for the entire UK though. Median wages aren't brilliant across the board.

40K! Ahem, sorry. Well there was the joke, but yes it is interesting that over the majority of a vertically integrated company the salary doesn't vary much. That is a lot of different trades and job groups being valued in a similar way. Certainly in my organisation we see a lot more variation driven by market shortages or certain employee types (who promptly leave). Are GW employees more sticky in that regard?

If you live near Nottingham, which most GW staff probably do, something around £30-35k is more than livable, it's not a high cost area in the UK. If you're dipping below £30k then it's probably going to start weighing on your mind. Bear in mind the last few years they've all had rather nice bonuses on top - one thing that GW are actually quite progressive about, it's been circa ~£2.5k p/a for the last few years. Of course a cynic would argue that amount should just be a guaranteed part of their base wage....could be worse, they could be a civil servant under the last government

From what we've heard from the numerous GW personalities that have become Youtubers, there is more stickiness amongst GW staff than if they were working for a generic company because they're doing their dream job. However it seems that after 5/6 years a lot of them get fed up of the lack of ability to really progress wage wise, seems like there's a certain amount of politics that goes on behind the scenes as well in the studio.

It's good to see the whales are still propping up GW.

 Mentlegen324 wrote:

Tiera wrote:
You are asolutely right; getting rid of unprofitable venues is definitely the right call business-wise and I'm not arguing against that.
I could have phrased it more clearly, but my point was this:

Tiera wrote:
I can only imagine the stress of working at one of their stores in some less than ideal location and trying to sell enough of their overprice product to keep my job.

It's not automatically employee's fault or "lack of enthusiasm" or something if store doesn't generate the cash flow GW requires from it. Then again, no-one's forced to the job so business is business, I guess.

You said that right at the end, but before that you were making out that they "would not hesitate" to close unprofitable shops is a bad thing that's worth emphasizing.

I mean, isn't it, from the perspective of the employees, which was their point? There can be many reasons for a store not "meeting expectations" that aren't the employee's fault at all. Also "would not hesitate" can be read as decisive OR as premature, depending on additional information that's not present; if you close up the moment profits take a dive you could be missing important context, missing opportunities to learn lessons that would benefit your wider store network, or just end up closing a store that could have returned to profitability and ended up exceeding "expectations" in future. And while GW *might* be conducting thorough audits and going through a muiltiple stage process to try and improve viability of stores before "not hesitating", they have a history of sometimes not valuing things that aren't tangible cash-in-hand benefits that are still generally seen, in most industries, as valuable to the business.

Tiera wrote:
Hah, yes I do understand. Running a business is not exactly rocket science - just concentrate on making a profit and there you have it.

That's not correct, though after your sarcasm regarding the point on "focus on cash", this was the mistake I was expecting.

Profit is just a book value covering a period of time, based on an arbitrary set of presentational rules (of varying flexability). Profitable businesses fail and go bankrupt. Cash is not profit. "Cash is king" is a catchphrase because it is true, an unprofitable business that manages it's cashflow will survive longer than a profitable business that doesn't.

 Baragash wrote:

Tiera wrote:
Hah, yes I do understand. Running a business is not exactly rocket science - just concentrate on making a profit and there you have it.

That's not correct, though after your sarcasm regarding the point on "focus on cash", this was the mistake I was expecting.

Profit is just a book value covering a period of time, based on an arbitrary set of presentational rules (of varying flexability). Profitable businesses fail and go bankrupt. Cash is not profit. "Cash is king" is a catchphrase because it is true, an unprofitable business that manages it's cashflow will survive longer than a profitable business that doesn't.

Infamously Rolls-Royce Aero Engines went bust in the 70’s, despite a multi-billion pound order book for their new RB211 engine, because they had no cash in the bank to pay the bills. They’d spent it all on the R&D for said new engine.