# Why Games Workshop is not a good business



## Leviatham (Apr 2, 2012)

By Paco Garcia Jaen

Recently I had a conversation with my gaming friends about GW and we talked about whether they are a good business or not. For them it was a matter of "they make money, they're a good business". For me it isn't as black and white as that, so wrote this article for G*M*S Magazine and thought I'd share it here too. Hope you enjoy it!

There is no doubt that Games Workshop is a successful company. They make a lot of money, are very well known worldwide, keep a very healthy number of games shops that video game retailers would like for themselves and the popularity seems to be on the rise, despite the highly priced products in the current economic climate.

So there is an argument to say that they are a good business. As three of my gaming friends put it in one of our conversations “they are making money, they are the people in the know, so that’s it. You are saying otherwise, and therefore you are not being logical, Paco”. Yes. They, pretty much literally, said that.

So, for the sake of clarity, I will point out that I do not consider profit to be the reflection of good business. Good business, in my book, is when any company makes the most from and for its market, not just its product. Also is when a company reaches to the widest possible demographic successfully.

So, as business, is it the best it can? The answer is no. By any stretch of the imagination.

There is no doubt that they make money. This is not because they do the best they can as business but because they do well with what they have. They have a loyal (brainwashingly so) following of people who are prepared to pay huge amounts of money for what is perceived to be quality product. They are also prepared to put up with the constant change of rules and the new books that appear on a regular basis.

They also make money because their margins are astronomical. Last I heard it was 2000%, but I have no real way to prove that, so take it as a guideline and not as a rule.

Let’s look at their shops. I have no idea what it is like where you are, but here, in Brighton (UK), the shop is small, dingy, uncomfortable and smelly. It is attended by people who don’t seem interested in anything else than to sell you as much as they can, which would be fine if they just pretended they care about the people and weren’t so jolly obvious about the intentions. But, of course, they are indoctrinated when they start employment to behave like selling drones and not like people who have an common interest with the clients. I know all this because the owner of my Friendly Local GAme Store is a former employee of Games Workshop and he can vouch for all this.

Needless to say, if you go into any of the shops and ask for any product they don’t sell, you will receive a smirk and probably be shooed away with some sort of holly water least you pollute the mind of anyone into believing there are games that have nothing to do with them.

You might get the feeling I don’t like their practices. I don’t. But let’s forget about that for a bit and look just at the business aspect exclusively. I still believe they’re not doing the best they can.

For starters they are not supporting everything with their name on it. Allowing other company (Fantasy Flight Games) to handle some of their products, specifically the RPG line and some boardgames, is indeed a shrewd move. However, refusal to sell those products and even support them with miniatures is incongruent. You may argue that it takes shelf space. I will argue that is space that will host products that will produce profit and will attract a different type of customer who could get interested in the rest of the product line.

You could also argue that they already have a business model that works and therefore don’t need anything else. I would argue that is a very narrow minded perspective for a business that relies on retail and retailers to sell their wares. Attracting shoppers who are interested in something else than their main lines of product provides the perfect chance to sell something else. That is pure logic. How many times do we go to a shop to buy X, and then get the shop assistant ask us “May I interest you in this? It’s only £xx today and it would work very well with your purchase”. Those shops do that because it’s a technique that works. I am not ashamed to say it has worked on me and you shouldn’t be ashamed to say it’s worked on you.. it probably has worked on every one at some point.

Thirdly, GW has a reputation for attracting “spotty kids”. Firstly I would like to point out that we have all been “spotty kids” at some point. To refuse going to a shop because there are young people in it is absolutely pathetic. The sort of prejudice that we condemn in other areas of the population when they call us “geeks” or “nerds”. Those kids will be us someday. However, I would like to point out that the majority of the sales team that work in GW hardly provide an image of professionally and trustworthiness that would inspire me to follow their advice or look at their wares. It is sad to say so, but when the person who is “helping” me is so eager to sell and so disinclined to talk and empathise with my needs and enthusiasm, I turn onto the internet and onto other shops if available. This, my friends, doesn’t make business sense.

I think it is pretty clear by now why I don’t believe that Games Workshop are the best business they can be. I would stretch that to say I don’t believe they are a “good” business. The margin of profitability they have are never, ever, ever passed onto the consumer. Products keep getting more and more expensive, even if the production keeps getting cheaper and cheaper. And no, I will not believe for a second that producing a plastic miniature today is cheaper than creating a metal one 20 years ago. Or even today.

This is not to say they don’t have their good points. It should be praised that, if you are into their games, the support is endless. Free painting lessons, tons of advice, championships, their own dedicated magazine… all at the fingertips if you like going exactly by what GW dictates.

Plenty of you will be wondering why I care. I am not into their games, so why bother writing all this?

Because I care about the hobby at a grander scale. That’s why.

GW was the flagship of our hobby. Games Workshop is the organisation that brought us D&D from the US and introduced myriad games. It is a social hub where young guys can get together and share a hobby that, if it is anything like mine, will change their lives.

But GW doesn’t care about that. At all. They care about profit. And nothing else.

I expect that from banks. I expect that from insurance companies. I expect that from heartless companies that carry products so detached from human nature that they don’t need to worry about humans.

I expect a fashion retail to worry about fashion. Not just because they should have an interest in making money, but because they should strive to provide the best fashionable content at the best price and to satisfy customers, and that means listening to those customers and predicting and setting trends. I expect a car manufacturer to care about cars for similar reasons. The same can be said about pretty much any industry.

Well, I expect GW to worry about gaming and gamers. They fail. They care about perpetuating a formula that’s making them millions without innovation and without passing any of the loyalty from the customers back to the fan-base.

And quite frankly, that bothers me. It bothers me a lot because I can’t help but to see what good work they could be doing with little effort and how they totally disregard it. It bothers me that their communication with the gamers, suppliers, press, etc, is mostly on bad terms, and it bothers me how they totally ignore people’s complains and suggestions.

Correct me if I am wrong, but that is not a good business.

Source: G*M*S Magazine (	Why Games Workshop is not a good business »)


----------



## Umbran (Apr 2, 2012)

Small note - In this case, you're fine.  But, in the future, you may want to make it a bit more clear that you are re-posting your own content from other sites.  Because if we think it is someone else's content, we will edit it down to preserve that author's rights.  Making it "By P.G. Jaen, aka Leviatham" would be sufficient, for example.


----------



## Glade Riven (Apr 2, 2012)

Welcome to the comic book industry 15 to 20 years ago.


----------



## Stoat (Apr 2, 2012)

I thought that GW had been on the verge of bankruptcy a few years ago.  Am I misremembering?


----------



## MGibster (Apr 2, 2012)

Honestly, it just sounded like typical GW bashing to me.  Nothing new or particularly insightful there.


----------



## Leviatham (Apr 2, 2012)

[MENTION=177]Umbran[/MENTION]: Good point. Thanks very much for the advice!

@Transbot: At least 20 years ago there was a fair selection of comic books. True they were all pretty much Marvel and DC and few else (at least in Spain where I grew up. I really have no idea what it was like in the rest of Europe or the USA), but there were more accessible and comic book shops didn't sell just "Marvel". Imagine there had been the Marvel Shop where only Marvel paraphernalia had been sold and they had, pro-actively, sought to get rid of the rest. That would have been REALLY bad. That's what GW does, alas.

[MENTION=16786]Stoat[/MENTION]: I don't really know about  a few years ago. I know now their profit is increasing quite dramatically and they're certainly not short of cash!


----------



## ExploderWizard (Apr 2, 2012)

Leviatham said:


> But GW doesn’t care about that. At all. They care about profit. And nothing else.
> 
> I expect that from banks. I expect that from insurance companies. I expect that from heartless companies that carry products so detached from human nature that they don’t need to worry about humans.




GW went public several years ago. They owe it to their shareholders to keep profits and the stock price up. Those are the humans they primarily need to concern themselves with. 

IF whatever they are doing starts leading to falling sales and stock prices then they will need to take steps to correct things.


----------



## DragonLancer (Apr 2, 2012)

Games Workshop are not a good business model. They are a business and they need to make a profit to keep in business. No one can argue that. However, yearly price increases when at least here in the UK (not sure about the US) we're in a recession isn't a clever move. They also seriously over charge on their products.


----------



## Glade Riven (Apr 2, 2012)

There are still parallels. From what I've seen, this hobby industry isn't strong enough in the US to support an only Games Workshop store except in very, very specific locations. Many remaining game shops in the US today also double as comic shops. They have no choice but to diversify over here. WotC pretty much saved the US traditional RPG industry through D&D 3e and the TCG market. Yet I still hear of stores closing here on Enworld, or how hard it is to even find a store.

Marvel and DC do have a handful of their own respective stores in a few specific locations, but they seem to focus more on the collector's market through their internet shops. Never bought anything from them, so I have no idea how dank or unfriendly they might be.


----------



## Leviatham (Apr 2, 2012)

[MENTION=66434]ExploderWizard[/MENTION]

First of all let me clarify one thing. Although technically they owe it to their stakeholders to make money, from my point of view (a bit idealistic, I know) they owe a great deal more to their customers because without customers, the stakeholders get bugger all.

What I argued is that they don'd do the best they can to take advantage of their market. They are letting their stakeholders down by not exploring ways to make even more money. They have a formula, it works. Thus they ignore any other ways to enhance or better that formula. To me that is not a good business model.

I am not complaining that they make money. I am complaining that the money they make is not proportional to the service they provide (even though some people believe it is) and that they don't put the effort to evolve as a business they should, which would lead to a better position for the hobby in general.


----------



## Glade Riven (Apr 2, 2012)

Then they'll eventually end up with a competator that breaks their business model, and they will have to adapt or die.


----------



## korjik (Apr 2, 2012)

I have to wonder if there isnt a rather massive difference in corporate culture between the US and UK branches of GW. Specific examples below:




Leviatham said:


> By Paco Garcia Jaen
> 
> Recently I had a conversation with my gaming friends about GW and we talked about whether they are a good business or not. For them it was a matter of "they make money, they're a good business". For me it isn't as black and white as that, so wrote this article for G*M*S Magazine and thought I'd share it here too. Hope you enjoy it!
> 
> ...



I dont disagree with anything so far, but I will point out that a lack of profit _does_ make it a bad company


> So, as business, is it the best it can? The answer is no. By any stretch of the imagination.
> 
> There is no doubt that they make money. This is not because they do the best they can as business but because they do well with what they have. They have a loyal (brainwashingly so) following of people who are prepared to pay huge amounts of money for what is perceived to be quality product. They are also prepared to put up with the constant change of rules and the new books that appear on a regular basis.



'(B)rainwashingly so'? Are Apple customers brainwashed cause they like Apple? This smacks of personal bias.

Also, quite alot of products are updated regularly. The computer I am using is now nearly 3 editions behind the current sale product.


> They also make money because their margins are astronomical. Last I heard it was 2000%, but I have no real way to prove that, so take it as a guideline and not as a rule.



Without proof this also smacks as bias. Without knowing the whole cost all you have is an unsupported assertion. Thing is, even if they do have a 20 to 1 sale to production cost difference, so what? The market demand obviously supports the cost .


> Let’s look at their shops. I have no idea what it is like where you are, but here, in Brighton (UK), the shop is small, dingy, uncomfortable and smelly. It is attended by people who don’t seem interested in anything else than to sell you as much as they can, which would be fine if they just pretended they care about the people and weren’t so jolly obvious about the intentions. But, of course, they are indoctrinated when they start employment to behave like selling drones and not like people who have an common interest with the clients. I know all this because the owner of my Friendly Local GAme Store is a former employee of Games Workshop and he can vouch for all this.



This is where I really start to wonder about culture differences. The GW stores I have been in here in Houston have all been fairly large reasonable well kept and run by people who were personable and knowledgeable about the games. Yeah, they did want to sell more product, but so does every other person in retail on the planet. My experience was that the employees were quite willing to discuss the hobby when business was slow, and they certainly werent high pressure salesmen.


> Needless to say, if you go into any of the shops and ask for any product they don’t sell, you will receive a smirk and probably be shooed away with some sort of holly water least you pollute the mind of anyone into believing there are games that have nothing to do with them.



Go into an Apple store and ask for a Droid or Windows 8


> You might get the feeling I don’t like their practices. I don’t. But let’s forget about that for a bit and look just at the business aspect exclusively. I still believe they’re not doing the best they can.
> 
> For starters they are not supporting everything with their name on it. Allowing other company (Fantasy Flight Games) to handle some of their products, specifically the RPG line and some boardgames, is indeed a shrewd move. However, refusal to sell those products and even support them with miniatures is incongruent. You may argue that it takes shelf space. I will argue that is space that will host products that will produce profit and will attract a different type of customer who could get interested in the rest of the product line.



I have though a bit on the lack of FFG product in GW stores. Here in Houston, at the very least, I dont think that the GW stores are all that profitable. Even with relatively low pay and rent, I estimate that $3000 dollars a week in sales is needed to break even. That may not sound like much, but that would have to be nearly all friday and saturday sales, and for a small game store, that is actually quite a bit of sales.

My point here is that the FFG line of books may be a decent seller, so I also wonder why they arent sold in the GW store, but I think there would be very low demand for miniatures, and I doubt that they could show any profit on the minis. That would be a bit of unpreforming shelf space in a small store that probably is pretty close to the edge in the first place.


> You could also argue that they already have a business model that works and therefore don’t need anything else. I would argue that is a very narrow minded perspective for a business that relies on retail and retailers to sell their wares. Attracting shoppers who are interested in something else than their main lines of product provides the perfect chance to sell something else. That is pure logic. How many times do we go to a shop to buy X, and then get the shop assistant ask us “May I interest you in this? It’s only £xx today and it would work very well with your purchase”. Those shops do that because it’s a technique that works. I am not ashamed to say it has worked on me and you shouldn’t be ashamed to say it’s worked on you.. it probably has worked on every one at some point.



That is called retail sales. You dont sell Windows in an Apple store, you dont sell Chevys on a Ford lot. You do try to sell a bell or a whistle tho.


> Thirdly, GW has a reputation for attracting “spotty kids”. Firstly I would like to point out that we have all been “spotty kids” at some point. To refuse going to a shop because there are young people in it is absolutely pathetic. The sort of prejudice that we condemn in other areas of the population when they call us “geeks” or “nerds”. Those kids will be us someday. However, I would like to point out that the majority of the sales team that work in GW hardly provide an image of professionally and trustworthiness that would inspire me to follow their advice or look at their wares. It is sad to say so, but when the person who is “helping” me is so eager to sell and so disinclined to talk and empathise with my needs and enthusiasm, I turn onto the internet and onto other shops if available. This, my friends, doesn’t make business sense.



'Spotty kids'? That isnt American idiom. I assume it is a somewhat maladjusted teen? 

If that is correct, then I have to agree that not going to a store cause of some teens is stupid. My personal view is that older players should be teaching good sportsmanship to the teens, to make them good gamers later on.

It is also another difference between what you see and what I do. Other than the single store worker having to be distracted running the store, I have seen the employees try to engage the players in the store as much as possible. The employees I have seen were not sleazy in any way either. A few of the players were, but not the employees.


> I think it is pretty clear by now why I don’t believe that Games Workshop are the best business they can be. I would stretch that to say I don’t believe they are a “good” business. The margin of profitability they have are never, ever, ever passed onto the consumer. Products keep getting more and more expensive, even if the production keeps getting cheaper and cheaper. And no, I will not believe for a second that producing a plastic miniature today is cheaper than creating a metal one 20 years ago. Or even today.



It isnt profit if it is given back to the consumer 

Seriously tho, have you seen the price of gasoline, or food? Costs go up. I am old enough to remember 25 cent candy bars that are a dollar today. Try buying GW products here in the 'States, where the weak dollar has shot the prices up a bit more than just inflation.


> This is not to say they don’t have their good points. It should be praised that, if you are into their games, the support is endless. Free painting lessons, tons of advice, championships, their own dedicated magazine… all at the fingertips if you like going exactly by what GW dictates.



GW tells you how you should paint your minis?


> Plenty of you will be wondering why I care. I am not into their games, so why bother writing all this?
> 
> Because I care about the hobby at a grander scale. That’s why.
> 
> ...



GW converted to GW only quite a while ago. Most of those 'spotty kids' you mention werent even alive then.


> I expect that from banks. I expect that from insurance companies. I expect that from heartless companies that carry products so detached from human nature that they don’t need to worry about humans.
> 
> I expect a fashion retail to worry about fashion. Not just because they should have an interest in making money, but because they should strive to provide the best fashionable content at the best price and to satisfy customers, and that means listening to those customers and predicting and setting trends. I expect a car manufacturer to care about cars for similar reasons. The same can be said about pretty much any industry.
> 
> Well, I expect GW to worry about gaming and gamers. They fail. They care about perpetuating a formula that’s making them millions without innovation and without passing any of the loyalty from the customers back to the fan-base.



GW worrys about GW gaming and GW players. They put out some very high quality product within that limitation. They have been the trendsetter in minis for most of two decades. I dont know what you are expecting from GW. What 'loyalty' are you expecting? How can you say 'without innovation'? have you compared minis from the early 90s to todays? Have you compared the early plastics with todays? 


> And quite frankly, that bothers me. It bothers me a lot because I can’t help but to see what good work they could be doing with little effort and how they totally disregard it. It bothers me that their communication with the gamers, suppliers, press, etc, is mostly on bad terms, and it bothers me how they totally ignore people’s complains and suggestions.
> 
> Correct me if I am wrong, but that is not a good business.
> 
> Source: G*M*S Magazine (    Why Games Workshop is not a good business »)



What 'good work' do you think they can do? The stores Here in Houston are pretty good game stores, generally run by fairly good employees. What more should thay do?


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Apr 2, 2012)

ExploderWizard said:


> GW went public several years ago. They owe it to their shareholders to keep profits and the stock price up. Those are the humans they primarily need to concern themselves with.




I disagree. Corporations need to remember that shareholders are not their only _stakeholders_. A corporation must prioritize the needs of the customers, the employees, and the shareholders for their long-term health. Getting into why they must do such things is probably getting too political for ENWorld though.


----------



## Mark CMG (Apr 2, 2012)

The vast variety of Medieval Fantasy minis available on the secondary market for cheap that are orignally GW minis and wind up being sold off due to their business practice of planned obsolescence has actually been fine for me and my gaming.  Picked up a ton of Empire figures at a recent auction for maybe $0.25 a figure.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Apr 2, 2012)

Leviatham said:


> @ExploderWizard
> 
> 
> What I argued is that they don'd do the best they can to take advantage of their market. They are letting their stakeholders down by not exploring ways to make even more money. They have a formula, it works. Thus they ignore any other ways to enhance or better that formula. To me that is not a good business model.
> ...




Exploring what ways to make more money? 
Opportunities have costs and risks associated with them. If the current model is producing a super high profit, why expose yourself to these risks and costs? 

If you don't think their product is worth the money then don't buy it. If enough people come to this conclusion then yes, GW will have to adjust their business model.

I think their stuff is way overpriced personally but not everyone feels that way. 

What kind of evolution are you talking about?


----------



## Leviatham (Apr 2, 2012)

korjik said:


> I have to wonder if there isnt a rather massive difference in corporate culture between the US and UK branches of GW. Specific examples below:
> 
> 
> 
> I dont disagree with anything so far, but I will point out that a lack of profit _does_ make it a bad company




That is true, which is why I am not saying they should reduce their profits or make any loss. I am very happy with them making millions, after all, I wish I could have a few million myself, why should I wish for someone else to have less?



korjik said:


> '(B)rainwashingly so'? Are Apple customers brainwashed cause they like Apple? This smacks of personal bias.




I am not going to deny I am biassed. This is an opinion piece, not investigative journalism! 

As for Apple... don't get me started... that should go on another thread and another website! LOL



korjik said:


> Also, quite alot of products are updated regularly. The computer I am using is now nearly 3 editions behind the current sale product.




The fact that you can still use it and be a part of the same community without having to upgrade is the example of why the updates that GW does are not good. If you want to participate in championships and the like, you must update or you can't enter because the rules are not usable. That is milking the cow when is giving you blood!



korjik said:


> Without proof this also smacks as bias. Without knowing the whole cost all you have is an unsupported assertion. Thing is, even if they do have a 20 to 1 sale to production cost difference, so what? The market demand obviously supports the cost .




The last time I heard that figure was from a friend who worked for GW, but that was 4 years ago. Today it could be different. I read in the BBC website a couple of weeks ago (don't ask me to point to the article... I really am not sure I'd be able to find it) that the production cost for an average tank is 5$. 

The problem I have with that is the same problem I have with Nike getting cheap stuff manufactured in China and sold to us a lot more expensive. The market might be able to support it, but it shouldn't. I would also argue that if the prices were a bit cheaper, more people would be able to afford it and thus their profitability would increase. This is of course, speculation.




korjik said:


> This is where I really start to wonder about culture differences. The GW stores I have been in here in Houston have all been fairly large reasonable well kept and run by people who were personable and knowledgeable about the games. Yeah, they did want to sell more product, but so does every other person in retail on the planet. My experience was that the employees were quite willing to discuss the hobby when business was slow, and they certainly werent high pressure salesmen.




Dude, I lived in Chicago last year for three months and I can tell you and you in the USA are BLESSED with amazing customer services in shops compared with the UK. 

When I went for the last time (ever!) to my "not so friendly local Games Workshop store" 3 years ago, I was with a friend who wanted to buy something. I was just looking. A shop "assistant" saw me. Came to me and asked me if I was interested in something. "I'm just waiting for my friend, he's buying something" I replied. He, literally, turned around without another word and went back to painting. 

No, "what is he buying?", "Oh, you don't play, how come?", or even "have you ever played or are interested in miniatures? I could show you how to put them together, you don't have to play to be into GW". 

Not one thing that would make me want to get into their products or stay in the shop. Or go back.

Yes my friend... there are cultural differences! 




korjik said:


> Go into an Apple store and ask for a Droid or Windows 8




Actually, I might do that just to see their faces. It'd be hilarious! 



korjik said:


> I have though a bit on the lack of FFG product in GW stores. Here in Houston, at the very least, I dont think that the GW stores are all that profitable. Even with relatively low pay and rent, I estimate that $3000 dollars a week in sales is needed to break even. That may not sound like much, but that would have to be nearly all friday and saturday sales, and for a small game store, that is actually quite a bit of sales.




I'm not sure they'd have to make such sales to remain profitable, specially at the high margins they sell. Of course that depends a lot on a lot of factors I don't really have, but if they need to sell so much, wouldn't it make sense to bring more products that, in turn, would attract more customers?



korjik said:


> My point here is that the FFG line of books may be a decent seller, so I also wonder why they arent sold in the GW store, but I think there would be very low demand for miniatures, and I doubt that they could show any profit on the minis. That would be a bit of unpreforming shelf space in a small store that probably is pretty close to the edge in the first place.
> That is called retail sales. You dont sell Windows in an Apple store, you dont sell Chevys on a Ford lot. You do try to sell a bell or a whistle tho.




Two things. I don't know what the shelf space is in the shop you have over there, but I know shelf space can be made very efficient and tons of stuff can be had in a small shop.

Why do you think there would be a low demand for miniatures? I am not sure how having other products that are GW branded could detract from their minis.



korjik said:


> 'Spotty kids'? That isnt American idiom. I assume it is a somewhat maladjusted teen?
> 
> If that is correct, then I have to agree that not going to a store cause of some teens is stupid. My personal view is that older players should be teaching good sportsmanship to the teens, to make them good gamers later on.




Spotty kids means teenagers full of pimples (spots in British). And I agree with you on that one. Not going to a shop because there are young lads and lasses is totally retarded.



korjik said:


> It is also another difference between what you see and what I do. Other than the single store worker having to be distracted running the store, I have seen the employees try to engage the players in the store as much as possible. The employees I have seen were not sleazy in any way either. A few of the players were, but not the employees.




Could you please send those my way? We need some like that in the UK! 



korjik said:


> It isnt profit if it is given back to the consumer




I know... I know... but you know what I mean. 



korjik said:


> Seriously tho, have you seen the price of gasoline, or food? Costs go up. I am old enough to remember 25 cent candy bars that are a dollar today. Try buying GW products here in the 'States, where the weak dollar has shot the prices up a bit more than just inflation.




Oh, I am aware of the price differences between our countries. Normally USA products in here are sold at almost  1$ = £1. Check the prices of the same boardgame in Amazon between the USA and the UK sites. Make sure you're sitting down when you do!



korjik said:


> GW tells you how you should paint your minis?
> GW converted to GW only quite a while ago. Most of those 'spotty kids' you mention werent even alive then.
> GW worrys about GW gaming and GW players. They put out some very high quality product within that limitation. They have been the trendsetter in minis for most of two decades. I dont know what you are expecting from GW. What 'loyalty' are you expecting? How can you say 'without innovation'? have you compared minis from the early 90s to todays? Have you compared the early plastics with todays?
> What 'good work' do you think they can do? The stores Here in Houston are pretty good game stores, generally run by fairly good employees. What more should thay do?




Well, that I am not expecting much is quite clear! 

I have compared them. I have seen metal minis, plastic ones, presin, pre-painted, hand sculpted... They have indeed changed the material and some of the molding techniques to enhance the detail. At a cost.

In my opinion, what they should do is to carry product that are theirs (like their own RPGs) and sell them too. Also their board-games. I don't think that is a crazy idea or too much to ask.

Ideally, I would love them to bring also other game accessories that can be used for, say scenario preparation. And, quite frankly, it would be great if they actually bothered to promote the games properly. The amount of tradeshos and conventions that GW attends is minuscule in the UK. Heck, I am not sure they had a presence in Essen (if they did, I didn't see them) and that is unforgivable!


----------



## Leviatham (Apr 2, 2012)

ExploderWizard said:


> Exploring what ways to make more money?
> Opportunities have costs and risks associated with them. If the current model is producing a super high profit, why expose yourself to these risks and costs?
> 
> If you don't think their product is worth the money then don't buy it. If enough people come to this conclusion then yes, GW will have to adjust their business model.
> ...




To continue with the clarifications, I don't think a business that doesn't take risks is a good business.

The previous reply I posted might give you some answers to your last question.


----------



## NN (Apr 2, 2012)

I agree.

Games Workshop would be much better if they stopped filling their shops with those crappy miniatures for spotty losers and instead sold all the gaming stuff that I like to buy. 

And another thing - they should reboot White Dwarf at issue 91 too.


----------



## Leviatham (Apr 2, 2012)

NN said:


> I agree.
> 
> Games Workshop would be much better if they stopped filling their shops with those crappy miniatures for spotty losers and instead sold all the gaming stuff that I like to buy.
> 
> And another thing - they should reboot White Dwarf at issue 91 too.




Aaahhh.... if only I couldn't see the subtle sarcasm in your post!!


----------



## NN (Apr 2, 2012)

Breaking News: UK Trading Standards have threatened to shut down Games Workshop for false advertising. 

And official source advised "The name _Games Workshop_ implies craftmanship, pride, and innovation - traits which we were unable to find in anywhere their dreadful range of puerile, cynical, crap. They have 45 days to rename their business to something less misleading. We suggest _Metal BumNut Hut_ or _Gitprong's Hand Shandy Respite_"


----------



## Leviatham (Apr 2, 2012)

NN said:


> Breaking News: UK Trading Standards have threatened to shut down Games Workshop for false advertising.
> 
> And official source advised "The name _Games Workshop_ implies craftmanship, pride, and innovation - traits which we were unable to find in anywhere their dreadful range of puerile, cynical, crap. They have 45 days to rename their business to something less misleading. We suggest _Metal BumNut Hut_ or _Gitprong's Hand Shandy Respite_"




Ah! You've gone too far there.

You see, most of their models have some assembly to be done, and there is the painting. There is certainly an element of craftsmanship and workshop space to their goods...

Try again! I am loving your posts!


----------



## Mark CMG (Apr 2, 2012)

I'm not a fan of the more "cartoonish" minis they make but some of their stuff is very nice indeed.  Even some of the over the top stuff is nice, like this bit of scenery -

Witchfate Tor. Tower of Sorcery | Games Workshop


----------



## Leviatham (Apr 2, 2012)

[MENTION=10479]Mark CMG[/MENTION]

I am with you there. I don't send money in them because I am not into their games and would rather give my money to smaller companies that sell at similar prices, but it can't be argued that they have some very talented artists working in that company.

Makes me ever more annoyed they are not doing all they can to have an even greater presence!


----------



## Mark CMG (Apr 2, 2012)

Leviatham said:


> [MENTION=10479]Mark CMG[/MENTION]
> 
> I am with you there. I don't send money in them because I am not into their games and would rather give my money to smaller companies that sell at similar prices, but it can't be argued that they have some very talented artists working in that company.
> 
> Makes me ever more annoyed they are not doing all they can to have an even greater presence!





When Gamers Paradise (multi-store gamestore chain in Chicagoland) was going out of business, I picked up a bunch of boxes of GW minis (Riders of Rohan, some Dwarves, Goblin starter sets, lots of Bretonian Archers, and others) for very cheap but I've never purchased from an actual GW store.  In the last weeks of Gamers Paradise, they kept increasing their sale percentage by ten percent each week, 10%, 20%, etc. until it was at 90% the final week and there was still some GW stuff on their shelves though much of what I got was at 70% or 80% off.


----------



## frankthedm (Apr 2, 2012)

Mark CMG said:


> The vast variety of Medieval Fantasy minis available on the secondary market for cheap that are orignally GW minis and wind up being sold off due to their business practice of planned obsolescence has actually been fine for me and my gaming.  Picked up a ton of Empire figures at a recent auction for maybe $0.25 a figure.



I trust you know that it was a game store or other purchaser who took it on the chin to provide you that deal.

While I've benefited from similar deals, they are usually NOT good for the health of the market. Planned obsolescence in gaming materials will often leave the game store who invested in the line in good faith holding the bag when the company pulls out the rug. Besides GW, another example was Wotc's sudden switch from 3.0 to 3.5, which dropped the floor out of the d20 market. These kind of shenanigans are a kick to the junk of brick and mortar stores.

[MENTION=662]thalmin[/MENTION] if I am off the mark with this rant, please correct me.


----------



## Mark CMG (Apr 2, 2012)

frankthedm said:


> I trust you know that it was a game store or other purchaser who took it on the chin to provide you that deal.





It was GW stuff, they took it on the chin regardless of the deal I got.   But people know what they are getting and if they want it enough seem plenty willing to pay the price.  I, on the other hand, don't play their systems and don't feel compelled to purchase at the full prices but like the models enough to pick them up when others get rid of them.  What follows is me buying them for what the secondary market will bear.  It's not like I'm giving them less than someone else will pay because bidding works as it happens to work and I am the high bidder in those cases.  If we take me out of the mix, they get even less.




frankthedm said:


> While I've benefited from similar deals, they are usually NOT good for the health of the market. Planned obsolescence in gaming materials will often leave the game store who invested in the line in good faith holding the bag when the company pulls out the rug. Besides GW, another example was Wotc's sudden switch from 3.0 to 3.5, which dropped the floor out of the d20 market. These kind of shenanigans are a kick to the junk of brick and mortar stores.





The d20 market (relatively) boomed for CMG after the switch to 3.5 but I sell electronic products online.


----------



## Leviatham (Apr 2, 2012)

May I just say (and I say this because, alas, I must go to bed) that I truly appreciate your input and participation.

I have posted this article in two websites, this one and the BGG. 

The input from this thread has been tremendously more constructive and civilised than some of the responses I have got in the BGG.

You have confirmed what I suspected, and for that, I truly thank you.

Good night!


----------



## S'mon (Apr 3, 2012)

As you say, presumably they make a profit from their customers.

I've not had anything to do with them since they moved to their current model, 20 years ago.  In that time, and especially in the last five years, I've spent thousands of £ on RPG product. Games Workshop could have had a good slice of that; instead it goes to WoTC, Paizo, Reaper, and smaller companies like em4-minis, Goodman Games etc.


----------



## El Mahdi (Apr 3, 2012)

*My Review of the OP.*

I honestly don't know a thing about Games Workshop. Despite playing RPG's for 18 years, I've never perused nor bought any Games Workshop products. Wierd, but just one of those things.

So, after reading the OP with a completely unbiased eye, these were the observations I had.

The OP's article seems incredibly biased by a dislike of Games Workshop. The OP seemed to be trying to make a point of arguing from a business persepective, but then makes such biased comments as: _"They have a loyal (brainwashingly so) following of people who are prepared to pay huge amounts of money for what is perceived to be quality product."_; and: _"They also make money because their margins are astronomical. Last I heard it was 2000%, but I have no real way to prove that, so take it as a guideline and not as a rule."_

Also: _"the shop is small, dingy, uncomfortable and smelly. It is attended by people who don’t seem interested in anything else than to sell you as much as they can, which would be fine if they just pretended they care about the people and weren’t so jolly obvious about the intentions. But, of course, they are indoctrinated when they start employment to behave like selling drones and not like people who have an common interest with the clients. I know all this because the owner of my Friendly Local GAme Store is a former employee of Games Workshop and he can vouch for all this."_

Indoctrination...?!?

Were they founded by Jim Jones or something...?!?


Again, I don't know a single thing about Games Workshop. But I can tell when someone has a biased perspective and an axe to grind.

The OP definitely is chock full of both, and that tends to make me doubt the veracity of the argument.


----------



## korjik (Apr 3, 2012)

One thing to remember when talking about Games Workshop. It is a _miniatures game_ company not a roleplaying game company. Especially since they farmed out WFRP to Fantasy Flight.


----------



## wingsandsword (Apr 3, 2012)

I just have this little anecdote to share about the mentality of Games Workshop, their employees, and their sales.  I think it sums up GW pretty well (or at least my experience with them and the limited experience I've had with their games).

Back at Gen Con in '05, I had paused at the Games Workshop tables at the exhibit hall.  I don't play GW games, but something there caught my eye.

I looked at something on display, while a fellow next to me was speaking with the booth employee.  

The customer next to me was picking out a fairly big selection of minis, from a number of lines.  Given the cost of GW minis, I wouldn't be surprised if that big stack came to hundreds of dollars in pewter he was about to buy.

At that moment, the guy behind the booth asks the customer what his favorite GW game is (since he is buying merchandise for a number of different ones).  

The customer states that he doesn't play GW games, he just buys the minis to use with other games like D&D because he thinks that GW makes cool miniatures.

The salesman gets indignant and tells him that he can come back when he's ready to play a "real game", but he's not selling him any minis if they aren't going to be used for non-GW games.

I was shocked that they would turn away a sale like that over something that ridiculous.  Any thoughts I had of buying anything at that booth instantly evaporated and I went on my way that day.


----------



## Greg K (Apr 3, 2012)

During the 80's, I bought a copy of Talisman while on vacation.  About a year later, I was at a friend's house and we used his new copy. We noticed a sheet with some characters and cards

I called Games Workshop and told them what had happened. They refused to do anything to correct the problem.  I have never bought another Games Workshop product and will never do so again.


----------



## MGibster (Apr 3, 2012)

El Mahdi said:


> I honestly don't know a thing about Games Workshop. Despite playing RPG's for 18 years, I've never perused nor bought any Games Workshop products. Wierd, but just one of those things.




It's not weird at all.  If you have no interest in miniatures war games it's no surprise that you haven't looked at Games Workshop products.


----------



## Ulrick (Apr 3, 2012)

I'm kinda ambivalent when it comes to WotC... I mean Games Workshop. 

They produce cool products which have increased standards throughout the miniature war game hobby since the 1980s (until their Finecast crap, however). But at the same time they're a total bastard company whose products are too expensive for their value and are marketed to specific demographic. They bring in new customers by screwing over the old. And they've screwed over local gaming stores who've built up a market base for them (basically, at that point GW moves in with their own store). 

But then again, they are successful. And they make no excuses for the fact that they are selling luxury products.


----------



## korjik (Apr 3, 2012)

I am really starting to wonder if the stores here in Houston are the exception, not the rule....


----------



## delericho (Apr 3, 2012)

As with WotC, my view of Games Workshop is that they're a business. Nothing more, nothing less. And my view of businesses is strictly neutral - if they produce something I want at a price I'm willing to pay, I'll buy. If they don't produce something I want, or the price isn't right, I won't.

But either way, I don't expect any notion of 'loyalty' from the business, and neither will I offer any in turn. It's simply business - my money for their product... or not, as the case may be. (And, as things stand, neither GW nor WotC get my custom. That may change at some future time, of course.)

Now, that said - I have never had a bad experience with a GW store. Sure, when I go in the staff do tend to be somewhat "in your face" - honestly, I'd generally rather be left alone to find what I'm looking for, and if I need help I'll ask. But they have been universally friendly, they have gone to the effort of approaching customers, and at least I've never been a position of needing help and not being able to find an assistant. And they've been knowledgeable about the product, they've been interested in my own interests in the product, and they've even not been _too_ shocked when I said I was only interested in the painting, and have never actually played any of their games (well, one game of WFB about 15 years ago).

The other thing I have to commend them for is that the stores I have been in have had a significant amount of energy about them. They've had at least a couple of game tables there, and these have almost always been in use. I've seen various people doing various bits of painting (with the assistants being happy to give advice and other tips). And, last time I was in, the staff was busily organising a mini-tournament for the local kids - the place was fairly buzzing.

I consider those all to the good. And, yes, they are doing these things to maximise profits. But at least they're doing them - especially since they might well get better results by going online-only.

(Now, all that said, my fiancee and my sister recently ventured into GW to pick up some dice. Apparently, _that_ was quite the experience...)


----------



## Cor Azer (Apr 3, 2012)

korjik said:


> I am really starting to wonder if the stores here in Houston are the exception, not the rule....




While I can only add anecdotes, the stores in Toronto and Halifax resemble more what you describe than what the OP describes.


----------



## Cor Azer (Apr 3, 2012)

OP is using two different, but suspicious similar, definitions of 'good'

GW makes profit (a substantisl smount apparently). By definition of 'good at business' they are thus 'good' - they are making money.

But they don't share his risk assessments, and choose not to diversify too much. They stick with miniatures, because that's what they know. They know their suppliers. They know their distribution chains. They know their employees. They know what works for them and have no real reason to try to go outside that box. It doesn't make them 'not good'; it just makes them 'risk-averse'.

A business needs only take one risk in its lifetime - start. Beyond that, it's hard work. If its employees work hard, company makes money. Taking risks doesn't make a company 'good' (or 'bad').

Loyalty doesn't really exist in a product company. They produce product, customer buys it (or not). Relationship ends.

It's different in a service-based company, but GW doesn't provide a service, thus, no implied loyalty. Sure, they'd like you to keep purchasing their stuff, but just as you have no obligation to keep buying, they have no obligation to keep providing what you want.

Obviously though, someone wants what they're offering, because they still make money.


----------



## DnD_Dad (Apr 3, 2012)

GW bashing... You can't blame the entire company for the way that you feel that one store's employees don't seem honest and trustworthy to you.  I've been to plenty of dark-dingy hobby stores that make my skin crawl and immediately take a 180 out of.   I'm sorry it sounds like the GW by you sucks, but by me(south suburbs/Chicago) there was an amazing GW in Shorewood staffed by a great group of guys that wanted nothing more to serve the company after its customers.  I also have the privilege of having the Battle bunker only half an hour away from me and if you have never been to one you are missing out on something amazing.  They have people that are helpful, interested in the hobby(the reason why you go there in the first place,) and they don't judge the way most hobby store workers do.


----------



## Leviatham (Apr 3, 2012)

El Mahdi said:


> Again, I don't know a single thing about Games Workshop. But I can tell when someone has a biased perspective and an axe to grind.
> 
> The OP definitely is chock full of both, and that tends to make me doubt the veracity of the argument.




Of course I don't like GW, but not because I have an axe to grind. They have never done me any wrong. Nor any good.

As for doubting the veracity of my argument, I understand why you feel that way, but before implying that my argument's veracity, you should get some information about GW.

2Bias" and "veracity" are not necessarily incompatible!


----------



## El Mahdi (Apr 3, 2012)

Leviatham said:


> Of course I don't like GW, but not because I have an axe to grind. They have never done me any wrong. Nor any good.
> 
> As for doubting the veracity of my argument, I understand why you feel that way, but before implying that my argument's veracity, you should get some information about GW.
> 
> 2Bias" and "veracity" are not necessarily incompatible!




True.

But the point is that an argument without the obvious bias (or in other words, just sticking to the facts) has a much better chance of convincing people than the contrary.

When I see an argument that starts off right out of the gate like this, it's credibility level plummets even before getting to the meat of the argument. That is, if I don't stop reading before the meat of the argument because of the bias.

And why would I care to research GW myself? You haven't given me a compelling reason to do so. All you've convinced me of is that you _feel_ this way about GW. Feelings and Biases aren't facts.

The case was poorly made.


Cheers!


----------



## odinfellhammer (Apr 3, 2012)

I have been playing various wargames from Games Workshop for about 20 yrs. I have never had any problem with Customer Service or their employees. I called customer service because I had lost my rulebook for Titan Legions at Games day, and they sent me a new one free. Yes they are Expensive, but I enjoy the games. I buy in moderation. They are a good hobby and I have good friends from it.


----------



## Leviatham (Apr 3, 2012)

Case? What case?

My writing was nothing more than an opinion piece, not investigative journalism or an attempt to alienate anyone against GW.

I wasn't intending on convincing anyone. What I wanted is to have dialogue and to get ideas and other opinions going. It has work and, for the most part, it has been a very civilised and rather interesting debate. Mission accomplished!

As much as I don't like GW, I wouldn't dare trying to convince anyone that they should stop buying or that they should believe they're a bad company. That opinion is my own. Some people agree for similar reasons, some agree for different reasons, some disagree for various reasons.

At the same time, I am not trying to convince anyone to go out there and research GW. If you are not into their products, your life is no better or worse than if you were. As you pointed, why should you spend your time doing said research?

Researching GW would be like researching the food industry. You'd find out a lot of things you probably wouldn't like, but it might not stop you from eating it!


----------



## MGibster (Apr 3, 2012)

Leviatham said:


> As for doubting the veracity of my argument, I understand why you feel that way, but before implying that my argument's veracity, you should get some information about GW.




If you don't have an axe to grind against Games Workshop then your writing style should reflect that.  You come off as someone who has an intense dislike for them.  It's like GW kicked your dog or something.  

You complain that GW doesn't reach out to the widest demographic possible.  Well, exactly what *is* GW's demographic and how wide should it be?  Your complaint is meaningless if you don't explain yourself.  From what I can remember about the folks who bought GW products at the game store I worked at in Texas, GW customers tended to be young affluent white males aged from adolescence into the late 20s.  Of course you recognize this with your "spotty kids" reference.  SO what should GW do to expand their demographics?  Who should they try to sell their products to?

You condescendingly refer to the loyal fans of GW as being brainwashed.  

You complain about GW's profit margin for miniatures even though you don't really know what the profit margin is.  You're actually complaining that a company efficiently cuts down cost to maximize profit.  This is, just so you know, generally considered to be a good business practice.  Unless they're cheating people out of wages, endangering people or something of that nature, then they're not doing anything unethical by having a high profit margin.  

You slam the prices of GW products.  I have a Blood Dragon Vampire still in its package from 2000 that I bought for $14.99.  According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor and Statistics, that comes out to approximately $19.83 in today's money.  Looking at GW's website, you can buy a unit of 5 Blood Knights for $99.  So per miniature, the Blood Knight costs the same in real money and the new ones look a lot better than the older ones.  Is it the same for other GW products?  I don't know, I don't have an old GW catalog I can compare prices to.  Have you actually compared the price of GW products over the years while taking into account inflation?  Your argument might be valid but you didn't do a darn thing to support it.  

You say that GW is not a good business.  Okay, why not compare them to other businesses that supply a similar product?  How's Ral Partha doing these days?  Do you see a lot of people playing the Great Rail Wars anywhere?  I know, let's play a nice game of Warzone!  Just let me run down to the local hobby shop to purchases some Imperial and Bauhaus units!  

This isn't to say that there are no valid criticisms of GW as a business.  You're just that a lot of your criticisms aren't valid and you fail to back the criticisms you make that might be valid.


----------



## MGibster (Apr 3, 2012)

Leviatham said:


> Case? What case?




You're joking, right?  The case you made for GW being a bad business.  



> I wasn't intending on convincing anyone. What I wanted is to have dialogue and to get ideas and other opinions going. It has work and, for the most part, it has been a very civilised and rather interesting debate. Mission accomplished!




Really?  You write persuasive articles without the intent of convincing anyone of anything?  That's just bizarre.


----------



## jasper (Apr 3, 2012)

solution to your problem. 
Since they are public company, buy stock. Enough to change their ways.


----------



## mudbunny (Apr 3, 2012)

Cor Azer said:


> While I can only add anecdotes, the stores in Toronto and Halifax resemble more what you describe than what the OP describes.




The store here in Ottawa (back when it was open) was similar. Very large, brightly lit and when I wandered into it (being all of about 16 and not knowing *anything* about GW, back around 1994), walked out with an invite to the newbie day in two weeks, and about 20 pages of "What is Warhammer?", "What do you need to play?" and other such printouts made by the store. The employees were extremely friendly, even to a complete newb such as myself, who had no idea what miniatures wargaming was.

Plural of anecdote not data...yada yada yada


----------



## El Mahdi (Apr 3, 2012)

Leviatham said:


> Case? What case?






> Applicable definitions excerpted from the Oxford American Dictionary (1980), Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (Tenth Edition - 1995),  Roget's 21st Century Thesaurus (1992)
> 
> *case* (kays) _n_.
> 
> ...




You start out by making a *claim*: _"Why Games Workshop is not a good business."_  You state your criteria as: _"...for the sake of clarity, I will point out that I do not consider profit to be the reflection of good business. Good business, in my book, is when any company makes the most from and for its market, not just its product. Also is when a company reaches to the widest possible demographic successfully."_  And then restate your _claim_ based on that criteria:_  "So, as business, is it the best it can?"_

You then lay out points and facts (according to your point of view) supporting your _*argument *_and_* position*._ 

You did much more than just state an opinion, you also gave supporting information for why you believe your opinion is correct, and made follow up responses clarifying your position, refuting counter-claims, and correcting what you see as misperceptions.  That's making an argument supporting your position (even a civil argument is still an argument).

If your intention was simply to state an opinion, why did you give (anecdotal) evidence supporting your opinion, and feel it important enough to follow up?

That _is_ making a case.


----------



## Leviatham (Apr 3, 2012)

MGibster said:


> If you don't have an axe to grind against Games Workshop then your writing style should reflect that.  You come off as someone who has an intense dislike for them.  It's like GW kicked your dog or something.




I have said several times that I do dislike them a lot. Nothing new there. 



MGibster said:


> You complain that GW doesn't reach out to the widest demographic possible.  Well, exactly what *is* GW's demographic and how wide should it be?  Your complaint is meaningless if you don't explain yourself.  From what I can remember about the folks who bought GW products at the game store I worked at in Texas, GW customers tended to be young affluent white males aged from adolescence into the late 20s.  Of course you recognize this with your "spotty kids" reference.  SO what should GW do to expand their demographics?  Who should they try to sell their products to?




If the answer to that weren't so obvious I would answer it.



MGibster said:


> You condescendingly refer to the loyal fans of GW as being brainwashed.




And some act as such. 



MGibster said:


> You complain about GW's profit margin for miniatures even though you don't really know what the profit margin is.  You're actually complaining that a company efficiently cuts down cost to maximize profit.  This is, just so you know, generally considered to be a good business practice.  Unless they're cheating people out of wages, endangering people or something of that nature, then they're not doing anything unethical by having a high profit margin.




Yep. I complain of all that. Just because I doesn't agree with my views of what business should be and because, you know, I can and I am entitled to complain.



MGibster said:


> You slam the prices of GW products.  I have a Blood Dragon Vampire still in its package from 2000 that I bought for $14.99.  According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor and Statistics, that comes out to approximately $19.83 in today's money.  Looking at GW's website, you can buy a unit of 5 Blood Knights for $99.  So per miniature, the Blood Knight costs the same in real money and the new ones look a lot better than the older ones.  Is it the same for other GW products?  I don't know, I don't have an old GW catalog I can compare prices to.  Have you actually compared the price of GW products over the years while taking into account inflation?  Your argument might be valid but you didn't do a darn thing to support it.




And you truly believe that $20 of today are as valuable as $15 from 10 years ago? Also, do you really believe that it costs the same to produce? Because I don't.



MGibster said:


> You say that GW is not a good business.  Okay, why not compare them to other businesses that supply a similar product?  How's Ral Partha doing these days?  Do you see a lot of people playing the Great Rail Wars anywhere?  I know, let's play a nice game of Warzone!  Just let me run down to the local hobby shop to purchases some Imperial and Bauhaus units!




Actually, GW is not the only company out there who does miniatures. There are companies out there, much smaller, selling much better miniatures at similar prices. I'm sure it wouldn't take you any time at all to find some.



MGibster said:


> This isn't to say that there are no valid criticisms of GW as a business.  You're just that a lot of your criticisms aren't valid and you fail to back the criticisms you make that might be valid.




That's fine. Also, as I have said several times before, I wasn't trying to back anything up, just convey my opinion. I didn't provide any "facts" just observations that are unverifiable. You're welcome to take them or leave them.

Opinions don't have to be substantiated to be valid, or to be expressed. To be allowed and able to express them is our right, though, and I love exercising it.


----------



## Leviatham (Apr 3, 2012)

El Mahdi said:


> Applicable definitions excerpted from the Oxford American Dictionary (1980), Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (Tenth Edition - 1995), Roget's 21st Century Thesaurus (1992)
> 
> case (kays) n.
> 
> ...




Uhmm... I can see why it seems I was making a case. It wasn't my intention or objective, though it seems it comes naturally (if clumsily) to me. Maybe a new talent to explore! I think you've just convinced me to write more articles and post them here! Thank you!

As to why I provided with anecdotes, because otherwise things are lot more boring. Also because that way people who disagree have something to refute, and because is the only thing I have.

You see, I like debate. I like discussing things and talking and hearing opinions and anecdotes from other people. I am not interested in convincing anyone to believe anything else, or to change what they do. I am interested in getting people talking. Opinion pieces like mine do get people talking. They get people thinking. And the conversations are very entertaining too!

If I made my case like you did, without any chance of debate, the fun, the thinking, the communication, would be gone. Making that sort of cases is a waste of time because it only entertains the person making them.

Don't get me wrong, I am not changing my mind about what I wrote. I am trying to explain that I wrote it as I did for a reason, and that reason has worked!

Of course, you're welcome to show me the error of my ways again... I don't mind!


----------



## MGibster (Apr 3, 2012)

Leviatham said:


> If the answer to that weren't so obvious I would answer it.




In another post you claimed to write the article in an attempt to foster discussion.  Do you really think the above statement demonstrates an honest attempt at discussion?  I don't.  



> And some act as such.




You made a sweeping and insulting generalization about GW fans.  Quite frankly, you should apologize for it.  



> And you truly believe that $20 of today are as valuable as $15 from 10 years ago? Also, do you really believe that it costs the same to produce? Because I don't.




Yes, I truly believe $20 of today has the same purchasing power as $15 in 2000.  Why wouldn't I believe the United States Department of Labor?  Do you have a more reliable source of data?  Do I believe it costs the same to produce?  I don't know.  I don't know how much it costs to produce a GW mini.  Neither do you.  



> Actually, GW is not the only company out there who does miniatures. There are companies out there, much smaller, selling much better miniatures at similar prices. I'm sure it wouldn't take you any time at all to find some.




Did I claim GW was the only company out there selling miniatures?  No, I did not.  I simply compared them to other companies selling similar products that no longer exist.  You choose not to address that point for some reason and instead focus on some strawman of your own creation.  



> That's fine. Also, as I have said several times before, I wasn't trying to back anything up, just convey my opinion. I didn't provide any "facts" just observations that are unverifiable. You're welcome to take them or leave them.




This is patently false.  Your thesis statement was that GW was not a good business.  You followed that up by spending a few paragraphs providing supporting evidence for your thesis statement that GW was not a good business.  Furthermore, you made actual factual statements.  You claim that their profit margin was 2000%.  Even though you concede that the profit margin might be a bit different, that was a factual statement and not an opinion.  



> Opinions don't have to be substantiated to be valid, or to be expressed. To be allowed and able to express them is our right, though, and I love exercising it.




Some opinions don't need to be substantiated to be valid.  "I think lobster tastes bad" is one such opinion.  I might think lobster is the best tasting thing to come out of the ocean but that doesn't make the lobster hating opinion any less valid.  Just baffling.  You yourself recognize that some opinions need to be substantiated to be valid.  Which is why you went through all the trouble of supporting your thesis statement that GW was a bad business.  

Ultimately, you don't get to hide behind "It's just my opinion" as if where a shield to protect your written work from criticism.  You made some arguments in favor of your position and others have attacked those arguments.  That's how a dialogue works.  You are interested in fostering a dialogue, right?  Or do you only want people to agree with you?


----------



## Leviatham (Apr 3, 2012)

MGibster said:


> Ultimately, you don't get to hide behind "It's just my opinion" as if where a shield to protect your written work from criticism.  You made some arguments in favor of your position and others have attacked those arguments.  That's how a dialogue works.  You are interested in fostering a dialogue, right?  Or do you only want people to agree with you?




I will only reply to your last paragraph. Main reason is the one that I found the most interesting. Also because I need to finish a few things at home and I really don't have as long as I'd like.

I am more than happy to criticism. I haven't shied away from it and I haven't complained about it. In fact I have accepted it (quite graciously) and engaged with it. By association I have done the same with the people who have thrown it my way. Not sure what else I have to do to prove that I am not just wanting to hear, or prepared to converse, exclusively with those who agree with me.

However what I am finding interesting (and I mean this genuinely. It is very interesting) is that you guys have been at my throat for the way I write, but at no point, whatsoever, have you tried to provide with any evidence that what I am saying is incorrect. You're simply discrediting what I have said and my opinion based on how badly substantiated it is.

Could we focus on *what* I wrote and now *how* I wrote it or what I *should* write?

So... if you think GW is a good business, please explain why.

If you just don't like my article, well... don't worry, there will be more to come. Hopefully next time you'll like it better!


----------



## Leviatham (Apr 3, 2012)

Btw, I just saw the Texas tornado in the news. I know this is a tangent to this conversation, but I do hope you guys are safe.

A friend of mine lost his house last year during the tornado season and I know it can be horrible. Hope it doesn't happen to anyone this year, though I realise that's just wishful thinking.

For the cynical ones amongst you, I am not attempting to get into anyone's good side. I really worry about this sort of situations.


----------



## MGibster (Apr 3, 2012)

Leviatham said:


> If you just don't like my article, well... don't worry, there will be more to come. Hopefully next time you'll like it better!




I and others have directly addressed the points you made in your article.  Of my arguments, you specifically went out of your way not to answer one of my questions and you have replied with nonsense to others.  Quite frankly, I don't know whether or not you're genuinely incapable of engaging in a meaningful dialogue with others or you're just messing with us for the fun of it.  Either way, I'm done.  

Good luck, everyone else who sticks around.


----------



## Leviatham (Apr 3, 2012)

MGibster said:


> I and others have directly addressed the points you made in your article.  Of my arguments, you specifically went out of your way not to answer one of my questions and you have replied with nonsense to others.  Quite frankly, I don't know whether or not you're genuinely incapable of engaging in a meaningful dialogue with others or you're just messing with us for the fun of it.  Either way, I'm done.
> 
> Good luck, everyone else who sticks around.




Oh well, to reply to your questions about who they should address:

Everyone else they're not addressing so far.

Did that really need a reply? Because it was pretty obvious to me.

As for the "nonsense"... please point it out. I think we've established in this thread that this sort of claims should be substantiated!


----------



## Deset Gled (Apr 3, 2012)

Leviatham said:


> ...at no point, whatsoever, have you tried to provide with any evidence that what I am saying is incorrect. You're simply discrediting what I have said and my *opinion *based on how *badly substantiated *it is.
> 
> Could we focus on *what* I wrote and now *how* I wrote it or what I *should* write?




*What* you are saying is nothing but a badly substantiated opinion.  You have offered very little in the way of a debate, thus, there is very little to try and refute.  But I'll try.

Your starting premise is this:



> So, for the sake of clarity, I will point out that I do not consider profit to be the reflection of good business. Good business, in my book, is when any company makes the most from and for its market, not just its product. Also is when a company reaches to the widest possible demographic successfully.




You have not offered any evidence in your piece to claim GW fails to do this.  Your actually failed immediately after this point because you completely and utterly failed to define GWs market.  So, I'll do it for you: GW makes wargames, with a focus on miniatures.  And they actually hold a darn good percentage of that market.  They are not an RPG company, they are not a board game company, and they are not a media outlet.  None of the rest of your article addresses failure of the company to expand in the wargames market.  As a result, you have made no logical points to support your thesis.  

It seems like most of your arguments about why GW is not a good company are focused on things they should be selling *other* than wargames.  This is not only contrary to your starting point, but actually provides evidence to undermine your base assumption.  

You see, the reason why GW manages to be successful (profit-wise) is that they are a vertical organization.  GW manufactures their own minis, distributes them within their company, and sells through their own exclusive stores.  They maximize profit by controlling the complete chain from production to consumer.  Conversely, what you have described about expanding the target market and reaching a wider demographic is the business model of a horizontal organization.  That is, they make a product that can be used by the largest possible audience, but must rely on an external network for sales and distribution.  

You cannot simply state that horizontal growth is good and vertical growth is bad.  Both have their pros an cons, but trying to claim one is right and one is wrong just shows a blatant misunderstanding of basic business concepts.


----------



## Leviatham (Apr 3, 2012)

Deset Gled said:


> *What* you are saying is nothing but a badly substantiated opinion.  You have offered very little in the way of a debate, thus, there is very little to try and refute.  But I'll try.




We're going to have to agree to disagree on that one. I would say that the many posts that are present in this thread are more than enough debate. As to how I have offered little in the way of debate considering how I have engaged in this conversation, you'll have to explain that to me.



Deset Gled said:


> Your starting premise is this:
> 
> You have not offered any evidence in your piece to claim GW fails to do this.  Your actually failed immediately after this point because you completely and utterly failed to define GWs market.  So, I'll do it for you: GW makes wargames, with a focus on miniatures.  And they actually hold a darn good percentage of that market.  They are not an RPG company, they are not a board game company, and they are not a media outlet.  None of the rest of your article addresses failure of the company to expand in the wargames market.  As a result, you have made no logical points to support your thesis.




About me not defining what market I fell they should approach. That is simply, not true. I very clearly state that I think they should support other GW products with their name on it. That includes RPGs and Boardgames. How is that failing to define their market?

Also, they do create boardgames (Space Hulk and Dreadfleet) so, although in a small way, they are indeed a board game company.

My point is that they don't support those products as I feel they should, specially the RPGs.

As for they are not a media outlet. I would argue that White Dwarf and the many novels published under the Warhammer brand are indeed media outlets. Not to mention the videogames.

To say that they are just a wargames company it's extremely removed from reality.



Deset Gled said:


> It seems like most of your arguments about why GW is not a good company are focused on things they should be selling *other* than wargames.  This is not only contrary to your starting point, but actually provides evidence to undermine your base assumption.




How? I really can't see the logic or reasoning in what you say there.



Deset Gled said:


> You see, the reason why GW manages to be successful (profit-wise) is that they are a vertical organization.  GW manufactures their own minis, distributes them within their company, and sells through their own exclusive stores.  They maximize profit by controlling the complete chain from production to consumer.  Conversely, what you have described about expanding the target market and reaching a wider demographic is the business model of a horizontal organization.  That is, they make a product that can be used by the largest possible audience, but must rely on an external network for sales and distribution.




And they don't do that by licensing the Warhammer RPGS and board games to Fantasy Flight? As to having to rely on an external network for sales and distribution. They already have a network for sales and distribution. They don't have to rely in another, just use the one they already have.



Deset Gled said:


> You cannot simply state that horizontal growth is good and vertical growth is bad.  Both have their pros an cons, but trying to claim one is right and one is wrong just shows a blatant misunderstanding of basic business concepts.




I haven't stated that vertical growth is bad. I have stated that, in my opinion, horizontal growth would be better. I haven't said that one is right or wrong either, those are your words, not mine. I have said good, not good, and better, very different things.


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Apr 4, 2012)

Leviatham said:


> When I went for the last time (ever!) to my "not so friendly local Games Workshop store" 3 years ago, I was with a friend who wanted to buy something. I was just looking. A shop "assistant" saw me. Came to me and asked me if I was interested in something. "I'm just waiting for my friend, he's buying something" I replied. He, literally, turned around without another word and went back to painting.
> 
> No, "what is he buying?", "Oh, you don't play, how come?", or even "have you ever played or are interested in miniatures? I could show you how to put them together, you don't have to play to be into GW".




Hang on a second; he asked you if you were interested in something, you said no, he didn't hound you into buying something, yet somehow you took offense and decided never to go back? If you were interested enough to have that negative a reaction, why not actually give him a straight answer when he asked you in the first place? The only lapse in customer service that I dislike more than being ignored, is being hounded after saying I don't need any help. He did the right thing. Your reaction is unreasonable.


----------



## Alan Shutko (Apr 4, 2012)

ColonelHardisson said:


> The only lapse in customer service that I dislike more than being ignored, is being hounded after saying I don't need any help. He did the right thing. Your reaction is unreasonable.




I almost entirely agree with you. From the stated situation, I think an improvement could be made if the associate said something like "Great! If you have any questions, let me know."

It's a subtle difference, but I could see someone interpreting the described behavior as the associate turning his back on you since you don't matter, as opposed to giving you space but letting you know that he's there if you change his mind (but that he won't bug you if you don't).


----------



## Leviatham (Apr 4, 2012)

ColonelHardisson said:


> Hang on a second; he asked you if you were interested in something, you said no, he didn't hound you into buying something, yet somehow you took offense and decided never to go back? If you were interested enough to have that negative a reaction, why not actually give him a straight answer when he asked you in the first place? The only lapse in customer service that I dislike more than being ignored, is being hounded after saying I don't need any help. He did the right thing. Your reaction is unreasonable.




Why could I ever take offence at someone turning his back on me in a shop?

That is not just poor customer service, it is also bad manners. 

I have worked in retail in the past. The company I currently work for has a very strict customer satisfaction guidelines that we put in place to make sure we do all we can to satisfy our customers. I wouldn’t dream of turning my back and not saying even goodbye or  a simple “If there is anything you’d like to see let me know”.

Also, just because you work in a shop, it doesn’t mean all the interaction with people in the shop HAS to be to sell. If all you’re doing is painting a miniature, you should spend a few minutes just making chatter with the person. I would be only so happy to hear about their games if I didn’t feel they’re trying to sell me. If he had told me something in the lines of “no worries. I’m painting a few miniatures, have you ever tried?”, that man would have had a customer because that would probably interest me.

When is about retail, I am not easy to please. When is about a retail with the margins of GW and the profits they make, I expect they make an effort to gain and please customers


----------



## MongooseMatt (Apr 4, 2012)

Leviatham said:


> I have said several times that I do dislike them a lot. Nothing new there.




I am curious with this - what have they actually _done_ to you?



Leviatham said:


> And some act as such.




But have you not been brain-washed too, in the other direction, to dislike GW?



Leviatham said:


> Actually, GW is not the only company out there who does miniatures. There are companies out there, much smaller, selling much better miniatures at similar prices.




Not really.  Leaving arguments about Finecast aside for the moment, and looking at the breadth of ranges rather than individual models, GW is pretty much cutting edge. With the technology they are currently using to create most of their ranges, it would be disappointed if that were not the case.

No one else can come close to competing on their quantity or fine quality when it comes to plastics, which now form the bulk of their ranges. I speak as someone who has tried.



Leviatham said:


> And they don't do that by licensing the Warhammer RPGS and board games to Fantasy Flight?




No. Leaving aside that, with even high royalty rates, the revenue from that would be relatively small, it is simply not a market GW wants to be involved with - that is _why_ they licence it out.



Leviatham said:


> To say that they are just a wargames company it's extremely removed from reality.




Unless something has changed in the past couple of years, GW would describe themselves as a miniatures company (it is a subtle distinction, but an important one for GW).

You also mention computer games and the like - all of this gets licensed out and is absolutely not part of GW's core business.




Leviatham said:


> Correct me if I am wrong, but that is not a good business.




It is, for two reasons (leaving aside profitability and the fact they have survived this long, which you should not take lightly for any company in this day and age, particularly one that sells toy soldiers).

First up, you seem to be suggesting that GW owe something to the wider hobby, or community if you will. This is fundamentally misunderstanding GW's approach to the market - or, I should say, _their_ market.

They identified, created and widened their own niche within the gaming hobby (and, specifically, the miniatures/wargaming hobby), and did so well at it, they managed to seperate it from every other company to create their own vertical structure that is extremely resiliant to competition from within the hobby games industry (they are more prone to worry about things like the next gaming console).

Now, if you enjoy playing GW miniatures games, you will find they support the hell out of them - they have shops round the world (and you really are spolit if you are in the UK) where you can drop in to play (or just _chat_ about) their games at any time. Or be shown how to paint. There are competitions and 'hobby' days galore to take part in, they have regular new material posted on their web site, and if you can think of an auxiliary accessory that might enhance your gaming or painting just a tad, you can be pretty sure GW have it available.

Take a look at what they have done with tables and terrain over the past few years. You can now have a table that looks as detailed and varied as anything that appears on the pages of White Dwarf, all built from their plastic kits. No other miniatures company even comes close to doing something like that.

Now, you do, of course, have to pay for access to all of this, and some may say you pay a great deal.  But that is a seperate argument.  GW's support of their hobby is rock solid.

You mention them not supporting the FFG RPGs and boardgames.  That flat ain't their job.  FFG have a licence to produce and market those items themselves, and will either do it well, and keep the licence, or not, and lose it (they _are_ doing well, especially in the UK ).  But it is absolutely not something GW needs to get involved in and doing so (where they only get a minority percentage of revenue through royalties) makes no decent business sense whatsoever. Shelf space is all important to GW, so what are they going to put on a shelf - a book where they get all the revenue or a book where they get 10-15%?

Reason the Second. And somewhat contra to my first point (which was from GW's point of view).

GW are _fantastic_ for the miniatures hobby.  As a miniatures manufacturer myself, I love 'em.  Want them to expand and conquer the world. They are brilliant.

GW is very, _very_ good at getting the 12-16 year old boy into their store and on the track (treadmill?) for miniatures.  No one on the planet can beat them at that. They take that boy, grab his friends, and train them all up to paint and play miniatures games.

At some point, maybe around 16, maybe around university age, maybe in the late twenties, that boy (young man) starts to wonder 'what else is out there? What other miniatures games are there?'

That is _exactly_ where we, and many other miniatures companies, lurk.  There is a constant flow of customers from the GW segment that, in all likliehood, would probably spell the end of many companies if they stopped.

So, all that diversity you see in other miniatures companies? You might well have GW to thank for it. May they never fail, touch wood.

For whatever reason, GW seem to have decided the older age brackets are less attractive.  Small companies exist because larger companies concentrate on their strengths and avoid their weak areas. The smaller companies thrive in tjhose niches.



As for what GW should be doing for RPGs... Absolutely nothing at all. Not even on their radar. And no reason why it should be.


----------



## Leviatham (Apr 4, 2012)

MongooseMatt said:


> I am curious with this - what have they actually _done_ to you?




Apart from being rude to me a couple of times at their shop in Brighton, nothing really. 

There are a lot of companies out there I don't like (like McDonald's and Nestle) and they haven't done anything to me either.

I just don't like them.





MongooseMatt said:


> But have you not been brain-washed too, in the other direction, to dislike GW?




Err... no. My opinions are my own and based on what I have seen, what I have read and what I have perceived. No one has made me or attempted to make believe or think anything.





MongooseMatt said:


> Not really.  Leaving arguments about Finecast aside for the moment, and looking at the breadth of ranges rather than individual models, GW is pretty much cutting edge. With the technology they are currently using to create most of their ranges, it would be disappointed if that were not the case.
> 
> No one else can come close to competing on their quantity or fine quality when it comes to plastics, which now form the bulk of their ranges. I speak as someone who has tried.




I will have to stand down on that one, since I don't have enough technical knowledge to contribute.

I will say though, that when I have handled their miniatures, I have always found them flimsy and not very "solid". I have seen other companies at Salute or Essen (please don't ask me to remember... my memory and I don't have that great a relationship!) that, to my taste, looked and felt better, and at similar prices.

For my money (literally) and in my opinion, those miniatures are better. It is just a matter of perception.





MongooseMatt said:


> No. Leaving aside that, with even high royalty rates, the revenue from that would be relatively small, it is simply not a market GW wants to be involved with - that is _why_ they licence it out.
> 
> Unless something has changed in the past couple of years, GW would describe themselves as a miniatures company (it is a subtle distinction, but an important one for GW).
> 
> You also mention computer games and the like - all of this gets licensed out and is absolutely not part of GW's core business.




You hit the nail on the head there. They don't want to get involved in that market other than licensing (which, btw, I see no problems with at all).

My point is that if they did get involved in that market, just by distributing the materials they license, nothing more, they'd be a better business. They could be attracting more people into their shops and, potentially, getting new customers.



MongooseMatt said:


> It is, for two reasons (leaving aside profitability and the fact they have survived this long, which you should not take lightly for any company in this day and age, particularly one that sells toy soldiers).




On that one, I am with you. That they are managing to increase their revenue is quite an achievement.



MongooseMatt said:


> First up, you seem to be suggesting that GW owe something to the wider hobby, or community if you will. This is fundamentally misunderstanding GW's approach to the market - or, I should say, _their_ market.




Not sure I'd go as far as to say that they owe anything to the market or the hobby, though I think they gave the hobby a massive blow when they turned White Dwarf into what it is today.

However I would say they are in a fantastic position to actually do something great for the hobby. Position the chose to ignore. That they have chosen not to get involved in any other part of the market is obvious and I am sure they have their reasons. I am not sure I would agree with those reasons, though (but then, I am on a defensive stance already, so not surprising!).



MongooseMatt said:


> They identified, created and widened their own niche within the gaming hobby (and, specifically, the miniatures/wargaming hobby), and did so well at it, they managed to seperate it from every other company to create their own vertical structure that is extremely resiliant to competition from within the hobby games industry (they are more prone to worry about things like the next gaming console).
> 
> Now, if you enjoy playing GW miniatures games, you will find they support the hell out of them - they have shops round the world (and you really are spolit if you are in the UK) where you can drop in to play (or just _chat_ about) their games at any time. Or be shown how to paint. There are competitions and 'hobby' days galore to take part in, they have regular new material posted on their web site, and if you can think of an auxiliary accessory that might enhance your gaming or painting just a tad, you can be pretty sure GW have it available.




I wouldn't argue with that. They have been very successful in creating what they have created. It is also true they have a lot of things going for them if you are a customer. Although I did mention that in my original post, maybe I should have given them more credit where credit is due.

I am not against them, I simply am not with them because I don't feel they do enough. What they do, they do well and I will not deny that.



MongooseMatt said:


> Take a look at what they have done with tables and terrain over the past few years. You can now have a table that looks as detailed and varied as anything that appears on the pages of White Dwarf, all built from their plastic kits. No other miniatures company even comes close to doing something like that.
> 
> Now, you do, of course, have to pay for access to all of this, and some may say you pay a great deal.  But that is a seperate argument.  GW's support of their hobby is rock solid.




We are still in agreement.



MongooseMatt said:


> You mention them not supporting the FFG RPGs and boardgames.  That flat ain't their job.  FFG have a licence to produce and market those items themselves, and will either do it well, and keep the licence, or not, and lose it (they _are_ doing well, especially in the UK ).  But it is absolutely not something GW needs to get involved in and doing so (where they only get a minority percentage of revenue through royalties) makes no decent business sense whatsoever. Shelf space is all important to GW, so what are they going to put on a shelf - a book where they get all the revenue or a book where they get 10-15%?




And that is where I start to think they would be better if they did. I realise it is not their job, but I also don't find any reasons why it shouldn't be, while I can find reasons why it should be, the most obvious one is that it would bring people into the shop.

I personally feel that the shelf space used would render benefits in the shape of customers that otherwise wouldn't be there. Although in a different industry (photography) we were put in a position in which, by adding complementary products to the usual photographic stuff, clients would come back for more and different stuff. Yes, we gave up a shop window (we had three) to show miscellaneous instead of cameras, but we sold a huge amount of studio portraits and cameras because of that.

I could be wrong and maybe they have already done this experiment and seen it doesn't work, but I think that variety could be beneficial for them both a company and as business.



MongooseMatt said:


> Reason the Second. And somewhat contra to my first point (which was from GW's point of view).
> 
> GW are _fantastic_ for the miniatures hobby.  As a miniatures manufacturer myself, I love 'em.  Want them to expand and conquer the world. They are brilliant.




I must agree with that. Again this is my fault for not making clear in the original post that I go think they have some good points and they do some things very well indeed.



MongooseMatt said:


> GW is very, _very_ good at getting the 12-16 year old boy into their store and on the track (treadmill?) for miniatures.  No one on the planet can beat them at that. They take that boy, grab his friends, and train them all up to paint and play miniatures games.
> 
> At some point, maybe around 16, maybe around university age, maybe in the late twenties, that boy (young man) starts to wonder 'what else is out there? What other miniatures games are there?'
> 
> ...




Maybe you are right there. But then, and this is to take the side of some of the ultra-capitalists that have intervened in the past, not because I agree with it - it would also make business sense to target the people who buy your games and take that revenue as well.

Their lack of horizontality is indeed to your advantage, and since I rather support you than them, I do hope it keeps being your advantage in the future, foreseeable or not.



MongooseMatt said:


> As for what GW should be doing for RPGs... Absolutely nothing at all. Not even on their radar. And no reason why it should be.




And this is where I disagree. From where I stand, it should be because it could provide with two things: new customers on the one hand, and continuity for people who decide that miniatures are not their thing anymore but could be tempted by RPGs.

That they have no need is clear. They make enough money as it is, and they license the products they consider to be brand-promoting which get a chance to do very well. And I am really happy about those products doing well.

My points are about the opportunity they could have to do more things, which would benefit both the industry, the hobby and the hobbyist. With the brand, the infrastructure and the reputation they have, they'd be the perfect platform.


----------



## Leviatham (Apr 4, 2012)

BTW, thank you very much for contributing to the debate.

I realise this would be a lot more fun in a pub with a beer and having a laugh, but I really appreciate your insight on this one and the sense you talk.

Would be great to discuss this or something else in person sometime.


----------



## MongooseMatt (Apr 4, 2012)

Leviatham said:


> There are a lot of companies out there I don't like (like McDonald's and Nestle) and they haven't done anything to me either.
> 
> I just don't like them.




Well, same here, but I don't actively dislike them, which is what seems to be going on here.



Leviatham said:


> Err... no. My opinions are my own and based on what I have seen, what I have read and what I have perceived. No one has made me or attempted to make believe or think anything.




That's what they want you to think...



Leviatham said:


> I will say though, that when I have handled their miniatures, I have always found them flimsy and not very "solid". I have seen other companies at Salute or Essen (please don't ask me to remember... my memory and I don't have that great a relationship!) that, to my taste, looked and felt better, and at similar prices.




I am surprised to hear you talking about similar prices.  GW is generally known for being on the (eye-wateringly) expensive side.  Most other minis companies compete with them on price.



Leviatham said:


> My point is that if they did get involved in that market, just by distributing the materials they license, nothing more, they'd be a better business. They could be attracting more people into their shops and, potentially, getting new customers.




That would make no sense for a business.

I'll give you a real-world example.  We do not hire a translator to turn one of our books into, say, German, nor do we print such books.  We licence them out to a German publisher.  

By your rationale, we would be more in touch with the German market and could support German products better if we did - and you would be right.  However, we have little to no knowledge of German retailers, German culture (and don't underestimate 'local' knowledge) and if we brought in someone fullt-ime to handle all of that, we flat would not make any money.

Better to hand it off to a German publisher who already has all that infrastructure and knowledge in place.

The same is true for GW and RPGs and boardgames.  Yes, they could expand their market but they a) could not do so efficiently and b) would likely affect their core business if they tried.

In years gone by, GW have tried these markets themselves, and found it was not something they were best placed to do. That is why they have licensed out, and it now becomes FFG's responsibility to handle the support.



Leviatham said:


> Not sure I'd go as far as to say that they owe anything to the market or the hobby, though I think they gave the hobby a massive blow when they turned White Dwarf into what it is today.




Ah ha!

There is something very telling about White Dwarf.  You look on it as changing and damaging the hobby.  But look at it another way.

What has happened to every other British RPG-based magazine that came along after White Dwarf? There was a big, sucking gap in the market there - and yet they all failed.

GW, I suspect, saw the writing on the wall for such magazines and if they had continued with the White Dwarf you remember, it would have failed and now be consigned to history.  By turning it into something that drove GW's own products, they were able to create their own vertical market and keep the magazine going.

In short, the ship was already sinking. The damage had already been done to the market, and it could no longer sustain a print magazine.



Leviatham said:


> However I would say they are in a fantastic position to actually do something great for the hobby. Position the chose to ignore. That they have chosen not to get involved in any other part of the market is obvious and I am sure they have their reasons. I am not sure I would agree with those reasons, though (but then, I am on a defensive stance already, so not surprising!).




Well, do they have an obligation to do so?  They have built their own market, one they have managed to pretty much isolate from the rest of the hobby, and grown it to a size larger than, say, RPGs alone. They chose their ground and are servicing their customers very, very well.

But again, let's look at this another way.  I don't know anything about you, but let us assume you have an IQ north of 160.

Do you not have an obligation to the rest of Mankind to discover the cure for cancer? Figure out practical fusion power or hydrogen fuel cells for cars? Come up with a technical method to stop global warming?

Just what are you doing for the rest of us? 

Seriously though, GW's mere presence helps they hobby far more than any attempt to get directly involved in RPGs or boardgames.  As I said later, especially in the UK, they are the main gateway into the hobby for the younger generation, and that is _essential_ for its survival.  The rest of us running other companies are doing bugger all (or having bugger all effect) to bring in new blood.  Not proud of that, but the truth is GW eclipses everyone else's efforts.



Leviatham said:


> I am not against them, I simply am not with them because I don't feel they do enough. What they do, they do well and I will not deny that.




I put it to you (he said, adopting a lawyer's voice) that this isn't the reason at all. I put it to you that the reason you don't much care for GW is that you don'y much care for their actual products.  Are you a Warhammer fanatic? A 40k boy? No?  Then there is nothing GW is doing that would have the slightest interest 

Put another way, BMW could release what is technically the best car in the world.  But I wouldn't touch it because their products do not interest me in the slightest.




Leviatham said:


> I could be wrong and maybe they have already done this experiment and seen it doesn't work, but I think that variety could be beneficial for them both a company and as business.




There was indeed a time when you could buy WFRP in their stores.  However, it is not difficult to believe that they sold X WFRP books to 10X miniatures box sets.  So, what do you put on your shelves for best effect?

Last I heard, GW had about 2,500 employees, and they have an awful lot of shops.  That is a frightening amount of fixed costs. In their place, I would would have nothing on my shelves other than things I knew would sell well and if something started failing, kick it in favour for something else.

No business has any other choice, really.



Leviatham said:


> Maybe you are right there. But then, and this is to take the side of some of the ultra-capitalists that have intervened in the past, not because I agree with it - it would also make business sense to target the people who buy your games and take that revenue as well.




They are - and, through licence fees and royalties, they do so for no investment and no risk. It is a perfect arrangement for a company.



Leviatham said:


> Their lack of horizontality is indeed to your advantage, and since I rather support you than them, I do hope it keeps being your advantage in the future, foreseeable or not.




A Call to Arms: Star Fleet is coming to a shop in Brighton very soon.

(Hey, I gotta make a living as well, you know ).



Leviatham said:


> My points are about the opportunity they could have to do more things, which would benefit both the industry, the hobby and the hobbyist. With the brand, the infrastructure and the reputation they have, they'd be the perfect platform.




I hope I have given good reasons for you to think otherwise.


----------



## Cor Azer (Apr 4, 2012)

Leviatham said:


> Err... no. My opinions are my own and based on what I have seen, what I have read and what I have perceived. No one has made me or attempted to make believe or think anything.




So, why do us fans of GW get painted with one wide, and misaimed, brush?



Leviatham said:


> My point is that if they did get involved in that market, just by distributing the materials they license, nothing more, they'd be a better business. They could be attracting more people into their shops and, potentially, getting new customers.




Better how? Are you suggesting they become a full on RPG retailer? That's decidely not to their strengths.

What new customers would come to a GW store? If a potential player was unfamiliar with GW, why would they think to look there for RPG stuff?

So the end of the line on your suggestion is that they become a full-blown gaming retailer - at a decidely greater cost to them, and potentislly less profit for them, to what? Make mobey for other companies?



Leviatham said:


> However I would say they are in a fantastic position to actually do something great for the hobby. Position the chose to ignore. That they have chosen not to get involved in any other part of the market is obvious and I am sure they have their reasons. I am not sure I would agree with those reasons, though (but then, I am on a defensive stance already, so not surprising!).
> 
> Ignore? I can't say if they ignored it. Seems likely they would have evaluated the risk/reward, and determined it wasn't worth their time. But hey, fans still want RPG and video games based on their IP. So, they go the licensing route. Seems rather win-win to me.
> 
> ...


----------



## Leviatham (Apr 4, 2012)

MongooseMatt said:


> Well, same here, but I don't actively dislike them, which is what seems to be going on here.




Well, no, but then, you are not an opinionated bastard like I am! 





MongooseMatt said:


> That's what they want you to think...




Uhmm... I’ll have to write another article about living a life of being secretly manipulated by a corporation then. Even if I don’t think I am!





MongooseMatt said:


> I am surprised to hear you talking about similar prices.  GW is generally known for being on the (eye-wateringly) expensive side.  Most other minis companies compete with them on price.




The ones I can recall, at similar sizes and similar shapes, come to my mind by being similar in price. As in a small percentage change. Having said that, I haven’t really looked into it recently, so things could have changed.




MongooseMatt said:


> That would make no sense for a business.
> 
> I'll give you a real-world example.  We do not hire a translator to turn one of our books into, say, German, nor do we print such books.  We licence them out to a German publisher.
> 
> ...




There is a difference, though. You don’t have a Mongoose shop in Germany where you sell your miniatures and then fail to sell anything else, even if it carries your brand. GW does exactly that.

I actually think you’re better off with a German publisher. I am Spanish and I understand about cultural differences better than most. If you did everything yourself you’d probably fail. By giving the work to someone who knows the mentality, you’re catering for it. Your talent is in choosing the right publisher in Germany, not in doing the German work yourself.

I would disagree with one thing, though. I used to work for a company as channel manager. We used to do 3D modelling for videogames, movies, etc. I had 13 dealers around Europe. They would handle sales and I would look after them. I’d provide with marketing material, go and visit them and their customers and help with the production of the products that would then be sold to their customers. Before I arrived to the company, the revenue from Europe for the company was around £80 per year. When the company was shut down in Europe in 2001, my turnover was of over £600K per year. Managing and understanding your sales channel and the needs they have can render incredible results.





MongooseMatt said:


> Ah ha!
> 
> There is something very telling about White Dwarf.  You look on it as changing and damaging the hobby.  But look at it another way.
> 
> ...




Don’t think I haven’t considered that angle. I think it is six of one and half a dozen of the other. Maybe they saw the warning signs. By the way they have developed their vertical market, I prefer to believe that they didn’t want to keep going on with anything else and gave it up to concentrate on one thing. After all, if they can continue and then seen the market wasn’t sustaining the magazine as they wanted, they could then turned it into the current WD.

As for the rest of the magazines, I think that was more a matter of applying an editorial model to a niche market that needed a different way to do things. But that’s another story!




MongooseMatt said:


> Well, do they have an obligation to do so?  They have built their own market, one they have managed to pretty much isolate from the rest of the hobby, and grown it to a size larger than, say, RPGs alone. They chose their ground and are servicing their customers very, very well.
> 
> But again, let's look at this another way.  I don't know anything about you, but let us assume you have an IQ north of 160.
> 
> ...




Well, I actually work as a relationships counsellor in my (rather slim) spare time and work with perpetrators of domestic abuse. I do this as a volunteer. I choose to use my talent for people and for abstract and lateral thinking to help others find solutions to their problems and help them see a different perspective that suits them. Maybe it’s not enough, but it’s worth it!

Also, I don’t think they have an obligation per se, but it is something that would endear them to a lot more people than with their current model. Some have argued befor that they have a duty and obligation to their stock holders. Shouldn’t therefore this be consider as part of an obligation to expand the business and do better?

Bit of a stretch, but you know what I mean.




MongooseMatt said:


> I put it to you (he said, adopting a lawyer's voice) that this isn't the reason at all. I put it to you that the reason you don't much care for GW is that you don'y much care for their actual products.  Are you a Warhammer fanatic? A 40k boy? No?  Then there is nothing GW is doing that would have the slightest interest




Uhmm... not necessarily. I don’t like Warhammer games. I find them boring. I would gladly, though, get into the model making aspect of the hobby. If I felt I can get enough out of it, I would probably learn how to paint or create scenarios. As it stands, they do nothing to gain or attract that aspect of me.



MongooseMatt said:


> Put another way, BMW could release what is technically the best car in the world.  But I wouldn't touch it because their products do not interest me in the slightest.




Hear hear!!



MongooseMatt said:


> There was indeed a time when you could buy WFRP in their stores.  However, it is not difficult to believe that they sold X WFRP books to 10X miniatures box sets.  So, what do you put on your shelves for best effect?
> 
> Last I heard, GW had about 2,500 employees, and they have an awful lot of shops.  That is a frightening amount of fixed costs. In their place, I would would have nothing on my shelves other than things I knew would sell well and if something started failing, kick it in favour for something else.
> 
> No business has any other choice, really.




Possibly, but it is not my experience. I guess we are at a point in our speculation in which we can’t really debate any further because we’re both making assumptions rather than basing things of empirical fact. We’d have to actually provide with more products in the GW shops and see what impact that has before we can take any measures. Alternatively, at the very least we should conduct some rigorous market research. That’s not gonna happen! 





MongooseMatt said:


> They are - and, through licence fees and royalties, they do so for no investment and no risk. It is a perfect arrangement for a company.




Yep, but not for the consumer. That’s what I care about first.



MongooseMatt said:


> A Call to Arms: Star Fleet is coming to a shop in Brighton very soon.
> 
> (Hey, I gotta make a living as well, you know ).




And I look forward to seeing that.

Well, let me help in a small way. Choose what side of my website you’d like to have and send me a banner of 150x600. You’ll have that advertising space there until the end of the summer. On me.



MongooseMatt said:


> I hope I have given good reasons for you to think otherwise.




You have indeed given me a lot of food for thought. Have I changed my mind? Not really, though I admit I won’t look at them so harshly in the future.

They still do a lot of other things that make me dislike them, though. Marketing practises, lack of contact with the public, recruitment practises... But please, don’t get me started... I think we’re reaching a rather nice conclusion to this thread!  

In any event, as with any aspect of life, I will always think they have room for improvement and chance to become a better business.


----------



## Nytmare (Apr 4, 2012)

korjik said:


> GW tells you how you should paint your minis?




I had always assumed that it was a Games Workshop mandate, but I've been in two GW stores where a person was turned away from a table because his miniatures weren't painted well enough.

I can understand a person who has spent weekends on end agonizing over making their army perfect being reluctant to play against someone who just hit their miniatures with a coat of primer and expects that to be good enough.

In the same vein, I refused to play a game of Bloodbowl against someone who had printed the miniatures they wanted out onto card stock.  It's the same as playing a game of magic against someone who has a deck full of proxy cards.  Part of the game is buying all the bits and pieces, making them shiny, and showing them off against someone else's shiny bits and pieces.

But these weren't guys with unpainted, or non-GW minis, they were just lousy painters.  Neither instance was an event or tournament or anything, just open play.  They were chided, told to learn how to paint correctly, and people refused to let them play.

Looking back on it now, I'm guessing it probably wasn't "company" policy, but we were certainly lead to believe that it was.



frankthedm said:


> Besides GW, another  example was Wotc's sudden switch from 3.0 to 3.5, which dropped the  floor out of the d20 market. These kind of shenanigans are a kick to the  junk of brick and mortar stores.




Here in Pittsburgh, the real death blow was when WOTC announced the jump to 4th.  Timed almost perfectly with the start of the Christmas sales, 4 game stores closed almost over night, and the survivors have been pretty much struggling ever since.


----------



## Ranes (Apr 4, 2012)

Leviatham said:


> Don’t think I haven’t considered that angle. I think it is six of one and half a dozen of the other. Maybe they saw the warning signs. By the way they have developed their vertical market, I prefer to believe that they didn’t want to keep going on with anything else and gave it up to concentrate on one thing. After all, if they can continue and then seen the market wasn’t sustaining the magazine as they wanted, they could then turned it into the current WD.




I would think again, if I were you. Matt's assessment is pretty accurate. I should know; I'm the guy who turned WD into what it is today, apparently. It wasn't that the market wasn't sustaining WD. It was that the change enabled GW to concentrate on building its own intellectual properties. And to be fair to you, you've captured something of that intent in the paragraph I've quoted. You've just misjudged the rationale behind it.

I have no comment to make on any other matter. I haven't been associated with GW for over twenty years. I'm glad that they and WD are still around and making their fans happy, though.

By the way, have you seen this?

BBC News - Why are adults still launching tabletop war?


----------



## jasper (Apr 4, 2012)

um how about this.
McDonalds sells hamburgers, they don't sell Legos, Preschool Toys, Pajamas, etc.
However they do license their images to Lego, Fisher Price (anyone the McDonalds store piece), and to clothing makers. They get cut.
Your arguement seems to me to boil down to McDonalds/GW must stock their stores  with everthing with their name on it. And then allow Burger King, Krystal, and Wendys shelf space since they are all in Hamburger industry to promote the Hamburger industry.
change the burgers to rpgs and that appears to be your arguement.
PS Buy stock in the company and go to shareholders meetings and advise them to change their ways.


----------



## Leviatham (Apr 4, 2012)

Ranes said:


> I would think again, if I were you. Matt's assessment is pretty accurate. I should know; I'm the guy who turned WD into what it is today, apparently. It wasn't that the market wasn't sustaining WD. It was that the change enabled GW to concentrate on building its own intellectual properties. And to be fair to you, you've captured something of that intent in the paragraph I've quoted. You've just misjudged the rationale behind it.
> 
> I have no comment to make on any other matter. I haven't been associated with GW for over twenty years. I'm glad that they and WD are still around and making their fans happy, though.
> 
> ...




Getting it from the source, I will stand corrected. For the record, even though I wish the magazine were still a multi-game magazine, I have absolutely nothing against WD. The few times I have come autocross it, I have thought it was a very good publication. Just one that doesn't interest me.

I am not unhappy that GW is there and it's good some people are happy with them. I just feel they could be doing a lot better!

I did see that article, even though, to me, it felt more like an advert for GW than an article. It was very good they added a mixed bunch of opinions on the matter too.

I must say, I wish we saw more like it about other aspects of gaming!


----------



## Sunseeker (Apr 4, 2012)

It was actually kinda funny, I was thinking about this the other day.  I had recently visited my local gaming store where on a previous visit the owner has complained about how "Wizards needed to personally apologize" to him for not supporting his LGS as much as they used to, and how he wouldn't carry any of their products until then.

On this visit, he mentioned quite casually how he couldn't afford to purcahse even a new shipment of dice because he had to drop $1500 on Games Workshop products to remain in good standing with the company and continue to get their official support.

I left the store and bust up laughing in my car.  Wizards needs to personally apologize to this guy, but he'll throw every last penny at Games Workshop to stay in "good standing" with them.  Irony.


----------



## Glade Riven (Apr 4, 2012)

Cor Azer said:


> Loyalty doesn't really exist in a product company. They produce product, customer buys it (or not). Relationship ends.




Yeeeaaaahh...no. For you, maybe this is the case, but brand loyalty is a _huge_ part of business for any major product company. Go ask Apple. Or ask Coke what happened when they came out with New Coke in the 80s. Just a few examples. There's a _lot_ more out there.


----------



## Lwaxy (Apr 4, 2012)

I only had negative experiences with GW employes. They were generally rude, impatient and sneering down on any other games or products. At the game fair in Essen, I was once grumbled at for my Decipher T-Shirt while I tried to alert them to someone thieving. Needless to say I was rather with the thief after that. 

I find them generally overpriced, but they are not the only place that's too expensive for their quality. Not to say they don't have cool stuff but I can do better for less money and with more friendly, more involved in the hobby employes elsewhere.


----------



## NN (Apr 4, 2012)

all internet threads on GW must link to

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_tCQH9GegMWA/SzN994fMuPI/AAAAAAAABqk/pj7knA4U4Jo/s1600-h/page+1.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_tCQH9GegMWA/SzN90FsxR4I/AAAAAAAABqc/T6RBo_sbyUE/s1600-h/page+2.jpg


----------



## NN (Apr 4, 2012)

so there


----------



## Dire Bare (Apr 5, 2012)

NN said:


> all internet threads on GW must link to
> 
> page+1.jpg (image)
> 
> page+2.jpg (image)




Heh, I've had those types of experiences in all sorts of gaming stores.  GW shops have long had a reputation for pushy sales folk and all, but to be fair, GW has really cleaned up and this is mostly a problem of the past . . . at least in the US and the small handful of stores I've visited in the UK.

GW bashing is a popular sport akin to WotC bashing, and to me, it's all just cranky, whiny noise.  Neither company is perfect, but they make products I enjoy at prices I find reasonable, so I'm fine.  Now, more than ever, there's plenty of competition in miniature wargames, so spend your money elsewhere if you are a GW hater.


----------



## Cor Azer (Apr 5, 2012)

Transbot9 said:


> Yeeeaaaahh...no. For you, maybe this is the case, but brand loyalty is a _huge_ part of business for any major product company. Go ask Apple. Or ask Coke what happened when they came out with New Coke in the 80s. Just a few examples. There's a _lot_ more out there.




Eh... I'm not so sure those are really counter-examples.

The Coke one in particular shows my point - Coke changed the formula for New Coke, and there was a huge backlash, so they changed it back. Ie - sales went down, because people wouldn't just buy it because it had 'Coke' on the label. That's pretty much the opposite of loyalty. Fortunately for Coke-drinkers everywhere, the management decided the the change was undoable, and they wanted their sales back, so New Coke went away.

The Apple one is closer, but it also has the catch that people who already have Apple products (I suspect) tend to buy more Apple products because they know they're designed to work together. That can be a huge inconvenience already overcome. People keep buying Apple products because Apple keeps making quality products. 

Of course, there I'm only really speaking anecdotally, which has already been established as 'not data'. I'm a big fan of my Macbook and iPhone, but not so much my trial with an iPad. The first two just worked together right away (in so much as I've needed them to), but I had technical problems with the iPad. Kept the first two, but returned the latter.

I'm probably moving the fenceposts here, but I can see how brand loyalty would be important to some sort of hybrid product/service company - I'm mainly thinking car dealers. Sure, their big moneymakers are the cars, but they also want to drive business into their service departments, so making a whole 'Toyota' experience can be key to that business model. And, I'd have to say in my case, is arguably successful, since my last 5 cars have all been from the same dealership, and I've always gone back there for service. I'd argue that it was because they've given me the best service in my decades of car ownership, but I'm not averse to the idea that I've been brainwashed by them.


----------



## Glade Riven (Apr 5, 2012)

Oh, I've been in plenty of arguments with Mac "cultists" (_not_ the same as a Mac user). While their current batch of stuff is (usually) decent, their image is what really drives sales, as well as many of these high-end pretentious clothing stores found at my nearby mall. _Whoo-boy_, some of _those_ discussions back before Mac switched to Intel and they finally worked the major bugs out of OS X...


----------



## Wordwarrior (Apr 5, 2012)

They sell a great looking product.  I've always liked the sculpts on the GW minis.  Never bought into 40K or any of the other games, though, as I still feel they are overpriced for what they are. 

I can't say whether or not they are a good business, but I think it's going to be a moot point when physical printing becomes more refined over the next 3 to 5 years.  Then you can just buy a handful of minis/bitz for cheap over on ebay, laser scan them, and print out as big an army as you like, for a fraction of the cost of buying the product from the company...

BBC News - 3D printing offers ability to print physical objects


----------



## Leviatham (Apr 5, 2012)

Cor Azer said:


> So, why do us fans of GW get painted with one wide, and misaimed, brush?



There are various reasons. However I will admit that it was a rude thing to say and I apologise for that. I know someone has asked me to do that before and I haven’t. The reason for that is because I refuse to apologise to someone who requests the apology on someone else’s behalf. Since my comment affects you directly, I have no problems to admit it was wrong of me to say so.
However saying so wasn’t without its reasons. I find the attitude of some of the GW fans to feel like they’ve been brainwashed. The inability to take on board the criticism and simply defend GW not for what they do well, or simply, like Matt did, by showing where I was wrong, and never ever ever ever ever ever ever admit to what GW does badly and always always always defend the company no matter what, is what makes us (with us I mean people outside that circle) look at you guys as if you’ve been brainwashed.


Cor Azer said:


> Better how? Are you suggesting they become a full on RPG retailer? That's decidely not to their strengths.



This sort of questions is what makes me feel you haven’t really read my post. You might have gone through the words, but certainly not taken then on board.
Did what I said (“ just by distributing the materials they license, nothing more,”)really escaped you? Do I really need to explain that further?


Cor Azer said:


> What new customers would come to a GW store? If a potential player was unfamiliar with GW, why would they think to look there for RPG stuff?



Are you serious asking me that? Considering how targeted to children the GW products are, is it really that difficult to see what new customers could be targeted and who could come into the shop?


Cor Azer said:


> So the end of the line on your suggestion is that they become a full-blown gaming retailer - at a decidely greater cost to them, and potentislly less profit for them, to what? Make mobey for other companies?



My end like of my suggestion was very clear from the start: “Sell also the products you license”.
I don’t mean to be offensive, but reading my post, and some of the responses more slowly will give you the answers to your questions.


Cor Azer said:


> Ignore? I can't say if they ignored it. Seems likely they would have evaluated the risk/reward, and determined it wasn't worth their time. But hey, fans still want RPG and video games based on their IP. So, they go the licensing route. Seems rather win-win to me.



Yes, seems likely, but that is just another assumption, like the ones I have made. I am not questioning the licensing model. It works and I am glad I can find their RPGs and boardgames without having to step into their shop.
So far, to me it feels like they ignore that sales potential. Maybe they don’t and I am happy to be put wrong if I am given so evidence of the contrary. Until then, I will believe they ignore it.



Cor Azer said:


> Again. What people? At what cost?



Please refer to my previous answer.


Cor Azer said:


> Without knowing more about your retail, this is obviously conjecture. But did your company also build and distribute the cameras you sold? That changes things hugely.
> Giving up shelf spaces of your own products to sell other people's products costs you twice - you either pay to expand your shop or you lose the space for you own goods (and thus sell less) and you don't make as much money on them.



Not true. Some of the shelf and shop window space we gave up was to sell photos from other photographers. They were side by side with photos taken by us. Plenty of people bought those photos and we proceeded to frame them. True that we didn’t make less money from those sales, but we had a satisfied customer who came back for more and, most importantly, who spoke to their friends about us.


Cor Azer said:


> I can't say if the experiment was done, but a close approximation might come back from other gaming stores who stock GW products - what percentafe of people going in for other reasons pick up GW? Not completely accurate, since the game shop might not be pushing it the same as GW would, but then you're effectively asking GW to push other people's stuff as hard as their own. Turn about is fair.



You ignore other factors. A small shop (or even a big one) doesn’t have the network infrastructure, the branding, the reputation and the sales force. They already have all of that and it would be much cheaper for them to distribute products to their shops than for a small shop to get them.
The game shop, if they’re doing their shop properly, will find out what the customer wants and find the right product. In the right manner, will also try to showcase other products that could be of interest and try to sell something else. GW’s shops are no different, or shouldn’t be.



Cor Azer said:


> I'm still not sure what these hypothetical things are that you think they should do, and how they would help the industry.
> So far, it seems to amount to "they should sell other people's stuff" with the pay-off being "new customers", but I don't see how them spending extra money to get lower profit items gets them new customers.
> 
> 
> Unless you're saying they should produce all these other items. That seems foolish to attempt to be an everything gaming company.



Again, please read previous responses. The most obvious I have said is “sell the products you license”.


Cor Azer said:


> Tangentially related - how'd WotC do with their branded game stores? They were a bit more 'horizontally' focused, no? Sometimes it's good business to let others do the experiments.



I can’t tell. We never had a WotC shop in Spain and I never saw one in the UK. I can’t comment on that one.


----------



## EmbraCraig (Apr 5, 2012)

Haven't read the full thread, so don't know if anyone has said this - but GW don't make a lot of money from their stores. That's not why the shops are there.

GW shops are there for the purpose of getting new players in - put shiny, nicely painted models and big banners in the windows, give kids a chance to play a game for free, give them a painting lesson. Introduce people to the hobby. GW seem to know and accept the fact that most of their older customers don't buy in stores (they're shopping online), and don't usually game in stores (they play at home, at clubs, elsewhere in general).

Selling other licensed products wouldn't necessarily support that - especially RPGs or computer games, since they're one time purcachases. GWs business model is to get people involved in the games, then keep selling them lots of shiny new models.

As to your experience with the local shop, can't really comment other than to say the shop staff in Edinburgh have been great at any time I've been in. That's both 15-20 years ago when I went in as a kid, or in the last few years since I've restarted as an adult.

EDIT: Also meant to say that GW stores generally don't even have enough space to hold their full miniatures line - most only carry starter sets for each army, new releases and popular models for the high selling armies. Most of the floor space is usually taken up by gaming tables, so not much room to carry stock.  I doubt very much that stocking anything that takes up shelf space that someone else is taking a chunk of the cash from is going to happen any time soon.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Apr 5, 2012)

jasper said:


> um how about this.
> McDonalds sells hamburgers, they don't sell Legos, Preschool Toys, Pajamas, etc.
> However they do license their images to Lego, Fisher Price (anyone the McDonalds store piece), and to clothing makers. They get cut.
> Your arguement seems to me to boil down to McDonalds/GW must stock their stores  with everthing with their name on it. And then allow Burger King, Krystal, and Wendys shelf space since they are all in Hamburger industry to promote the Hamburger industry.
> ...




I'm kind of with Leviatham on this one, if not the tone he uses to convey his points.

First, McDonalds in your analogy would not have to "allow Burger King, Krystal, and Wendys shelf space since they are all in Hamburger industry to promote the Hamburger industry" because Leviatham specifally asked that GW carry GW products, not other RPGs and miniatures lines.

Second, Legos, Fisher Prices toys, and clothing do not directly support McDonald's main business of food service. Therefore, they need not devote space to selling those licensed products. Again, Leviatham did not request that GW stores carry 'anything with their name on it.' I'm sure there are t-shirts with GW branded names on them, which he never mentioned as something they should carry. What he did mention was things like the FFG-produced WFRPG. This is a product that would _directly_ support their main business line of miniatures. A person walking into a GW store may not be interested in wargaming, but might find the concept of the RPG to me much more to their liking. With that purchase the GW staff would have the opportunity to show them the miniatures that would help bring their RPG experience to life on the table. It does not seem unreasonable to me that GW stores should sell GW gaming products.


----------



## Cor Azer (Apr 5, 2012)

Preamble: I hope my tone doesn't come off too harsh. I'm actually rather enjoying this debate - a nice change from those that quickly devolve into "Nyuh-uh - you!"/"No way - you"



Leviatham said:


> There are various reasons. However I will admit that it was a rude thing to say and I apologise for that. I know someone has asked me to do that before and I haven’t. The reason for that is because I refuse to apologise to someone who requests the apology on someone else’s behalf. Since my comment affects you directly, I have no problems to admit it was wrong of me to say so.
> However saying so wasn’t without its reasons. I find the attitude of some of the GW fans to feel like they’ve been brainwashed. The inability to take on board the criticism and simply defend GW not for what they do well, or simply, like Matt did, by showing where I was wrong, and never ever ever ever ever ever ever admit to what GW does badly and always always always defend the company no matter what, is what makes us (with us I mean people outside that circle) look at you guys as if you’ve been brainwashed.




I appreciate the apology, but as a general tip - attempting to justify something after you've apologized makes the apology seem less sincere.

And thankfully, I like to think I love to gripe about where GW goes wrong (why must they torture my Sisters so...), but I also try to give credit where credit is due.



Leviatham said:


> This sort of questions is what makes me feel you haven’t really read my post. You might have gone through the words, but certainly not taken then on board.
> Did what I said (“ just by distributing the materials they license, nothing more,”)really escaped you? Do I really need to explain that further?




Don't mistake disagreement with misunderstanding.

I will note that my last post was typed on an iPhone, so I was somewhat terse in somethings due to "fat finger-small keyboard"-itis.

I had thought an earlier post with arguments against the licensed material had already covered that point, so I was going against the extension of it. My apologies for not specifying that.



Leviatham said:


> Are you serious asking me that? Considering how targeted to children the GW products are, is it really that difficult to see what new customers could be targeted and who could come into the shop?




I'm not arguing that they don't target every demographic, but really, is your argument that they should? Yes, I know you're not saying they should target every demographic, but they do target the ones that make sense. The ones that make them money.

Just like baby products aren't advertised to the male 18-40 demographic. Yes, a lot of those males are fathers, and yes, a lot of them have money to spend on those baby products. But it's much more effective to target advertising at the female 18-40 demographic - it's cheaper (I'm sure TLC doesn't charge the same for advertising as ESPN), and it's more likely to yield profit (strictly anecdotal, but us fathers don't often make the baby product purchasing decisions). 

Could baby product producers target men? Sure. They might even make a little bit of money. But it would cost them a heck of a lot, money that would be much more wisely invested into greater targeting of their existing demographic.

Sound familiar?



Leviatham said:


> My end like of my suggestion was very clear from the start: “Sell also the products you license”.
> I don’t mean to be offensive, but reading my post, and some of the responses more slowly will give you the answers to your questions.




Another tip, if you write something, and you yourself realize that it might be offensive, adding "don't mean to be offensive" does not suddenly make it not offensive. It's much easier to rewrite it in a non-offensive way. Thankfully, years of tech support have thickened my skin, so I try to ignore the presentation and seek the meat.

GW stores have limited shelf space. They are inherently finite given physical products in a physical space. What you haven't done is address how removing some of their product that yields 100% profits to them and replacing it with product that yields, at best, 10-15% somehow magically helps (That number is strictly monkey-poo; I don't know what their licensing percentage is, but if it's higher than that, then in my opinion they've got some wicked-skilled lawyers or their licensees are wicked-inept).

How does it help their business? Do you really think that many new customers would be brought it to cover that gap? How long would that take? From another posters comment, the shops are doing just above break-even so could they sustain a short term loss until the gap is made up?

Are you also suggesting they spend their advertising budget on another companies licensed product as well? Because if GW doesn't advertise them in places these new customers look, then how would they know these licensed products exist there? I don't expect FFG spends its money to advertise GW stores - I haven't seen any ads lately, but I expect that they say stuff like "shop online at FFG or at your local gaming store". So the two possibilities are GW's license forces its licensees to advertise the GW shops (which they might, but I would suspect that the negotiated license percentage drops accordingly) or GW spends time advertising another company's product, which still cuts into that hypothetical 10-15%.

And without any extra advertising, the only new customers are those who just happen to wander by this colorful store with painted miniatures in the windows and pop in to see what it's all about. Which is what they already get. So all you gain by having the licensed products in there are the very few who go "Huh! Painted miniatures - cool. Oh, but I don't want to buy any, but hey! I can play a game where I imagine I'm playing one of them!" That sounds like a suspiciously small number of new customers to overcome the huge gap in potential profit of carrying their own products vs licensed ones.

An exaggeration? Perhaps, but I wouldn't think by much.



Leviatham said:


> Yes, seems likely, but that is just another assumption, like the ones I have made. I am not questioning the licensing model. It works and I am glad I can find their RPGs and boardgames without having to step into their shop.
> So far, to me it feels like they ignore that sales potential. Maybe they don’t and I am happy to be put wrong if I am given so evidence of the contrary. Until then, I will believe they ignore it.




Ah. A cynic. That's ok, but I tend towards realism. Well, no, I tend towards idealism and optimism (with a dash of self-deprecation), but logic keeps me weighed down.

Yes, I made assumptions. But all assumptions are not created equal. Generally, assuming someone's incompetence in their area of expertise is a poor assumption. Likewise, extraordinary talent is called extraordinary because it's beyond the ordinary. I tend to assume general competence, nothing below or above average.

Unfortunately, I suspect nobody will ever show you evidence to the contrary. If (and since I assume general competence, I suspect that's a 'true') GW did do research into the feasibility of carrying licensed products in their stores, they would never release it for public consumption. It would show too much information about their financial situation and/or risk acceptance/aversion. Companies do not like giving out that information.

Thankfully, were this a full and proper debate, we wouldn't have to show evidence. Evidence is generally required of the person making the extraordinary claim (ie - you and their ignorance). Of course, you get off the hook, because 1. this isn't really a full and proper debate, and 2. the only way I can see you ever proving that they did ignore the potential is by gaining complete access to all of their financial and corporate documents and trawling through them to show there's nary a mention of carrying licensed products. Again, companies do not like giving out that information.

Which leaves us at two assumptions - you and their ignorance in their area of expertise, and me and their general competence in their area of expertise. I know which I'd bet on, but then, I'm inherently biased towards my own assumptions (which is why they're mine).



Leviatham said:


> Not true. Some of the shelf and shop window space we gave up was to sell photos from other photographers. They were side by side with photos taken by us. Plenty of people bought those photos and we proceeded to frame them. True that we didn’t make less money from those sales, but we had a satisfied customer who came back for more and, most importantly, who spoke to their friends about us.




It's close to a parallel, but not quite, assuming I understand you correctly - your shop gave up shelf space for your photos to allow shelf space for photos by other people? So the customers are still looking for photos, right? And you didn't have to change your advertising much (if at all), would you have? It's still photos (I can't speak to how famous the photographers are/were, so perhaps they were a big deal and I'm paying them an insult by saying 'still photos'). Did you really get in that many customers who wouldn't have already entered your store?

To be clear, I don't want to imply that expanding the lines of products carried _can't_ be beneficial. It's all about risk. The shop you worked for was prepared to take that risk, and for you, it worked. GW, for their own reasons, are not prepared for that risk, although I suspect it's because in their assessment, it's not worth it. Risk-aversion doesn't make a company 'not good'.



Leviatham said:


> You ignore other factors. A small shop (or even a big one) doesn’t have the network infrastructure, the branding, the reputation and the sales force. They already have all of that and it would be much cheaper for them to distribute products to their shops than for a small shop to get them.
> The game shop, if they’re doing their shop properly, will find out what the customer wants and find the right product. In the right manner, will also try to showcase other products that could be of interest and try to sell something else. GW’s shops are no different, or shouldn’t be.




GW has the distribution network to get _their_ product to their shops. They do not have the network to get other people's products out to them. That would require new routes from other companies' warehouses to their own, or setting up addition distribution routes from those companies to deliver directly to the GW shop. So I would argue it would not be any cheaper for them to get the licensed products. GW may be a heavy-weight in the miniatures market, but they don't wield the influence a place like Walmart has to dictate the distributor's prices. There might be a slight advantage in that they could order at bulk rates (if such exist), but I wouldn't be surprised if that advantage weren't offset by the extra labour costs for them to break those bulk orders down to reship to individual stores.

I'll give you the sale forces - I don't think it'd be too much of a stretch to assume a general level of geek knowledge amongst their retail staff for them to know a thing or too about the licensed products.

GW's shops _are_ different though. A regular retailer, one who doesn't also produce their own product, doesn't truly care what product they sell. They buy what their customers want, and then resell it in a way that, with luck, makes them money. They might specialize in a particular area due to owner and staff knowledge, but within that area, it's just personal appeal and what the customer wants. That's not the case for GW though. GW aren't there to just sell product. They're there to sell _very specific_ product. Everything I've ever heard says that gaming shops run a pretty thin margin, and GW seems to stay above that margin by focusing on the products that make them the most money - their own. They're there to get people into the miniature wargame hobby. Pushy exaggeration from the earlier linked comics aside, they want new customers to come in, and buy dozens of miniatures. That's where they make their money. Getting new customers in to buy a licensed RPG and then maybe a model, isn't worth the advertising and carrying costs to them. Now, it might be for you. It might even make a little bit of money. But, especially now that GW is a publicly traded company, they have an obligation to their shareholders to turn over as much profit as they legally can. And simply put, they make more money selling only their direct products. At least an order of magnitude more money.



Leviatham said:


> Again, please read previous responses. The most obvious I have said is “sell the products you license”.




And again, I ask why? What is the gain? You haven't adequately explained that.

Who are these mythical new customers who would be looking for a licensed GW product, and know enough that GW has it's own stores, but don't know about GW's main product line? If they're only familiar with the IP, without realizing it's by GW, why would they be looking at the GW shop in the first place? Is that really a big enough demographic to make up the gap between 100% profit yield and whatever fraction the licensed product yields?

I can't see it.


----------



## Leviatham (Apr 5, 2012)

Cor Azer said:


> Preamble: I hope my tone doesn't come off too harsh. I'm actually rather enjoying this debate - a nice change from those that quickly devolve into "Nyuh-uh - you!"/"No way - you"




Your tone comes actually a lot softer than mine, so I shan't complain! 

I am not trying to be rude or anything. I do have a rather harsh style of writing. Partly that English is not my mother tongue, partly that I am a rather blunt man and partly because I am used to use the tone of my voice to convey the emotion of what I write, rather than the selection of words.

So I'd say if I sound like a dickhead (I know I do sometimes), just add a smile to the words and you probably are close to the tone I had in my mind when I typed.




Cor Azer said:


> I appreciate the apology, but as a general tip - attempting to justify something after you've apologized makes the apology seem less sincere.




It was sincere and meant. I only added the explanation as I didn't want you to think I was just being patronising. Misguided and undeserving, I did have my reasons say what I said and I thought appropriate to explain myself rather than just let it hang.

I don't really do insincerity... takes too much time and I am appalling at it!



Cor Azer said:


> And thankfully, I like to think I love to gripe about where GW goes wrong (why must they torture my Sisters so...), but I also try to give credit where credit is due.




And that is where I went wrong in the first place. I didn't give them credit where they deserve it.





Cor Azer said:


> Don't mistake disagreement with misunderstanding.
> 
> I will note that my last post was typed on an iPhone, so I was somewhat terse in somethings due to "fat finger-small keyboard"-itis.
> 
> I had thought an earlier post with arguments against the licensed material had already covered that point, so I was going against the extension of it. My apologies for not specifying that.




I think it has been covered, but it is one of the issues that I think could be worked in their shops and I really mean just the product they license, as in the gaming products that carry their brand and are under their influence.





Cor Azer said:


> I'm not arguing that they don't target every demographic, but really, is your argument that they should? Yes, I know you're not saying they should target every demographic, but they do target the ones that make sense. The ones that make them money.
> 
> Just like baby products aren't advertised to the male 18-40 demographic. Yes, a lot of those males are fathers, and yes, a lot of them have money to spend on those baby products. But it's much more effective to target advertising at the female 18-40 demographic - it's cheaper (I'm sure TLC doesn't charge the same for advertising as ESPN), and it's more likely to yield profit (strictly anecdotal, but us fathers don't often make the baby product purchasing decisions).
> 
> ...




Are you calling the GW miniatures product for children? 

OK, when I go to a convention like, say Salute (wargame convention in the UK . I am assuming you're in the USA, sorry if I am getting that wrong) the people there are not all that young. There is a lot of young people, but there is also a TON of guys in their 40s and 50s into wargames.

Last time I went to the GW shop in Brighton, some 5 years ago, there were three older guys playing, probably late 40s or early 50's.

That is the kind of audience they could build up upon directly.

Then there are the people who are into the boardgames and RPGs who could be directly targeted by the companies that produce the games (FFC). I'll elaborate on that one a bit lower down in this post.





Cor Azer said:


> Another tip, if you write something, and you yourself realize that it might be offensive, adding "don't mean to be offensive" does not suddenly make it not offensive. It's much easier to rewrite it in a non-offensive way. Thankfully, years of tech support have thickened my skin, so I try to ignore the presentation and seek the meat.




Interesting that, unrelated to this post, someone in my office made a similar comment while we laughed at the office today. Again, add a smile to that and that's closer to how I meant it. I really didn't mean to be offensive.



Cor Azer said:


> GW stores have limited shelf space. They are inherently finite given physical products in a physical space. What you haven't done is address how removing some of their product that yields 100% profits to them and replacing it with product that yields, at best, 10-15% somehow magically helps (That number is strictly monkey-poo; I don't know what their licensing percentage is, but if it's higher than that, then in my opinion they've got some wicked-skilled lawyers or their licensees are wicked-inept).




It's not really an "either/or" situation for me. The way they use their space in their shops is not particularly efficient.



Cor Azer said:


> How does it help their business? Do you really think that many new customers would be brought it to cover that gap? How long would that take? From another posters comment, the shops are doing just above break-even so could they sustain a short term loss until the gap is made up?




I think it'd help their business by attracting a different, if related, clientèle. And yes, I truly believe it would help them. For starters it would attract me! I have, easily, £500 in GW boardgames and RPGs.

Actually, make it closer to £1000 since I have a couple of limited editions. I had to buy that in Amazon (a lot less margin for them) or directly from FFG (eye-watering postage costs, I can tell you!). That is £1000 they could have got in their shop. I can't be the only one.



Cor Azer said:


> Are you also suggesting they spend their advertising budget on another companies licensed product as well? Because if GW doesn't advertise them in places these new customers look, then how would they know these licensed products exist there? I don't expect FFG spends its money to advertise GW stores - I haven't seen any ads lately, but I expect that they say stuff like "shop online at FFG or at your local gaming store". So the two possibilities are GW's license forces its licensees to advertise the GW shops (which they might, but I would suspect that the negotiated license percentage drops accordingly) or GW spends time advertising another company's product, which still cuts into that hypothetical 10-15%.
> 
> And without any extra advertising, the only new customers are those who just happen to wander by this colorful store with painted miniatures in the windows and pop in to see what it's all about. Which is what they already get. So all you gain by having the licensed products in there are the very few who go "Huh! Painted miniatures - cool. Oh, but I don't want to buy any, but hey! I can play a game where I imagine I'm playing one of them!" That sounds like a suspiciously small number of new customers to overcome the huge gap in potential profit of carrying their own products vs licensed ones.
> 
> An exaggeration? Perhaps, but I wouldn't think by much.




Please don't get me started on their advertising. In there I downright thing they are utter ! 

The thing is that I don't think they would have to advertise too much. FFG already advertises, they'd just have to say "also available in GW stores" and people would know.

A little addition to their newsletter to let people know that they can now get other GW products in their shops would also do some of the work for them.

Shop windows are an incredible asset. I took a diploma in shop-window design years ago and I can tell you that the use they make of their shop windows is absolutely appalling. If they used just a 25% of that space to show the gorgeous illustrations in the boxes or their games, they would get, easily, 75% more attention from passing people.



Cor Azer said:


> Ah. A cynic.




Damn you blew my cover! 



Cor Azer said:


> That's ok, but I tend towards realism. Well, no, I tend towards idealism and optimism (with a dash of self-deprecation), but logic keeps me weighed down.




Ah my friend.. if anything I am indeed an idealist. I just let my cynicism gets the better of me. 



Cor Azer said:


> Yes, I made assumptions. But all assumptions are not created equal. Generally, assuming someone's incompetence in their area of expertise is a poor assumption. Likewise, extraordinary talent is called extraordinary because it's beyond the ordinary. I tend to assume general competence, nothing below or above average.




<Cynic>My friend, I have worked for corporations in the past. Also, I work on a daily basis with some of the biggest companies in the UK. Corporations that make billions. Trust me, competence comes in VERY short supply!</cynic>

Your position is probably wiser than mine!



Cor Azer said:


> Unfortunately, I suspect nobody will ever show you evidence to the contrary. If (and since I assume general competence, I suspect that's a 'true') GW did do research into the feasibility of carrying licensed products in their stores, they would never release it for public consumption. It would show too much information about their financial situation and/or risk acceptance/aversion. Companies do not like giving out that information.




And, to be honest, I truly hope I never see them. I absolutely ADORE these debates and I admit that slacking GW is a bit of a guilty pleasure of mine! 



Cor Azer said:


> Thankfully, were this a full and proper debate, we wouldn't have to show evidence. Evidence is generally required of the person making the extraordinary claim (ie - you and their ignorance). Of course, you get off the hook, because 1. this isn't really a full and proper debate, and 2. the only way I can see you ever proving that they did ignore the potential is by gaining complete access to all of their financial and corporate documents and trawling through them to show there's nary a mention of carrying licensed products. Again, companies do not like giving out that information.




And, quite frankly... what fun would it be? Not a lot.

That's the job for audits, accountants and lawyers. I am just an art director and psychotherapist... with dyslexia and discalculia... it would take me a lifetime to sieve those documents anyway!



Cor Azer said:


> Which leaves us at two assumptions - you and their ignorance in their area of expertise, and me and their general competence in their area of expertise. I know which I'd bet on, but then, I'm inherently biased towards my own assumptions (which is why they're mine).




Certainly, and the fact that we make different assumptions derives in conversation, which, I am really pleased to say, we are managing to keep to civil levels. Not something that can be said of everyone, so gentle tap in our backs! 



Cor Azer said:


> It's close to a parallel, but not quite, assuming I understand you correctly - your shop gave up shelf space for your photos to allow shelf space for photos by other people? So the customers are still looking for photos, right? And you didn't have to change your advertising much (if at all), would you have? It's still photos (I can't speak to how famous the photographers are/were, so perhaps they were a big deal and I'm paying them an insult by saying 'still photos'). Did you really get in that many customers who wouldn't have already entered your store?




There is a parallel. They were photos. GW would still sell games. Different games, but games nonetheless.

As for the advertising, I really think GW is  at it, but also that they wouldn't have to change much.



Cor Azer said:


> To be clear, I don't want to imply that expanding the lines of products carried _can't_ be beneficial. It's all about risk. The shop you worked for was prepared to take that risk, and for you, it worked. GW, for their own reasons, are not prepared for that risk, although I suspect it's because in their assessment, it's not worth it. Risk-aversion doesn't make a company 'not good'.




You are right, it's a matter of taking the risk. That's where I disagree. I think that not taking that risk makes it less good. And I say so because I believe the risk would be small and the benefits would be worth it.




Cor Azer said:


> GW has the distribution network to get _their_ product to their shops. They do not have the network to get other people's products out to them. That would require new routes from other companies' warehouses to their own, or setting up addition distribution routes from those companies to deliver directly to the GW shop. So I would argue it would not be any cheaper for them to get the licensed products. GW may be a heavy-weight in the miniatures market, but they don't wield the influence a place like Walmart has to dictate the distributor's prices. There might be a slight advantage in that they could order at bulk rates (if such exist), but I wouldn't be surprised if that advantage weren't offset by the extra labour costs for them to break those bulk orders down to reship to individual stores.




Maybe this is a bit simplistic, but wouldn't it be easy if the product from FFG is sent to GW's distribution centre and the boxes are shipped with the miniatures? That's why I think they already have the infrastructure there.



Cor Azer said:


> I'll give you the sale forces - I don't think it'd be too much of a stretch to assume a general level of geek knowledge amongst their retail staff for them to know a thing or too about the licensed products.




That would probably be the easiest bit, in fairness. Getting knowledge on their RPGs and boardgames takes a lot less than getting to grips with their line of miniatures, which is quite extensive.



Cor Azer said:


> GW's shops _are_ different though. A regular retailer, one who doesn't also produce their own product, doesn't truly care what product they sell. They buy what their customers want, and then resell it in a way that, with luck, makes them money. They might specialize in a particular area due to owner and staff knowledge, but within that area, it's just personal appeal and what the customer wants. That's not the case for GW though. GW aren't there to just sell product. They're there to sell _very specific_ product. Everything I've ever heard says that gaming shops run a pretty thin margin, and GW seems to stay above that margin by focusing on the products that make them the most money - their own. They're there to get people into the miniature wargame hobby. Pushy exaggeration from the earlier linked comics aside, they want new customers to come in, and buy dozens of miniatures. That's where they make their money. Getting new customers in to buy a licensed RPG and then maybe a model, isn't worth the advertising and carrying costs to them. Now, it might be for you. It might even make a little bit of money. But, especially now that GW is a publicly traded company, they have an obligation to their shareholders to turn over as much profit as they legally can. And simply put, they make more money selling only their direct products. At least an order of magnitude more money.




But it is "their" product to a great extent. If the customers I deal with are anything to go by, GW will have to have a sign off on everything everyone else does, from RPGs to official t-shirts. That's why they are so hot on not letting fan created content out there if they can help it.

I can understand the wanting to keep to the product they know and does well for them, but I also think what they could win in terms of new customers, extra trade and reputation would be worth it.



Cor Azer said:


> And again, I ask why? What is the gain? You haven't adequately explained that.
> 
> Who are these mythical new customers who would be looking for a licensed GW product, and know enough that GW has it's own stores, but don't know about GW's main product line? If they're only familiar with the IP, without realizing it's by GW, why would they be looking at the GW shop in the first place? Is that really a big enough demographic to make up the gap between 100% profit yield and whatever fraction the licensed product yields?
> 
> I can't see it.




The gain is in what I mentioned earlier. New customers, trade and reputation. 

The new customers would be people who now find reasons (or excuses) to complain about them and stay away from their shops. I can tell you, if they stocked the boardgames and RPGs, it is likely I would end up buying miniatures. I would probably end up writing reviews about their products and talking about them in my podcast.

I know not everyone does that sort of thing (I am very freaky!) but there would be a lot of people who would end up in their stores.

This sort of marketing, with parallel products, works well  in other areas. When you find a collectors edition video game that is exclusive to one retailer, that retailer is selling that product for a lot less margin. Sometimes for next to none. What they gain is the presence, the reputation and the public's attention.

Not an easy thing to quantify, but it is something very, very valuable.

To give another example, take a look at Barnes & Noble with boardgames. Traditionally, it is not their market, yet, they give up floor space to sell something that looks completely unrelated. 

The first time someone suggested having a Starbucks in their premises probably a lot of people thought they were mad. Nowadays, it is a pretty common sight.

Can you see why I think they could do a lot better? It might be very different and it might look loopy, but if it works for others, why not for them?


----------



## Leviatham (Apr 5, 2012)

EmbraCraig said:


> Haven't read the full thread, so don't know if anyone has said this - but GW don't make a lot of money from their stores. That's not why the shops are there.
> 
> GW shops are there for the purpose of getting new players in - put shiny, nicely painted models and big banners in the windows, give kids a chance to play a game for free, give them a painting lesson. Introduce people to the hobby. GW seem to know and accept the fact that most of their older customers don't buy in stores (they're shopping online), and don't usually game in stores (they play at home, at clubs, elsewhere in general).
> 
> ...




Several arguments that could be had.

If a shop is not giving enough selling a specific product, there are various things to do. Either market the product to reach more people (within the same demographics or expanding it), reduce the overheads (not always possible if one is running at the bear minimum) or expand the product range to explore new avenues.

There could be other strategies, but those are the main things that come ot mind right away.

Selling other licenses products would support just that, without having to change their branding, or gain knowledge of a different basic product line (marines are marines in RPGs, miniature games, videogames and movies. I'm saying this as illustration, not wanting to limit to just that)

You have gone into the shop as someone who is interested in their games. Try going into a shop in another town, or another shop in Edinburgh (if there is any) and ask about something else, or simply tell them you're just browsing, your experience is likely to be very different.

If their stores don't have enough space to host more product, they should look into more efficient ways to display stuff. Perpetuating a style of retail that doesn't exploit their product to the best of it's advantage is a mistake in any area of retail.


----------



## EmbraCraig (Apr 6, 2012)

Leviatham said:


> Several arguments that could be had.
> 
> If a shop is not giving enough selling a specific product, there are various things to do. Either market the product to reach more people (within the same demographics or expanding it), reduce the overheads (not always possible if one is running at the bear minimum) or expand the product range to explore new avenues.
> 
> ...




But that all comes with the assumption that the reason for the shop being there is purely to sell product. As I said in my original post, that's not the primary reason that the GW shops are there.

I'm pretty sure GW HQ will have had a conversation about whether it's worth taking away some of the gaming tables to put up shelves with more product on them - it's not the way they want to go with them.

Would carrying RPGs help them? Maybe, maybe not... I play the 40k RPGs weekly, and manage without minis 99% of the time, so I don't think it would help them sell more models.  I don't think it would really introduce any more people to the core game either - I'd guess people that play the 40k RPGs are generally aware of the core GW games and already know if they're interested and where they could find out/buy things for them.

And what response would I get if I went into another shop and asked about something that they didn't sell? Well, probably not much help... but the very most I could reasonaly expect would be someone politely suggesting somewhere I might find what I was looking for.  Any more than that would probably be because they're a generally helpful person (and would give the same answer if you asked them on the street, for example) and not much related to whether they were working in a vaguely related shop or not.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Apr 6, 2012)

EmbraCraig said:


> And what response would I get if I went into another shop and asked about something that they didn't sell? Well, probably not much help... but the very most I could reasonaly expect would be someone politely suggesting somewhere I might find what I was looking for.  Any more than that would probably be because they're a generally helpful person (and would give the same answer if you asked them on the street, for example) and not much related to whether they were working in a vaguely related shop or not.




Every _gaming_ store I've frequented would order the merchandise so they could sell it to me, as long as it's currently in print. That's one sign of a FLGS.

The _grocery store_ I frequent prides itself on ordering items it doesn't normally carry upon customer request.

This is what _good_ stores do. A _typical_ store may not, but this is what I think the OP refers to when labeling GW 'bad' in measures other than pure profit.


----------



## Leviatham (Apr 6, 2012)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Every _gaming_ store I've frequented would order the merchandise so they could sell it to me, as long as it's currently in print. That's one sign of a FLGS.
> 
> The _grocery store_ I frequent prides itself on ordering items it doesn't normally carry upon customer request.
> 
> This is what _good_ stores do. A _typical_ store may not, but this is what I think the OP refers to when labeling GW 'bad' in measures other than pure profit.




I am with you on that one, expect on one point. I have never labeled GW bad. I have said they are not good.

I know it might sound like that means they are bad, but it really doesn't. They are bad at quite a few things, but that is a subject for another thread.

What I really wanted to concentrate was in pointing out that they could be better and do better, not that they are bad.


----------



## Artur Hawkwing (Apr 6, 2012)

First, let me say that I have been into the Games Workshop store near me once, right after it opened to check it out. Grant that was 2 years ago, but the staff there, while obviously full of knowledge about their product, ignored all of the customers in the store, of which there were five of us, in order to debate which kind of brush was better for painting certain kinds of terrain effects on the bases of minis. I watched two people return the items they were wanting to purchase to the shelves when their attempts to get the sales persons attentions were ignored, as the three of them turned their back to the customers and kept arguing about the composition of the bristles. It was rather amusing.

Now, having not been back sense, I have little doubt that those individuals likely are no longer there, and when I do happen into that shopping center, there are usually a few cars clustered in front of the store and a steady stream of what look to be college aged customers shuffling in and out, usually with bags. They found their niche and seem to fill it well. 

Finally...regarding the McDonald's analogy, I have to interject here that you have to consider the constantly rotating stock of "Happy Meal" toys (including legos) that they use to sell their kids meals. If you look at that, anyone who uses that model does, in fact, stock products from outside of their food oriented focus.


----------



## Leviatham (Apr 6, 2012)

EmbraCraig said:


> But that all comes with the assumption that the reason for the shop being there is purely to sell product. As I said in my original post, that's not the primary reason that the GW shops are there.
> 
> I'm pretty sure GW HQ will have had a conversation about whether it's worth taking away some of the gaming tables to put up shelves with more product on them - it's not the way they want to go with them.
> 
> ...




The reason for any shop to be there is to sell. If the reason for a shop to be there is not to sell, then they are being stupid. It is an incredibly expensive way to maintain a presence and there are other ways to do that more cheaply.

That they don't want to go with it is clear, and it is also their prerogative. That I am questioning the judgement behind that decision and deciding to believe that they are wrong is mine. You are welcome to justify what they do, but that doesn't mean that it is the best thing to do.

Coming into a shop to buy product A2, gives the shop the chance to introduce and sell product A1. That is common sense.

Your expectations and mine are indeed at a par. However I didn't find that politeness that both of us would expect. That, doesn't make a good business. I would never, in a million years, employ someone to be in a shop unless that person is genuinely helpful. If anything because I never go back to a shop where the assistants are not helpful.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Apr 6, 2012)

Leviatham said:


> I am with you on that one, expect on one point. I have never labeled GW bad. I have said they are not good.




Sorry, re-reading the thread I see that it was other posters claiming that you labeled them bad. I do agree that 'not good' does not equal 'bad' as I tried to express with my use of the term 'typical.' Any company can toe the line and make a profit. _Good_ companies, IMO, do more than that.


----------



## Cor Azer (Apr 6, 2012)

Leviatham said:


> Your tone comes actually a lot softer than mine, so I shan't complain!
> 
> I am not trying to be rude or anything. I do have a rather harsh style of writing. Partly that English is not my mother tongue, partly that I am a rather blunt man and partly because I am used to use the tone of my voice to convey the emotion of what I write, rather than the selection of words.
> 
> So I'd say if I sound like a dickhead (I know I do sometimes), just add a smile to the words and you probably are close to the tone I had in my mind when I typed.




NEVAR! Words are all we have! It's what separates man from the animals!



Leviatham said:


> It was sincere and meant. I only added the explanation as I didn't want you to think I was just being patronising. Misguided and undeserving, I did have my reasons say what I said and I thought appropriate to explain myself rather than just let it hang.
> 
> I don't really do insincerity... takes too much time and I am appalling at it!




Being an expert at patronizing (at least, so says my wife), I tend not to assume others do so. Again, idealist.



Leviatham said:


> Are you calling the GW miniatures product for children?
> 
> OK, when I go to a convention like, say Salute (wargame convention in the UK . I am assuming you're in the USA, sorry if I am getting that wrong) the people there are not all that young. There is a lot of young people, but there is also a TON of guys in their 40s and 50s into wargames.
> 
> ...




Actually, the first reference I saw to children was, I think, by you (although I'm too lazy to re-read the thread to check. It was actually something that baffled me - I've never seen it as a hobby targeted at kids, seeing as it's far too expensive for $5 allowances (or whatever kids are weedling out of their parents these days). Sure, I've seen some kids at it, but never anywhere near the same level as the college-age crowd.

As mentioned before though, those older crowds buy direct by catalogue or online. They don't need the painting lessons or introductory gametime that the GW shops are really intended to supply. So... there's not really a whole that can be put in stores to draw them in, except possibly more tourneys and game days, which GW does pretty substantially. Still, they've got their ways of purchasing and few are like to change.



Leviatham said:


> Interesting that, unrelated to this post, someone in my office made a similar comment while we laughed at the office today. Again, add a smile to that and that's closer to how I meant it. I really didn't mean to be offensive.




It was me. I'm really good at the stalking thing.



Leviatham said:


> It's not really an "either/or" situation for me. The way they use their space in their shops is not particularly efficient.




That's a taste thing. I love wide open stores, and absolutely detest crowded aisles. My wife and I actually skip the two closest supermarkets to our house because they try to stuff too much into aisles that are already too tight.

And again, since the goal in the stores is teaching play and painting, they need wide open spaces for tables, and to allow for gathered crowds.



Leviatham said:


> I think it'd help their business by attracting a different, if related, clientèle. And yes, I truly believe it would help them. For starters it would attract me! I have, easily, £500 in GW boardgames and RPGs.
> 
> Actually, make it closer to £1000 since I have a couple of limited editions. I had to buy that in Amazon (a lot less margin for them) or directly from FFG (eye-watering postage costs, I can tell you!). That is £1000 they could have got in their shop. I can't be the only one.




I'm not denying that it would attract some people, but would those people be enough to cover the profit gap? I just don't believe it, but we'll not get tangible evidence in either direction.



Leviatham said:


> Please don't get me started on their advertising. In there I downright thing they are utter !
> 
> The thing is that I don't think they would have to advertise too much. FFG already advertises, they'd just have to say "also available in GW stores" and people would know.
> 
> ...




I'll defer to your expertise on shop windows. My experience extends to... looking at them. And I will doubleplusgood your opinion of their advertising.

That said, if it would require advertising to bring in a new demographic, I would prefer them invest that amount instead at improving their current demographic.



Leviatham said:


> Damn you blew my cover!
> 
> Ah my friend.. if anything I am indeed an idealist. I just let my cynicism gets the better of me.




Wow... a cynic who thinks he's an idealist... that's some idealistic thinking, my friend 



Leviatham said:


> <Cynic>My friend, I have worked for corporations in the past. Also, I work on a daily basis with some of the biggest companies in the UK. Corporations that make billions. Trust me, competence comes in VERY short supply!</cynic>
> 
> Your position is probably wiser than mine!




Well, there are too things going on here. I said that I assume general competency in one's area of expertise, true. My experience, however, is that many corporations don't leave people in their area of expertise. The Peter Principle.

I work in government, IT specifically. There are plenty of excellent programmers, designers, etc... Very few of them have any real management skills. I dread them being promoted up the chain.



Leviatham said:


> And, to be honest, I truly hope I never see them. I absolutely ADORE these debates and I admit that slacking GW is a bit of a guilty pleasure of mine!




Then I'm glad to be an enabler 



Leviatham said:


> Certainly, and the fact that we make different assumptions derives in conversation, which, I am really pleased to say, we are managing to keep to civil levels. Not something that can be said of everyone, so gentle tap in our backs!




Civility? For hells no... Bring on the tar!



Leviatham said:


> There is a parallel. They were photos. GW would still sell games. Different games, but games nonetheless.
> 
> As for the advertising, I really think GW is  at it, but also that they wouldn't have to change much.




You can't just say 'GW sells games'. The sell miniatures; they're the moneymakers. The games are just a means to spur people into selecting which miniatures to buy. The licensed products don't really drive miniature sales. You don't need miniatures at all with the licensed video games, and, excepting the GM, players may or may not buy one model.

Alas, but I'm too unfamiliar with the photo industry to think of a comparable.



Leviatham said:


> You are right, it's a matter of taking the risk. That's where I disagree. I think that not taking that risk makes it less good. And I say so because I believe the risk would be small and the benefits would be worth it.




I can't see the benefits being as huge as you think, and the costs would be greater than you seem to project.



Leviatham said:


> Maybe this is a bit simplistic, but wouldn't it be easy if the product from FFG is sent to GW's distribution centre and the boxes are shipped with the miniatures? That's why I think they already have the infrastructure there.




Well, you're adding the costs of shipping between FFG -> GW. You're adding the cost of extra warehouse space to store, however temporarily, the licensed product. You're adding labour costs for extra workers to unload and divy up the licensed product. You're adding shipping costs to send more product (own and licensed) to their stores.

It may be a direct solution, but it's not necessarily cheap.



Leviatham said:


> But it is "their" product to a great extent. If the customers I deal with are anything to go by, GW will have to have a sign off on everything everyone else does, from RPGs to official t-shirts. That's why they are so hot on not letting fan created content out there if they can help it.
> 
> I can understand the wanting to keep to the product they know and does well for them, but I also think what they could win in terms of new customers, extra trade and reputation would be worth it.




'Worth it' requires knowing costs involved and expected revenue. Neither of which we can really know.



Leviatham said:


> The gain is in what I mentioned earlier. New customers, trade and reputation.
> 
> The new customers would be people who now find reasons (or excuses) to complain about them and stay away from their shops. I can tell you, if they stocked the boardgames and RPGs, it is likely I would end up buying miniatures. I would probably end up writing reviews about their products and talking about them in my podcast.
> 
> ...




The difference with Barnes & Noble is that the books are not their own. They make a cut of the books they sell, and they make a cut of the boardgames they sell. Either way, they get a cut (likely similar in both cases).

In GW's case, they don't just get a cut of their own products. They get it ALL. 100%. Every penny. Every pence. You're suggesting they give up all that to instead stock something that 1. requires extra costs to get, and 2. earns them less profit, to 3. possibly get some new customers who might buy the moneymakers.

It's not that it couldn't be done. It's just that it's not as clear-cut a benefit as you seem to think. And since it's not a clear-cut benefit, they can't really be faulted for not trying it.


----------



## Cor Azer (Apr 6, 2012)

Leviatham said:


> I am with you on that one, expect on one point. I have never labeled GW bad. I have said they are not good.
> 
> I know it might sound like that means they are bad, but it really doesn't. They are bad at quite a few things, but that is a subject for another thread.
> 
> What I really wanted to concentrate was in pointing out that they could be better and do better, not that they are bad.




Sorry to be the pedantic nitpicker, but the first mention of 'bad' and 'GW' in the thread was your response to Transbot.



Leviatham said:


> @Transbot: At least 20 years ago there was a fair selection of comic books. True they were all pretty much Marvel and DC and few else (at least in Spain where I grew up. I really have no idea what it was like in the rest of Europe or the USA), but there were more accessible and comic book shops didn't sell just "Marvel". Imagine there had been the Marvel Shop where only Marvel paraphernalia had been sold and they had, pro-actively, sought to get rid of the rest. That would have been REALLY bad. That's what GW does, alas.




Admittedly, you're calling their action 'bad' as opposed to them, but since it's such a major part of their business, it is nigh-close to calling them 'bad'.

You also, I will note, cast rather dubious honors on them as well. How, exactly, does GW "pro-actively" seek to get rid of the rest?

They produce their own product. They wish to sell said product. Some of it is sold through their own stores. Some of it is sol through other gaming stores. To my knowledge, they place no requirements on these other stores as to what other product they can offer for sale.

I would argue that the reason you don't see Marvel-branded comic book stores is that comic books are horrendously narrow profit margined as it is. The real big money there is in licenses - hence the continued attempts at television shows and movies.

That's not the case in GW's situation. They've had years to build efficiencies into their miniature castings process, and they charge a premium for finished product. They don't have a narrow margin on the models themselves, so they don't need to license out their IP. They do, because some people think they can still make money going that route, but it's such a small part of GW's outlook that spending more money to take advantage of it would negate its benefits.

It does dawn on me though, that since English isn't your mother tongue, that a lot of the venom being spewed your way is due to poor wording.

In my experience, adding 'not' to a word means 'opposite of', and the opposite of 'good' is 'bad'. So most English speakers, upon seeing 'not good' would think 'bad' rather than 'could be better'.

Had you called your piece 'How GW could be better' may have gotten more agreement. I certainly agree. There are plenty of things they could do better (stop hurting my Sisters, please).

I still don't agree with your current premise about selling licensed products making them better though, but that falls back into a matter of taste and risk-assessment.


----------



## EmbraCraig (Apr 6, 2012)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Every _gaming_ store I've frequented would order the merchandise so they could sell it to me, as long as it's currently in print. That's one sign of a FLGS.
> 
> The _grocery store_ I frequent prides itself on ordering items it doesn't normally carry upon customer request.
> 
> This is what _good_ stores do. A _typical_ store may not, but this is what I think the OP refers to when labeling GW 'bad' in measures other than pure profit.




True enough, and if you go into a GW store and ask for a GW product that they don't normally carry stock of, you can order it in (although it's a bit fiddly - what you're actually doing it ordering from their website to get delivered to their shop - not really ideal, and not as helpful as I'd like either).

However, if you went in and asked for an RPG, or Privateer Press minis? I'd expect the same response as you get if you went into a branch of New Look and asked them to order a shirt out of H&M, or a PC part from a mac store.  Either they'll try to sell you something roughly equivalent that they *do* sell, they'll point you somewhere that does, or you'll get a "Eh... no sorry", with varying degrees of puzzledness/politeness, depending on how on the ball or good at their job they are.



Leviatham said:


> The reason for any shop to be there is to sell. If the reason for a shop to be there is not to sell, then they are being stupid. It is an incredibly expensive way to maintain a presence and there are other ways to do that more cheaply.
> 
> That they don't want to go with it is clear, and it is also their prerogative. That I am questioning the judgement behind that decision and deciding to believe that they are wrong is mine. You are welcome to justify what they do, but that doesn't mean that it is the best thing to do.




To be honest, I'm not even really sure that I want to justify what they do too much, I'm just pointing out what GW _try _to aim for with their stores to give a different viewpoint (Not from fanboyism or anything, just to provide a bit of debate since it's something I know bits about  )

I do know plenty of adults who are into GW games who avoid the shops - that's not exactly a ringing endorsement for them... and I really do hope for GW's sake, people in their head office are regularly having these sorts of conversations too.



> Coming into a shop to buy product A2, gives the shop the chance to introduce and sell product A1. That is common sense.




Which is the tactic they do use regularly within their own lines - intro games sell starter boxes, which then encourages people to buy more later. What I'm questioning is whether carrying even the 40k RPG lines would really introduce many more sales.  I'm not sure it would.



> Your expectations and mine are indeed at a par. However I didn't find that politeness that both of us would expect. That, doesn't make a good business. I would never, in a million years, employ someone to be in a shop unless that person is genuinely helpful. If anything because I never go back to a shop where the assistants are not helpful.




I do wonder sometimes about what calibre of applicants GW get for their jobs in the shop. I'd guess the group of people who know the hobby, are happy and able to teach it to new players with enthusiasm, are able to supervise kids sensibly, are actually good at being sales staff, and are willing to work for close to minimum wage are a pretty small group... 

Maybe they'd be better aiming for really good retail staff and teaching them how to play games and paint?


----------



## Mark CMG (Apr 6, 2012)

The regional Games Days and the Battle Bunkers are very cool aspects of their business model.


----------



## Leviatham (Apr 6, 2012)

Cor Azer said:


> NEVAR! Words are all we have! It's what separates man from the animals!




If my cat ever hears you say that, you'll be in serious trouble! It's thumbs that separate him from us!





Cor Azer said:


> Being an expert at patronizing (at least, so says my wife), I tend not to assume others do so. Again, idealist.




I always add my reasoning or a justification to my doings or thinking (most of the times, at least). It doesn't always avoid cofusion, but it helps sometimes.




Cor Azer said:


> Actually, the first reference I saw to children was, I think, by you (although I'm too lazy to re-read the thread to check. It was actually something that baffled me - I've never seen it as a hobby targeted at kids, seeing as it's far too expensive for $5 allowances (or whatever kids are weedling out of their parents these days). Sure, I've seen some kids at it, but never anywhere near the same level as the college-age crowd.




Actually their targeting techniques is rather clever, I give them that. They provide a safe environment where children enjoy themselves (I consider a child anyone under 16 or 18, depending how immature they are or not). Parents are the ones paying for the toys, and they pay for them because they think their children are participating in an inclusive hobby that makes them happy. They are right.

Also children are the ones who get the presents at Xmas, birthdays and the like. Parents probably wouldn't know where to start if they had to go online shopping, and, having taken my nieces out to the shops, the experience of buying something for a child there and then is something that no website will ever beat!



Cor Azer said:


> As mentioned before though, those older crowds buy direct by catalogue or online. They don't need the painting lessons or introductory gametime that the GW shops are really intended to supply. So... there's not really a whole that can be put in stores to draw them in, except possibly more tourneys and game days, which GW does pretty substantially. Still, they've got their ways of purchasing and few are like to change.




Not sure about that. At least in my town, a lot of us older gamers go to get our games at the LFGS because we get to see what we buy and I can ask the owner about the product. I can't say how many more people do that or if that attitude can be extrapolated to other towns/countries, but I still think the traditional shop has a lot to offer.



Cor Azer said:


> It was me. I'm really good at the stalking thing.




You are a woman???




Cor Azer said:


> That's a taste thing. I love wide open stores, and absolutely detest crowded aisles. My wife and I actually skip the two closest supermarkets to our house because they try to stuff too much into aisles that are already too tight.
> 
> And again, since the goal in the stores is teaching play and painting, they need wide open spaces for tables, and to allow for gathered crowds.




Efficiency and overstocking are not the same thing. I run away from sports gear shops. There is one in Brighton that makes me feel claustrophobic, with panic attacks and all. I hate it. I am happy to say that they are a BAD BAD shop!

Re-arranging shelves and using different method of displaying their goods would allow for a greater variety of goods for sale. They woulnd't have to give up on much of their space, just be better at using it, and being more creative at it too!




Cor Azer said:


> I'm not denying that it would attract some people, but would those people be enough to cover the profit gap? I just don't believe it, but we'll not get tangible evidence in either direction.




Exactly. We are at an impasse that we cant really solve.



Cor Azer said:


> I'll defer to your expertise on shop windows. My experience extends to... looking at them. And I will doubleplusgood your opinion of their advertising.
> 
> That said, if it would require advertising to bring in a new demographic, I would prefer them invest that amount instead at improving their current demographic.




Shop windows are quite a secret art. Next time you, or your wife, stop to look at a shop window, think if what you stopped to look at was something you are actually interested in, or just something interesting. When you stop in front of a shop window, other people see you stopping and will feel curiosity. Some will come close, some will walk by, but the effect is there.

Not sure they would require more advertising. Again the companies that produce their licenses products do that already, so little else would be needed.

Having said that, they could do with some proper marketing campaigns!



Cor Azer said:


> Wow... a cynic who thinks he's an idealist... that's some idealistic thinking, my friend




Yep... I'm a paradox!




Cor Azer said:


> Well, there are too things going on here. I said that I assume general competency in one's area of expertise, true. My experience, however, is that many corporations don't leave people in their area of expertise. The Peter Principle.
> 
> I work in government, IT specifically. There are plenty of excellent programmers, designers, etc... Very few of them have any real management skills. I dread them being promoted up the chain.




So now imagine what their areas of competency are in GW.... and how competent they might be...



Cor Azer said:


> Then I'm glad to be an enabler
> 
> Civility? For hells no... Bring on the tar!




You are, indeed an enabler. If you were a troll you wouldn't be, but you're actually quite easy to get along with!

I wouldn't bring the tar on you.. I am getting to like you! 



Cor Azer said:


> You can't just say 'GW sells games'. The sell miniatures; they're the moneymakers. The games are just a means to spur people into selecting which miniatures to buy. The licensed products don't really drive miniature sales. You don't need miniatures at all with the licensed video games, and, excepting the GM, players may or may not buy one model.
> 
> Alas, but I'm too unfamiliar with the photo industry to think of a comparable.
> 
> I can't see the benefits being as huge as you think, and the costs would be greater than you seem to project.




Same difference, really. Without the games,the miniatures would be pointless. Again, the licensed products would be just another way to attract customers. It would be bait, really.

This how it worked for me in the photography business. I run a shop and a studio. One of the windows was used to display photographs from our weddings and studio portraiture. I became the photographer for the concert hall in my town and had the privilege of photographing some great bands. I decided to take 1/2 of that window and 1/2 of the other and display some of the photos I took at the concert. People actually started to buy them. Soon after, other photographers asked me if I would sell photos they were taking at flamenco festivals and other music events. I said yes and displayed side by side with mine. I didn't say they were taken by other people until people asked. I just showed photos.

Young and not so young people could come to the shop and ask how I took the photos, I showed them. Many bought cameras. Most came back to have their films processed.

I think if the same formula were applied to GW games and miniatures, something similar could happen.



Cor Azer said:


> Well, you're adding the costs of shipping between FFG -> GW. You're adding the cost of extra warehouse space to store, however temporarily, the licensed product. You're adding labour costs for extra workers to unload and divy up the licensed product. You're adding shipping costs to send more product (own and licensed) to their stores.
> 
> It may be a direct solution, but it's not necessarily cheap.[/QUOTE
> 
> ...


----------



## Leviatham (Apr 6, 2012)

EmbraCraig said:


> True enough, and if you go into a GW store and ask for a GW product that they don't normally carry stock of, you can order it in (although it's a bit fiddly - what you're actually doing it ordering from their website to get delivered to their shop - not really ideal, and not as helpful as I'd like either).
> 
> However, if you went in and asked for an RPG, or Privateer Press minis? I'd expect the same response as you get if you went into a branch of New Look and asked them to order a shirt out of H&M, or a PC part from a mac store.  Either they'll try to sell you something roughly equivalent that they *do* sell, they'll point you somewhere that does, or you'll get a "Eh... no sorry", with varying degrees of puzzledness/politeness, depending on how on the ball or good at their job they are.




Except that, as I have said in previous posts, I am only advocating for GW branded products, not Privateer Press or Pathfinder products, or any other.





EmbraCraig said:


> To be honest, I'm not even really sure that I want to justify what they do too much, I'm just pointing out what GW _try _to aim for with their stores to give a different viewpoint (Not from fanboyism or anything, just to provide a bit of debate since it's something I know bits about  )
> 
> I do know plenty of adults who are into GW games who avoid the shops - that's not exactly a ringing endorsement for them... and I really do hope for GW's sake, people in their head office are regularly having these sorts of conversations too.




That's fair enough. I understand the debate bit! 

I bet they fire anyone in their office who has this sort of conversation... they probably don't take dissension very well! LOL




EmbraCraig said:


> Which is the tactic they do use regularly within their own lines - intro games sell starter boxes, which then encourages people to buy more later. What I'm questioning is whether carrying even the 40k RPG lines would really introduce many more sales.  I'm not sure it would.




That's what would need to be tested to be found out. I know the power of impulse buy. My husband has got accustomed about it and now he asks me "Shall I make some space in the loft for when you come back with whatever it is you won't be able to avoid buying?"



EmbraCraig said:


> I do wonder sometimes about what calibre of applicants GW get for their jobs in the shop. I'd guess the group of people who know the hobby, are happy and able to teach it to new players with enthusiasm, are able to supervise kids sensibly, are actually good at being sales staff, and are willing to work for close to minimum wage are a pretty small group...
> 
> Maybe they'd be better aiming for really good retail staff and teaching them how to play games and paint?




Actually, I am going to say something for the staff on the GW shops: They are very passionate about GW. Either that or the initiation rituals must be incredible! 

Seriously though. GW's shops staff tend to really be into the games. If you ask them about their games or ask for anything related to GW, they can't do enough for you. They become proficient painters, memorise catalogues and have no problem looking after the kids.

What they lack is proper training and what they have is excessive pressure to meet targets.

Also, considering how much unemployment is out there, I think they would probably get enough candidates to be able to afford quite a lot of good people!


----------



## Leviatham (Apr 6, 2012)

Cor Azer said:


> Sorry to be the pedantic nitpicker, but the first mention of 'bad' and 'GW' in the thread was your response to Transbot.
> 
> Admittedly, you're calling their action 'bad' as opposed to them, but since it's such a major part of their business, it is nigh-close to calling them 'bad'.
> 
> You also, I will note, cast rather dubious honors on them as well. How, exactly, does GW "pro-actively" seek to get rid of the rest?




Uhmm... it might come close, but I still wouldn't call them bad. I would say some of the things they do are bad. I'll talk to my friend next Saturday and ask him which ones to make sure I get them right.

OH, what I meant with that is how they pro-actively cast away any other games products from their shops. However, many a lawsuit have been issued from GW against companies that they claimed were producing miniatures that they considered to be too close to theirs. I know it can be argued that they were in their right (I am not denying that) but it does indeed mean they make the hell of an effort to make sure no one comes even close to them.



EmbraCraig said:


> They produce their own product. They wish to sell said product. Some of it is sold through their own stores. Some of it is sol through other gaming stores. To my knowledge, they place no requirements on these other stores as to what other product they can offer for sale.




Err... no.. they don't do that as far as I know. That would probably be illegal or something like that. I would make it illegal!



EmbraCraig said:


> I would argue that the reason you don't see Marvel-branded comic book stores is that comic books are horrendously narrow profit margined as it is. The real big money there is in licenses - hence the continued attempts at television shows and movies.




True. Also comic shops make a very narrow profit out of many brands, which helps them bulk up sales and make a living (just... I have never met a rich comic book shop owner).



EmbraCraig said:


> That's not the case in GW's situation. They've had years to build efficiencies into their miniature castings process, and they charge a premium for finished product. They don't have a narrow margin on the models themselves, so they don't need to license out their IP. They do, because some people think they can still make money going that route, but it's such a small part of GW's outlook that spending more money to take advantage of it would negate its benefits.[/QUOTE}
> 
> Indeed, and they do make money, otherwise FFG wouldn't bother with their boardgames and there would be no comic books and no videogames (mediocre as they might be).
> 
> ...


----------



## Cor Azer (Apr 7, 2012)

Leviatham said:


> If my cat ever hears you say that, you'll be in serious trouble! It's thumbs that separate him from us!




Ha! Wretched cat. My friend's little devil doesn't need thumbs! It's like some sort of Spider-cat that clings to the underside of the staircase ready to strike at exposed ankles.



Leviatham said:


> I always add my reasoning or a justification to my doings or thinking (most of the times, at least). It doesn't always avoid cofusion, but it helps sometimes.




I doubt most people would want to see my chains of thought 



Leviatham said:


> Actually their targeting techniques is rather clever, I give them that. They provide a safe environment where children enjoy themselves (I consider a child anyone under 16 or 18, depending how immature they are or not). Parents are the ones paying for the toys, and they pay for them because they think their children are participating in an inclusive hobby that makes them happy. They are right.
> 
> Also children are the ones who get the presents at Xmas, birthdays and the like. Parents probably wouldn't know where to start if they had to go online shopping, and, having taken my nieces out to the shops, the experience of buying something for a child there and then is something that no website will ever beat!




Ah... another distinction conflict due to language. I would never have considered a teenager a 'child'. A 'minor' perhaps, but I leave 'child' for those under 10.

But yes, targeting the kids of 'clueless' parents is always an excellent marketing strategy - get the disposable income and the lack of willpower and discipline in one neat little package.



Leviatham said:


> Not sure about that. At least in my town, a lot of us older gamers go to get our games at the LFGS because we get to see what we buy and I can ask the owner about the product. I can't say how many more people do that or if that attitude can be extrapolated to other towns/countries, but I still think the traditional shop has a lot to offer.




I do that occasionally, but note that purchased GW miniatures is a bit different than RPG purchases. Unless you're constantly switching factions, you start by buying the faction's main army book and then the core models for your army. Beyond that, you pretty much stick to the figures for that army, and the vast majority of those are technically advertised to you in that core army rule book you started with.



Leviatham said:


> You are a woman???




Some days.

On occasion I'm also an elf, a robot, an Elder abomination, and at least one time, a tree.



Leviatham said:


> Efficiency and overstocking are not the same thing. I run away from sports gear shops. There is one in Brighton that makes me feel claustrophobic, with panic attacks and all. I hate it. I am happy to say that they are a BAD BAD shop!
> 
> Re-arranging shelves and using different method of displaying their goods would allow for a greater variety of goods for sale. They woulnd't have to give up on much of their space, just be better at using it, and being more creative at it too!




Any specifics? Again, shop organization isn't my specialty, but if the walls are already full and the floor space is reserved for game tables... where exactly is the extra product to go?



Leviatham said:


> Exactly. We are at an impasse that we cant really solve.




Gordian knot solution!



Leviatham said:


> Shop windows are quite a secret art. Next time you, or your wife, stop to look at a shop window, think if what you stopped to look at was something you are actually interested in, or just something interesting. When you stop in front of a shop window, other people see you stopping and will feel curiosity. Some will come close, some will walk by, but the effect is there.
> 
> Not sure they would require more advertising. Again the companies that produce their licenses products do that already, so little else would be needed.
> 
> Having said that, they could do with some proper marketing campaigns!




You know, I never really thought about the gawker effect of seeing other people staring at shop windows. Interesting...



Leviatham said:


> So now imagine what their areas of competency are in GW.... and how competent they might be...




My understanding is that there is a pub (Bugman's) in the main GW office. I would imagine that has a bigger impact on their competency than promoting too high.



Leviatham said:


> You are, indeed an enabler. If you were a troll you wouldn't be, but you're actually quite easy to get along with!
> 
> I wouldn't bring the tar on you.. I am getting to like you!




Kill 'em with kindness.



Leviatham said:


> Same difference, really. Without the games,the miniatures would be pointless. Again, the licensed products would be just another way to attract customers. It would be bait, really.
> 
> This how it worked for me in the photography business. I run a shop and a studio. One of the windows was used to display photographs from our weddings and studio portraiture. I became the photographer for the concert hall in my town and had the privilege of photographing some great bands. I decided to take 1/2 of that window and 1/2 of the other and display some of the photos I took at the concert. People actually started to buy them. Soon after, other photographers asked me if I would sell photos they were taking at flamenco festivals and other music events. I said yes and displayed side by side with mine. I didn't say they were taken by other people until people asked. I just showed photos.
> 
> ...




Well with the painting and intro game lessons, they already do that good service stuff; you're mainly just suggesting the licensed product addition part.



Leviatham said:


> The cost of shipping from FFG are already there. They have to ship to their distributors already. The extra space, considering how small it would be in comparison with the proportion of their product with the licensed games would be very small. Labour would pretty much be the same. Creating more jobs would make them a better business in my book!
> 
> And as for cheap... neither are their products. I doubt it would have a massive impact, if any at all!




While creating more jobs is certainly a boon for the local economy, good (as in well-run) businesses need to be mindful of costs.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'The cost of shipping from FFG are already there.' It's not. As in, currently GW is paying nothing for that, because it isn't done. If FFG was to ship to GW, then there would be an added cost.



Leviatham said:


> Requires knowing? You're now asking me to know things?




Knowing is half the battle. Yo joe!



Leviatham said:


> The point with B&N is not that they carry their own products or not, but that they gave up on their traditional business to try something new and different that would attract, either new customers, or the same customers more often.
> 
> That is where we reach another impasse. I think it would be a pretty good benefit, it might not be clear-cut and it will never be until it's tried, but the fact that they've not tried (to my knowledge. I could be wrong) is what I question.




I really don't think you're appreciating the difference between a retailer like B&N that stocks other companies' products and gets only a fraction of the profit vs a store like GW that stocks their own product and gets all of the profit. That really is a huge difference.

It's relatively easy for a generic retailer to swap one product for another as long as they're getting roughly the same percentage of the profit. It is decidedly different to go from 100% of the profit to a small fraction GW would get from a licensed product.


----------



## Cor Azer (Apr 7, 2012)

Leviatham said:


> Uhmm... it might come close, but I still wouldn't call them bad. I would say some of the things they do are bad. I'll talk to my friend next Saturday and ask him which ones to make sure I get them right.
> 
> OH, what I meant with that is how they pro-actively cast away any other games products from their shops. However, many a lawsuit have been issued from GW against companies that they claimed were producing miniatures that they considered to be too close to theirs. I know it can be argued that they were in their right (I am not denying that) but it does indeed mean they make the hell of an effort to make sure no one comes even close to them.




It may be an English mother-tongue vs not issue, but I wouldn't say deciding not to stock any non-GW product in their stores 'pro-actively casting it away'. It's not like they fire off an email to other gaming companies and say, 'By the way, that new RPG line you're making. We won't stock it.' They won't stock it, but that's because they decided to focus on their own stuff.

But yeah, from everything I've heard, they are litigious bastards when their IP is at stake.



Leviatham said:


> Err... no.. they don't do that as far as I know. That would probably be illegal or something like that. I would make it illegal!




It wouldn't be illegal, and shouldn't be, but if that clause were included, I would suspect the licensing fee they asked would be heavily reduced.

Point of interest in a similar note - I'm told the license GW has for the Lord of the Rings movies doesn't allow them to have LotR models displayed next to their own Warhammer Fantasy models so that there's no risk of confusion in IP. Separate display cases and shelving required.

The fact that they got nailed with such a clause is why I don't think their licensing lawyers are so wicked hot that they're getting a killing on licensing out their own IP.



Leviatham said:


> True. Also comic shops make a very narrow profit out of many brands, which helps them bulk up sales and make a living (just... I have never met a rich comic book shop owner).




I have met one. He was just opening his shop.

He's not one anymore.



Leviatham said:


> Indeed, and they do make money, otherwise FFG wouldn't bother with their boardgames and there would be no comic books and no videogames (mediocre as they might be).
> 
> I don't really know about what margins they have, but I bet that they're narrow compared with the margin their own product yields.




Yup



Leviatham said:


> Poor wording? Oh no!
> 
> Poor tone maybe, but wording? Sir, I will tell you I make the hell of an effort to use tons of words and make sure the spell checker becomes a palliative for my dyslexia!
> 
> Poor wording... pah!




Kill 'em with vocabulary.



Leviatham said:


> You know, that is actually true. I remember when I arrived to the UK and I asked people "How are you doing?" and people would say "Not bad". I would immediately get worried and as "You aren't well? What's wrong?".
> 
> Later on (as in 9 years ago and a few times a year ever since) when I trained as a counsellor, I learned that what one doesn't say is as important as what one does, sometimes even more. I also learned to take words in a very abstract way. Thus not-good doesn't mean bad to me. It just means is not good, or that it could be better.
> 
> To that I have to add that I am quite abrasive, I do like to call a spade a spade, sometimes even a shovel, so it makes for a very weird combination in which I am too blunt with my words and struggle to actually say everything I mean!




Yup. I get nailed with such misunderstandings often from my wife, who grew up in a different part of Canada with different slang. I'll call her meals 'not bad' or 'pretty good' - both of which mean I like them 'cause they're good. Instead, she hears 'it could be worse, but it's not great' and 'but it could be better.'

Language is a funny thing.



Leviatham said:


> If I had called my thread that, we wouldn't have had over a 1000 views and nearly 100 posts. Let's face it, we're very opinionated and we love to get into this things. Some people get all trollish and complain for the sake of complaining, some others do it because we enjoy it, like you and I, and some do it because they actually know about it and can put anyone wrong rightly so, like Matthew!




xkcd: Duty Calls



Leviatham said:


> Well Sir, I call stalemate!




Well played.


----------



## WarlockLord (Apr 7, 2012)

I suspect GW's business model will have to be rethought once 3-D printers become more common.  Because when I can print a cool space tank, I don't need to follow the GW motto:

Thirty-five dollars.  Six plastic men.


----------



## Leviatham (Apr 7, 2012)

WarlockLord said:


> I suspect GW's business model will have to be rethought once 3-D printers become more common.  Because when I can print a cool space tank, I don't need to follow the GW motto:
> 
> Thirty-five dollars.  Six plastic men.




There is something in that, I think.

Though that's probably quite a few years away. The cost of mass production will always be a lot cheaper, and I can imagine them lowering the prices if push came to shove.

Also, if they had any sense, they'd probably install 3D printers in their shops and have people building customised models there and then.

Now THAT would be a good thing to have!


----------



## rgard (Apr 7, 2012)

Here's a different perspective on GW:

In 2005-2006, I owned/operated a game store for 20 months.  I purchased stock from distributors (for every thing non-GW) and directly from GW for their products.   GW was my best supplier.  Those guys bent over backward to keep me happy.  When I did my initial order with them (about $12,000) we spread the payments out over 4 months.  I didn't have to buy any racks or shelf units to display their stuff...they provided it all for free.  They also provided the GW paint rack amd 6 paint pots of every color, again for free.   I received free shipping on my weekly order if it was greater than $300.  When things got tough cash flow wise, I scaled back my weekly order from them expecting to have to pay for the shipping.  I explained the downturn in the business to GW and they continued free shipping for me after I dropped my weekly order to $100 to $200.

My experience with GW was enjoyable while it lasted.


----------



## Endur (Apr 8, 2012)

My brother managed a store for GW in the 90's.  I've never worked for them, but I have bought some of their products dating back to the 80's.

I like GW's products.

It has been ten years or so since I've been in a GW store, but I thought their stores were great.

GW has the book recycle problem that WOTC has (i.e. new version every so many years), but other than that I can't think of anything they are doing wrong.

They even licensed LOTR and came out with LOTR products recently.  (While I may not care for their LOTR rules, anyone who licenses LOTR and comes out with a LOTR product is doing the hobby a major favor in my opinion, as LOTR is extremely popular due to the movies and books).


----------



## Mark CMG (Apr 8, 2012)

A review of the new paint line -

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyLGC4cK6lQ]145 Citadel Paints - Product Review. Buypainted - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Greylock (Apr 8, 2012)

Because, well...

http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...th-local-hobby-shops-another-perspective.html

The shop I'm trying to crow about in that thread markets to Warhammer, D&D, comics, models, RC, trains, slot cars.... and so on and so on. They love their customers. They love their customers even more when the customers give them money, so the shop does their damnedest to hold on to as much of it as they can.

Good store. No, I don't work there. But I give them all my money.


----------



## MGibster (Apr 8, 2012)

I live in Little Rock and I've been to MidSouth Hobbies once or twice.  I don't remember much about the staff but they had a great selection of stuff.  

Here I am back in this thread.  Why?  Because participating in the conversation earlier reminded me how much I missed painting miniatures.  So I logged on to the GW site and purchased some paints and a few skeleton miniatures!  Woot!  After nearly a decade I'm going to be getting back in the saddle.  

Why do I think GW is a good business?   I'm glad you asked.  

#1.  They've been profitable for many years, even when other similar businesses have failed.  

I don't think there's any doubt that GW has been largely profitable for about 35 years now.  While this isn't the only rubric we might use for measuring success, I think we can all agree that any business that can be described as good must be a profitable business.  GW has managed to bury much of their competition over the years.  I used to love a game called Warzone and Chronopia which were published by Target Games back in the 1990s.  Unfortunately, Target Games went out of business in 1999 or 2000 and with it those two games.  FASA was the maker of the popular Battletech and they went under as well though the game lives on, sort of.  I grew up painting Ral Partha miniatures and they also went under back in the first part of the 21st century.  I started playing WH in part because I figured they would be in business 10 years later.  

#2.  They make excellent miniatures/models. 

GW's products are easy to assemble and they look great.  (Okay, not all of them look great.)  Furthermore, the miniatures are of comparable price to most other companies.  A box of 20 skeleton warriors costs $24.75 ($2.48 each) from GW's Vampire Counts army list.  I can buy a pack of 3 skeleton spearmen from Reaper Miniatures for $8.49 ($2.83 each).  The GW skeletons are customizable including options for a musician and a bannerman.  The Reaper spearmen are all the same and if I wanted a skeleton drummer it would cost me $4.99 for that figure alone.  From Foundry Miniatures I can get a pack of 20 skeleton warriors for $56.15 ($2.80 each).

A box of mounted Black Knights from the Vampire Counts army range from GW is $29.75 for 5 ($5.95 each).  The cheapest equivalent I found with Reaper Miniatures was the Deathrider which costs $9.99 for a single figure.  I found no such equivalent from Foundry Miniatures.  I think you get a lot of value for the price of Citadel miniatures.  

#3.  Games are regularly updated.  

Some people complain about planned obsolescence.  Rules updates are generally a good thing because they address complaints that players have and ultimately improve the over all game play.  Citadel Minis purchased in the 1980s are still useable today.  If I wanted to use a squad of Squats in my Imperial army I can still do so today even if they are officially extinct.  Of course, they'd be regular Imperial troops.  If I wanted to use the very first Space Marine miniatures sold they are still good to be used in my I can still use them.  Any game of this type will need the rules to be updated on occasion to make sure everything balances as well as possible (lofty goal that isn't always achieved).  

Criticisms of GW.

#1.  Price.  Yeah, their miniatures are a good deal I think.  However, it takes a lot of money to even get started playing Warhammer.  Let's say you want a Vampire Counts army.  The rule book is $75 plus about $40 for the Vampire Army book.  So before you've even bought a miniature you've already spent $115.  A Vampire Counts battalion costs $115 three regular units plus 1 vehicle type unit.  So before we even start playing the game you're out $230.  (I'm not counting painting supplies as that's a cost any miniatures game will have included.)  

#2.  Tertiary games not always well supported.

My favorite GW games were Mordheim, Necromunda and Blood Bowl.  These games are only marginally supported these days by their "Specialist Games" brand.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Apr 9, 2012)

I don't know about them being a bad company, as i don't really play their games, but i have never been a huge fan of the GW aesthetic (ether their rpsor war games). I do see that lots of folks are mentioning their products though, so clearly their stuff resonates with some gamers. 

It looks like part of the problem the op has(unless i misunderstand) is their stores. Around here i have only seen one store ever open up and it was very short lived. Actually surprised there is even a demand for stores dedicated to GW (i figured hobby stores, comicstores and toy stores would fill that role).


----------



## Cor Azer (Apr 9, 2012)

Bedrockgames said:


> Actually surprised there is even a demand for stores dedicated to GW (i figured hobby stores, comicstores and toy stores would fill that role).




If it was just a matter of selling product, you'd be right.

However, miniature wargames, as pointed out in an earlier post, are expensive to get into, and aren't really a solo game at that.

The point of the GW stores wasn't just to sell models, but to teach the game. More players is more potential customers.

Some generic game shops will do that sort of thing, but it's not a strategy GW can rely on, because it is expensive for a shop to devote enough space to that sort of public gaming area.


----------



## David Howery (Apr 9, 2012)

living here in the wilds of Wyoming, we don't have any dedicated GW shops... there are some stores around that carry some of their stuff as part of a general gaming stock, mainly Hobbytown.  GW stuff is indeed overpriced, but some of it just plain cool.  I have some of their older stuff I bought at Gencon just to fill in holes in my D&D minis, and I rather liked their Lord of the Rings game, and have a fair sized Rohan force... plus, the huge and way neat Mumak model, complete with the crazy tattooed mamout and Haradrim archers in the howdah...


----------



## MGibster (Apr 9, 2012)

When someone says GW miniatures are overpriced I always ask, compared to what?  

RAFM produces a line of "space marines" that costs $6.95 for a pack of 3 ($2.31 each).  A box of tactical marines from GW costs $37.25 for 10 ($3.72 each).  The GW models may be easily customized right out of the box into various poses, weapons and accessories.  The RAFM models, not so much customizing to be done without a lot of effort.  I've already compared GW to what I'm guessing is the largest U.S. company that produces miniatures, Reaper.  I like Reaper Miniatures because they make a wide variety of minis for a reasonable price.  However, their prices aren't that much less that GW.


----------



## rgard (Apr 9, 2012)

MGibster said:


> #1.  Price.  Yeah, their miniatures are a good deal I think.  However, it takes a lot of money to even get started playing Warhammer.  Let's say you want a Vampire Counts army.  The rule book is $75 plus about $40 for the Vampire Army book.  So before you've even bought a miniature you've already spent $115.  A Vampire Counts battalion costs $115 three regular units plus 1 vehicle type unit.  So before we even start playing the game you're out $230.  (I'm not counting painting supplies as that's a cost any miniatures game will have included.)




I agree it is expensive.  Flames of War is like that too, though I believe it's cool to proxy other manufacturers' stuff (Zvezda for example) when you play in the tournaments.  

If I had the time I'd do a comparison for start up costs for an individual player to begin playing the various miniatures games.  I suspect GW may be on the high side of the comparison, but may be wrong.


----------



## MGibster (Apr 9, 2012)

rgard said:


> If I had the time I'd do a comparison for start up costs for an individual player to begin playing the various miniatures games.  I suspect GW may be on the high side of the comparison, but may be wrong.




I suspect you might be correct.  Of course, what other miniatures game should we compare WH to?  A skirmish level game like Confrontation is going to cost less than a game like Warhammer even if the individual miniatures actually cost more.  Even beyond price there's other factors.  Are the miniatures aesthetically pleasing?  Are they produced and packaged in such a way as to limit mold lines, flashing and breakage?  


I can by a box of 7 Imperial Blood Berets for Warzone for  $31 ($4.42 each).  Space Marines come out to $3.72 each.  

Flames of War is another game that's pretty expensive to get into.  But it's difficult comparing them to GW on anything but price.  The game is at a different scale and the models are designed to, uh, model with accuracy the vehicles and infantry from real life which I suspect might be more difficult than modeling a Tyranid.  We all know what a WWII Jeep looks like but we don't have any real tyranids to compare GW's products to.  


Flames of War 3rd edition Rule Book:  $80
U.S. Armored Rifle Platoon:  $110
M41176mm Sherman Tank Platoon:  $85 (for 5 tanks)

I think its reasonable to say that FoW costs about $200 to get started in.  (It's a game I'm very interested in playing, actually.)


----------



## David Howery (Apr 11, 2012)

MGibster said:


> When someone says GW miniatures are overpriced I always ask, compared to what?




Well, the Mumak I mentioned earlier was $60+ dollars for what is essentially a plastic model.  Since I'm a lifelong bachelor with lots of disposable income, it wasn't so bad for me, but I imagine a lot of people looked at it and said "$60 bucks for that?!?!"

edit:  Just went to GW's website to check the price now; it's up to $82.50...


----------



## Cergorach (Apr 11, 2012)

Is Games Workshop a good business? Yes, because a business is in the business to make as much money as possible for a long as possible.

Is Games Workshop a good game/miniature company? Now that is debatable.

If someone wants to give their own meaning to words which already have a definition, go ahead, but don't expect folks to accept your new definition.

Games Workshop wasn't on the verge of bankruptcy a couple of years ago, they were doing not well, mostly due to overextending themselves during the LotR period. Which was great during the period when the movies were being released and the DVD releases, but it quickly crashed after that.

GW got back on track by extending an olive branch to old gamers, things like Apocalypse for 40k, Space Hulk and the Mighty Empires tiles for fantasy. Also the relatively great value starter sets bought them a lot of goodwill and a new lease on life. They also started cutting costs, closing GW stores, relocating to cheaper locations, etc.

GW is a $200+ million a year (revenue) company. Most of that goes to personnel and rent (gas/water/power). In the period of June-November 2010 they had a profit margin of ~11%($11M of $100M), for the period of June-November 2011 that went up to 14.5% ($15M of $105M). If you think that most of thatextra profit came from increased prices, your wrong. Their Royalty income went up from $1.7M to $4.3M (in six months). Royalties are for the FFG board games and RPGs, the THQ computer games, the MMO, the movie, etc.

I've been a GW consumer almost as long as I've been playing RPGs, as a matter of fact I might have bought my first White Dwarf before I even started playing D&D (my first RPG was ODM, Oog des Meesters, the dutch version of DSA), that's ~25 years ago. Have I been pissed over the years? Yeah, hell yeah! I remember when my allowance finally went up and then mini prices rose, I got my first job and they went from four minis to three in a blister for the same price. A pay rise, a price rise... I was twice screwed because at the time there was no GW store in the Netherlands, there was one, maybe two stores in the whole country who imported GW stuff at inflated prices. This was before the internet was big and everyone could buy online, and at the time very few people had credit cards (in the Netherlands), so mailorder was out as well. I was lucky that some of my fathers colleagues that did international transport runs sometimes could get me something from a games store in the UK at far lower prices. So, I've been around for a while, but GW certainly hasn't captivated me constantly over 25 years, there have been many 'breaks'. Sometimes from lack of interest, sometimes from lack of cash, even from lack of space to actually store minis and books. But I do keep going back, call it nostalgia, I like what I like.

That said, I remember when GW had sales, they had online deals where you paid very little and got a LOT of metal minis (still got a crate of metal mercenaries). While excellent for the gamers, it was unhealthy for the company, because if you go on the secondary market it's flooded with second hand GW minis. GW minis don't go bad and with a very few exceptions you can keep using their minis, gw has to compete with itself on that secondary market. If you dump a lot of cheap minis in that big global pool of GW minis, they are cheap on the secondary market and your market share can't keep up with the product already out there. If they stayed that course they would have gone out of business by now.

GW is making their products more expensive, not only to make a greater profit, but primarily to extend the life of the property. If you can't buy everything you want right now, you'll keep coming back. You might have noticed that the amount of new releases is just enough to keep folks from buying everything they want (unless they have really deep pockets). Raising prices and doing a new edition every four years or so isn't going to keep the reaper away for ever, you might have noticed that GW has been releasing new multi functional plastic kits, one kit that can make two or three different unit types (and I'm not talking about sword or spears), and a new armybook/codex getting half a dozen new units. Currently the WFB/40k range has 31 armies (I'll exclude LotR as that is a licensed property and has a limited lifespan anyway). If we have 5-6 armybooks/codexi a year, that's 30-36 new units a year, luckily they've started doing 2-in-1 boxes, so you've probably got ~20 new product codes a year, products that don't replace, but expand. Look at the size of a GW store or a store that has the whole WFB/40k range, that's a lot of shelf space. Now imagine that shelf space expands with 20 new products a year, how many years do you think it takes before it won't fit anymore? Stores either don't carry the entire GW range (and get penalized for doing so) or GW makes certain items mailorder only (which is bad overall). Now, due to the digital age and online shopping, GW has a chance, and they've done a good job with their webstore, which is excellent.

GWs costs are largely due to the cost of GW stores and personnel that works there. If they eliminated all the GW stores, they would save immensely in costs, but even if others were to pick up the slack that wouldn't mean they would see a huge increase in profit. A sale from a GW store is 100% revenue for GW, a sale from generic games (web)store is 50-60% revenue for GW. And one has to question whether there wouldn't be less new GW gamers. You can say a lot about GW stores, but they are a hub of GW gaming. In a time when most game stores are going the way of the dodo, that can be a good thing. How often has GW been the introduction into the gaming hobby?

Don't get me wrong, GW is expensive as hell, getting more so every year. Haven't bought new product in over a year. Four years ago I moved to a new house which gave me room to extend my collection significantly, and with the release of the new 5th edition 40k I spent about $25k+ in two years (2008-2010). I made a lot of trades with that stuff, and now have a lot of stuff still laying around to be assembled/painted. i do have some GW stuff on my wishlist, mostly armybooks and a few new plastic kits that include plastic characters, might actually buy that this year. Also the new 6th edition 40k starter set might seriously tempt me (who am I kidding ;-).

But GW isn't the only one that's expensive as hell, WotC is going to sell Dungeon Command for $40, for 12 prepainted miniatures. Paizo is selling their new set for $16, for 4 random prepainted miniatures (1 large, 3 med/small). Compare that to GW $25 for 10 unpainted minis (core troops), sure prices go from $35 for 20 to $40+ for 10. And large creatures can go as high as $45 for three. A Privateer Press unit of 6 unmounted knight models is $35. Sure, you need a lot more troops for your 3000pt WFB army then for your 50pt Warmachine army, but that's a whole different discussion.

I personally think that GW is a giant soap bubble, that keeps inflating their product line until it's so large that it becomes unmanageable and eventually unsellable. Price hikes might be a problem if they seriously outdistance the competition in a unit for unit price battle, which I doubt (Mantic isn't competition, yet). New editions isn't a real problem either, every four years a new edition isn't exactly a huge issue either when you compare it to D&D, Warmahordes, FoW, HG, or almost any other mainstream game system.

IMHO GW is a solid business for now (decent investment), that might change in the future. I'm quite neutral about GW as a gamer, sure I like their products and I like most of their models, that 'like' is seriously tempered by things like price hikes, crappy quality control (finecast), paint color changes, rumor clampdown, sleazy sale tactics at GW stores (which I luckily don't frequent all that often and they recognize me from a distance *grins evily*), etc. WotC has left me with a far greater distaste in my mouth.

But the 'Kid' in me wants that Chapter (1000) of Space Marines (half way there), wants to have 40,000 points worth of Eldar (haven't counted yet), wants to play Space Marine (Epic) and Adeptus Titanicus in 40k scale (working on it). The 'Builder' in me wants to build that Thunderhawk(s), classic Warlord Titan, etc. The 'RPGer' wants those darned cool monsters to throw at his players...

As a closing note, I don't care as a gamer if a company is a 'good business', I don't play with them. I like certain products and don't care who makes them, and I buy them when I can. Is there a limit to what I'll easily pay for a product, most definitely, GW reached that about two years ago. Is there a limit on what I want to pay for a product, sure, GW reached that a year ago. There is also a limit on what I can pay for a product, I'm curious when GW will reach that.

Fun fact: Plastic Space marines have become seven times as expensive over the last 25 years. Rhinos six times as expensive. Land Raiders eight times as expensive. Plastic Skeleton 7.5 times as expensive. A constant 3% inflation would make a product two times as expensive as 25 years ago.


----------



## wedgeski (Apr 11, 2012)

Cergorach said:


> But the 'Kid' in me wants that Chapter (1000) of Space Marines (half way there)



And it appears the kid in you has control of your wallet as well.  Good post.


----------



## Cergorach (Apr 11, 2012)

wedgeski said:


> And it appears the kid in you has control of your wallet as well.  Good post.




We are a consensus...

The 'normal' guy in me says: We need a car!

The 'cool guy' in me says: We need a cool hip car!

The 'careful guy' in me says: A car is a dangerous four wheeled death trap.

The 'lazy guy' in me says: Public transportation means I can do something else beside driving, like reading or watching movies.

The 'psychologist' in me says: Spending so much time in traffic might make you homicidal.

The 'ladies man' in me says: The view is much better in public transportation.

The 'virgin' in me says: What do you mean by that?

The 'accountant' in me says: Public transportation is cheaper on a yearly basis.

The 'IT guy' in me says: We could spent the money of a car on a seriously sick computer rig.

The 'business guy' in me says: That would be an investment in our business and freelancing, it could actually make us money.

The 'Kid' in me says: COMPUTER GAMES!!!

This is why, at the age of 35 I do not have a car, nor a driver license.

;-)


----------

