GW locking down bits stores

[Garlicson2]

Yeah, I get it. Still, aside from DV and the 5 man packs (Which honestly isn't good, because instead of putting 5 autogunner and 5 ccw, they mixed BOTH. Not a good combo IMO), I tend to find it bullcrap because you have to spend $100 just to get to the freaking Cultist! I honestly don't know who is running GW, but what I do know is this bussiness practice of theirs is like trying to balance on a tight rope on a unicycle, blindfolded, and peeing in a shot glass, that's on a spinning record player, which is straped to a running Cheetah (A cookie for you if know what I'm refering to)!

-Johnny

[MagickalMemories]

My post from the other thread, which I've locked, since this one has more action:

Some idiot at GW corporate has convinced himself that, if we're unable to buy 12 individual Meltaguns for our SM's, we'll go out and buy 12 Tactical kits, increasing their sales. It's a shameless money-grab, and isn't going to do squat. All that's going to happen is that bits sellers with trade accounts are going to open second companies. They'll sell full kits to the second company at GW's approved discount, and the second company will sell the bits. Their end result profit will be the same, since the same people, in the end, get all the money from both "sales," anyway.

Eric

[jul]

only issue is that the GW approuved discounts for resellers is 10%, so prices are going up if resellers keep their current margin...

J.

[s_o_r_r_o_w]

To my mind, this is simply further evidence of a) GW's lack of understanding re the miniature market place, particularly re the Internet; and b) GW's slow death.

I'll leave you to debate a), but here is why b):

The online bitz market is clearly serving a demand. Demand is the primary indicator of customer interest. GW already retreated from the bitz market, probably due to costs, and partly due to a lack of interest in supporting customer interest (meeting demand). There may also have been the idea the modellers would buy complete kits to fill this need, creating different demand. It is impossible (for us) to know if this has happened.

If GW does not begin to serve the bitz market, it is a clear sign that their goal is to sell more complete kits. This indicates the failure of growth.

Instead of selling a box of Tac Marines to customer New Guy, who needs a box of Tac Marines, GW is hoping to sell a box of Tac Marines to Old Guy, who needs that one purity seal. Customer Old Guy's demand will be met with a supply that is poorly fitted to his needs; customers whose demand is not met typically search for someone else to meet that demand. Meanwhile, customer New Guy is no longer being counted on by GW to buy their product.

The consequence is that neither Customer New Guy is not a customer, and customer Old Guy is at risk. This, while over-simplified, is a clear recipe for failure of the brand.

Now, some GW apologists can rant and rave and shake their fists about GW being the biggest and best, and that may still be true--but what we are witnessing is the flailing of a company trying to squeeze its existing customers, and increased profits at the cost of growth (more volume) is not a good sign.

[jul]

if i recall properly, last year figures for GW wasn't that good neither. Volume sales were stagnant for core products, only the price increases and IP license allowed them to be in the positive...

J

[MagickalMemories]

only issue is that the GW approuved discounts for resellers is 10%, so prices are going up if resellers keep their current margin...

J.

It doesn't matter, though.
If the person I'm selling to -the guy who will be parting it out and reselling as bits- is ME under a different business name, there's no actual money exchanging hands. I could be selling it to myself at full MSRP and, in the end, my final profits will be the same.

For that matter, I could mark it up as a generic regular retail sale and sell the bits under a different name. GW won't know where the "different name" got the kit, so can't do jack squat about it.

Eric

[reegsk]

I disagree, Eric. eBay sellers generally list where the product is coming from (if not, GW could always buy bits and see where it gets shipped from), and those selling bits tend to do so in high volume. So if they see someone selling a crapton of Deathwing Knight bits from a metro area, and an independent retailer in that area just ordered a crapton, well. . .they can piece it together pretty easily. The store could claim they legitimately sold the kits to a customer who sold the bits on their own, but have we known GW to be reasonable lately?

[oaflord]

This was posted on the Wayland Games Facebook page. It's going down...

Hi everyone, as you are aware, we have since our opening in 2008 made millions of pounds for some manufacturers of wargame products. We spend a huge amount of effort to always focus on improving our services and technology. We are reasonably lucky being based in the UK as it offers lots of protection for businesses that operate in a market where a single entity appears to be dominant.

It is however impossible to ignore certain recent events and so we would like to offer out our hand to any entities out there that would like to co-operate with us on representing retailers interests to suppliers.

It would assist us greatly if all of you can share this as many places as possible and any retailers that would like to talk with us can contact us via any of the multitude of contact methods we have on our sites.

oAF

[jason1977]

This was posted on the Wayland Games Facebook page. It's going down...

Hi everyone, as you are aware, we have since our opening in 2008 made millions of pounds for some manufacturers of wargame products. We spend a huge amount of effort to always focus on improving our services and technology. We are reasonably lucky being based in the UK as it offers lots of protection for businesses that operate in a market where a single entity appears to be dominant.

It is however impossible to ignore certain recent events and so we would like to offer out our hand to any entities out there that would like to co-operate with us on representing retailers interests to suppliers.

It would assist us greatly if all of you can share this as many places as possible and any retailers that would like to talk with us can contact us via any of the multitude of contact methods we have on our sites.

oAF

reposting to another site. thanks oaf

[jul]

that's start interesting but i have doubts on the real intention of Wayland Games...

J

[oaflord]

that's start interesting but i have doubts on the real intention of Wayland Games...

J

To think that monetary gain has nothing to do with their post would be folly, but it is interesting to see them use such strong verbiage.

oAF

[MEDEVL]

I'm not a lawyer but it would seem to me that the SCOTUS ruling today affect GWs attempts on this issue. The issue of "first sale" vs copyright was settled today in the case of Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

"Holding: The “first sale” doctrine, which allows the owner of a copyrighted work to sell or otherwise dispose of that copy as he wishes, applies to copies of a copyrighted work lawfully made abroad."

MSNBC just reported that it was a victory for individuals and small businesses in that the sought after extensive protection of initial copyright only applies to illegal duplication and does not extend further as big businesses had argued.

[jul]

some interesting nuggets out of Faeit 212:

A long time ago, far far away, Games Workshop actually sold bits. Now that long ago, I was far less involved in the community, and my hobby, but I recall that it was there. Then bits seemed to go away, and it was quite the ordeal. Now once again, GW looks like they are about to jump back into the bits market, and are hiring more people to compensate for it....


Ban on selling bits + hiring a Component parts manager = New bits department at GW?

Its been awhile since I lost or accidentely deleted the email before posting. So yes, I lost the source name here, so if you are he, and want it added, please email me and I will get it added in, or just post up in the comments.... and sorry about that.

via the Faeit 212 inbox
GW to reenter the bits market?
So GW are advertising for a component parts warehouse manager, plus the ban on bits selling suggest GW may be planning to roll out the bits department again.

On a side note it seems this GW v chapterhouse legal suite has made GW up their game and production schedule, as they are also advertising for rules writers for both mainstream and forge world..

Would make sense, that move would allow GW to both limit the online sales outside of their network and block the way for a second Chapterhouse affair...

J

[oaflord]

I'm not a lawyer but it would seem to me that the SCOTUS ruling today affect GWs attempts on this issue. The issue of "first sale" vs copyright was settled today in the case of Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

"Holding: The “first sale” doctrine, which allows the owner of a copyrighted work to sell or otherwise dispose of that copy as he wishes, applies to copies of a copyrighted work lawfully made abroad."

MSNBC just reported that it was a victory for individuals and small businesses in that the sought after extensive protection of initial copyright only applies to illegal duplication and does not extend further as big businesses had argued.

VERY interesting... The plot thickens...

oAF

[3eland]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnPpfs120DA

Interesting video about what's going on with the opinions of the business owner Matt from Miniwargaming