Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Cor Azer" data-source="post: 5873303" data-attributes="member: 870">NEVAR! Words are all we have! It's what separates man from the animals!Being an expert at patronizing (at least, so says my wife), I tend not to assume others do so. Again, idealist.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.It was me. I'm really good at the stalking thing.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.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.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.Wow... a cynic who thinks he's an idealist... that's some idealistic thinking, my friend <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />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.Then I'm glad to be an enabler <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Civility? For hells no... Bring on the tar!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.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.'Worth it' requires knowing costs involved and expected revenue. Neither of which we can really know.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.</blockquote>

Verification