PDA

View Full Version : Interesting new rule for independant retailers...



xxRavenxx
30-11-2011, 23:03
"Please note that with all new releases no products can be displayed or sold prior to release date"


Was attached to the end of my new releases sheet this week. The word displayed is a new addition this month. Apparently I am no longer allowed to advertise to potential customers what is coming out next week. I shall, obviously, be ignoring the edict and telling my customers whatever I can about upcoming proucts.... Some of us have a business to run :rolleyes:

This isn't exactly exciting news, but its interesting to see the campaign of secrecy rolling ever onwards...

EmperorNorton
30-11-2011, 23:32
Yeah, well...they really must be afraid that some people could end up buying their products, so they take countermeasures.

Gir
01-12-2011, 00:06
"Please note that with all new releases no products can be displayed or sold prior to release date"


Was attached to the end of my new releases sheet this week. The word displayed is a new addition this month. Apparently I am no longer allowed to advertise to potential customers what is coming out next week. I shall, obviously, be ignoring the edict and telling my customers whatever I can about upcoming proucts.... Some of us have a business to run :rolleyes:

This isn't exactly exciting news, but its interesting to see the campaign of secrecy rolling ever onwards...

Seems to be a direct response to the Necron leak stuff going up on Wayland.

Tarliyn
01-12-2011, 05:23
"Please note that with all new releases no products can be displayed or sold prior to release date"


Was attached to the end of my new releases sheet this week. The word displayed is a new addition this month. Apparently I am no longer allowed to advertise to potential customers what is coming out next week. I shall, obviously, be ignoring the edict and telling my customers whatever I can about upcoming proucts.... Some of us have a business to run :rolleyes:

This isn't exactly exciting news, but its interesting to see the campaign of secrecy rolling ever onwards...

In GW's defense that is also how Nike handles its release shoes. Now does anyone really follow the don't show rule? Not really, but nike tells us anyway.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

ModelCalamity
01-12-2011, 05:42
This is not really new. Especially the selling before release date.

violenceha
01-12-2011, 06:58
In GW's defense that is also how Nike handles its release shoes. Now does anyone really follow the don't show rule? Not really, but nike tells us anyway.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nike? Buying shoes is not a hobby. Why do clothing brands keep being compared to GW?

Darsc Zacal
01-12-2011, 07:31
It's also the same thing the publishers of videogames, movies, and music do. They have a set release date which all their retailers are required to adhere to legally. It is even part of the job of the publishers and/or distributors reps to report any violations to the publishers directly.

There's nothing sinister about it, and it has been going on for years and years.

The practice Is just to ensure all retailers have a level playing field for selling, as some will receive stock earlier than others, which has to be done to make sure everyone has inventory for the official release date.

New Cult King
01-12-2011, 07:36
Yes, but movies and video games release trailers and sneak peeks before release.

Sophet Drahas
01-12-2011, 07:41
Nike? Buying shoes is not a hobby. Why do clothing brands keep being compared to GW?

Actually it is. The tennis show collectors are big back home in Detroit. Same in Japan. Whatever floats your boat.

Darsc Zacal
01-12-2011, 08:00
Yes, but movies and video games release trailers and sneak peeks before release.

Correct, but even they have a policy of not displaying the final product until the release date.

Obviously GW is not allowing sneak peeks at store level so that they can drive sales on the release date when they have the store filled with stock and potential customers coming in for their first look.

Whether that policy increases or decreases sales is something only retailers will know for their individual stores, and only GW will know overall.

theunwantedbeing
01-12-2011, 08:07
I don't see the issue.

When GW stores say X is coming, X is coming everywhere.
You just look at the GW store/site instead of the local independant store/site to know what's up and coming and then buy from the latter not the former.

Sucks if it forces you out of business but I can't see why it would.

Shimmergloom
01-12-2011, 08:30
I don't think a lot of you actually read his post. He said the new thing was about displaying images of what was about to be released before it actually goes on sale is not forbidden.

No one is complaining that you can't sell before release date, but if you can't even show your customers what is about to be released so that they can tell you they want it so you know to get it from them is insane.

And to whoever mentioned video games, they have upcoming releases displayed for months before they come out. I can go now and pre-order Halo 4 at gamestop if I wanted to.

Skyrim boxes and released dates were in the store when I went in to buy Modern Warfare 3.

If Bethesda told Gamestop that they couldn't put up display boxes for the game, or take pre-orders or run the trailer endlessly to new customers in their store, then Gamestop would never stand for it.

Bethesda is not that stupid though, because they like money. And not a few million dollars a year that barely keeps them out of debt. They like real money. The 100's of millions that video games get in real profit, because they aren't worried if someone sees what they are selling beforehand.

bolshie
01-12-2011, 09:06
GW are entitled to sell their products how they like.

If retailers dont like it, they are free not to sell the products.

Big deal.

Darsc Zacal
01-12-2011, 09:22
I read the post. It said not to display the product. Nothing was said about images.

But as others have said, GW has the right to merchandise and promote their product in whatever way they want. Manufacturers and retailers of all kinds are constantly changing the ways in which they market their product to the public. GW is no different. If their sales make plan, I'd expect things to continue as they are. If numbers drop over time and consistantly don't make plan... Well then we should see them trying out something else eventually.

Brother Loki
01-12-2011, 09:53
Yep, the post just mentions not displaying the actual products. Doesn't say anything about keeping them secret. Just don't have them on the shop floor if they arrive early.

xxRavenxx
01-12-2011, 10:16
Yep, the post just mentions not displaying the actual products. Doesn't say anything about keeping them secret.

Let me be entirely clear:

They are a secret. I cannot show people the products. I am not meant to refer to what I have under the counter. I am not meant to try and get pre-orders.

More specificly: This is something new. A few months back, I got black boxes, for the last few months, I have only had 4 days maximum to plug the products to customers. This time round, I am instructed to not allow anyone to see any part of the upcoming products until they are on the shelves on the saturday. Which, if nothing else, is weird, because they are in white dwarf and can be looked at there...

As I said, this is not exciting news, just an interesting item I felt I'd pass on. The secrecy policy just seems... strange.

frozenwastes
01-12-2011, 10:28
The best way to sell product is to make sure people don't know about it!

Oh no... wait...

AndrewGPaul
01-12-2011, 10:34
Let me be entirely clear:

They are a secret. I cannot show people the products. I am not meant to refer to what I have under the counter. I am not meant to try and get pre-orders.

See, that's the confusion; that's not what the line you quoted in the OP says.

Sgt John Keel
01-12-2011, 11:10
Soon, they will try to sell us random product in opaque packaging.

:shifty:

eron12
01-12-2011, 11:12
Let me be entirely clear:

They are a secret. I cannot show people the products. I am not meant to refer to what I have under the counter. I am not meant to try and get pre-orders.


See, that's the confusion; that's not what the line you quoted in the OP says.

Seconded. The statement you posted had no implication of you being able to talk about new releases. Sure talk isn't the same as showing pictures, especally in such a visual hobby, but it's something.

Of course if you have another statement showing that you are not allowed to mention new releases, that is anothe thing entirely.

lbecks
01-12-2011, 11:57
Soon, they will try to sell us random product in opaque packaging.

:shifty:

They already have the plain white boxes if you order an online-only model. I like how it says "This box will contain either plastic, resin and/or metal miniatures"

Artinam
01-12-2011, 13:23
Sounds a bit like Magic the Gathering Boosters. You can get either a Snotling or a Warhound Titan.

yabbadabba
01-12-2011, 18:47
1) Nothing new here
2) No one pays attention anyway
3) I am about 75% sure this is Hobbit related. GW now have a disclaimer and Newline can sue the Indie, not GW. Remember GW have enough sales information to know that some pre-release hype is good for sales, and they have run this secrecy policy before.
4) Finally follow this advice as a letter of law. You cannot display or pre-sell but there is nothing else there. If there are other T+Cs then stick to them but question them first. No sales rep is going to stop his account from making a killing, but if this is something serious you will tell straight away.

Voss
01-12-2011, 19:08
This is not really new. Especially the selling before release date.

Selling, no, but as he mentioned, not _displaying_ them is new. And fairly stupid.

Indies have previously generated actual sales by putting boxes up on display behind the counter and letting customers flip through the army books. This has generated preorders (and sales). Not being able to do that limits sales, to the detriment of both GW and the Indie store.

yabbadabba
01-12-2011, 19:20
Selling, no, but as he mentioned, not _displaying_ them is new. And fairly stupid.

Indies have previously generated actual sales by putting boxes up on display behind the counter and letting customers flip through the army books. This has generated preorders (and sales). Not being able to do that limits sales, to the detriment of both GW and the Indie store. Yes. So instead of just labelling it "stupid", try and reason out why they would have to do it.

Haviing worked for GWs UK Trade team I can tell you they will know the impact this will have, will have fought hard against it, and will not be happy implementing it.

frozenwastes
01-12-2011, 19:28
I can definitely see it being a licensing terms. If the Hobbit people don't want imagery from their movie available before a certain date, they may demand GW sits on displaying boxes with shots from the movie as the box art until after the movie trailers start showing up.

It's stupid old school marketing thinking though. They'll get far more hype out of bloggers sharing GW's product images to movie blog followers than they will by keeping a lid on everything.

violenceha
01-12-2011, 19:39
Yes. So instead of just labelling it "stupid", try and reason out why they would have to do it.

Haviing worked for GWs UK Trade team I can tell you they will know the impact this will have, will have fought hard against it, and will not be happy implementing it.
Indeed. Like when a smoker has to have their legs amputated, it's the correct decision to make as a result of a stupid decision made earlier.

Gw you are better than this, stop whoring yourself for a quick buck.

yabbadabba
01-12-2011, 21:15
Indeed. Like when a smoker has to have their legs amputated, it's the correct decision to make as a result of a stupid decision made earlier.
Gw you are better than this, stop whoring yourself for a quick buck. Stupid decision? Not at all.

Stupid enaction, yes. I was there and I saw it. But stupid decision, no.

Voss
01-12-2011, 22:02
Yes. So instead of just labelling it "stupid", try and reason out why they would have to do it.

Haviing worked for GWs UK Trade team I can tell you they will know the impact this will have, will have fought hard against it, and will not be happy implementing it.

If you are implying what I think you are, I'm questioning the wisdom of certain relationships. Which, if I recall another mention of them correctly, they are pretty long term. It would be one thing if it only impacted one line, but for it to impact on others in such a negative fashion... thats pretty bad.

Especially since it wouldn't just be for the coming year, but would be repeated for part 2.

I guess it could be a 'I am altering the deal, pray I don't alter it any further' situation, but I would hope that after all this time they don't get suckered into contracts like that.

yabbadabba
01-12-2011, 22:47
If you are implying what I think you are, I'm questioning the wisdom of certain relationships. Which, if I recall another mention of them correctly, they are pretty long term. It would be one thing if it only impacted one line, but for it to impact on others in such a negative fashion... thats pretty bad.

Especially since it wouldn't just be for the coming year, but would be repeated for part 2.

I guess it could be a 'I am altering the deal, pray I don't alter it any further' situation, but I would hope that after all this time they don't get suckered into contracts like that. It really doesn't matter. GW have made a deal with a big company. A company that can bankrupt GW with one claim. The Board might have felt that actually its better to have that control consistently across the lines, rather than try and protect one; that the financial return might be in excess of the losses made to ensure the secrecy; they have had this policy before, although Trade have never been that good at keeping secrets, and it didn't cause as much damage as is being touted now.

The whole point is though, to just call GW stupid is to say people cannot think up of a good reason for the current policy; I know the people who have made this decision and while I doubt their understanding of the more subtler sides of building a hobby (the role of SGs for example), they are not stupid and make such decisions carefully, especially when it goes against all the sales data and challenges from their sales channels.

Max Jet
01-12-2011, 22:51
I don't get it. Why make this an all around policy. Why not saying "This applies to any licensed products as specifcaly marked in the list."

Voss
01-12-2011, 23:08
especially when it goes against all the sales data and challenges from their sales channels.

Funny thing though, that makes it sound like a really stupid decision.

yabbadabba
01-12-2011, 23:11
Funny thing though, that makes it sound like a really stupid decision. Kind of pointless taking this any further as you seem quite entrenched in your opinion and don't want to move from it.

xxRavenxx
01-12-2011, 23:36
Kind of pointless taking this any further as you seem quite entrenched in your opinion and don't want to move from it.

He has a point though. You *do* make it sound like a bad decision, or more so, like a case of Hobson's choice. That ideally GW wouldn't do it, but they are being made to.

yabbadabba
01-12-2011, 23:45
He has a point though. You *do* make it sound like a bad decision, or more so, like a case of Hobson's choice. That ideally GW wouldn't do it, but they are being made to. Bad =/= stupid. I am suggesting there maybe pragmatic reasons for this decision. I am just not a fan of the "OMG GW has done something I don't like they must be sooo stoopid" club on here.

xxRavenxx
02-12-2011, 07:58
Bad =/= stupid. I am suggesting there maybe pragmatic reasons for this decision. I am just not a fan of the "OMG GW has done something I don't like they must be sooo stoopid" club on here.

That's fair enough. I often wonder how many people on warseer have a business degree, compared to how many have one who are working in the upper ranks of GW. :p

yabbadabba
02-12-2011, 15:14
That's fair enough. I often wonder how many people on warseer have a business degree, compared to how many have one who are working in the upper ranks of GW. :p I wonder how many people on Warseer have never worked in the industry but seem to think that as a customer with some experience working elsewhere they are suddenly experts on the market :evilgrin:

I bet my numbers are bigger than yours :p

chamelion 6
02-12-2011, 16:14
Nike? Buying shoes is not a hobby. Why do clothing brands keep being compared to GW?

Not exactly true. I have several friends, both male and female, that are obsessed with shoes and have to have what ever is the latest and trendy. They have displays and stuff and can tell you the history and stuff of each one.

No, I don't get it either, but the reality is there are people that collect shoes as a hobby...

Voss
02-12-2011, 17:12
Bad =/= stupid. .

So you're dickering over semantics? Good to know.
Better to know that we have the same opinion of it.

Spectrar Ghost
02-12-2011, 20:55
I'm not sure it is semantics. There can be a lot of decisions made that are bad for business, but made for good, solid reasons. Often the alternative of bad is worse.

Voss
02-12-2011, 21:13
I'm not sure it is semantics. There can be a lot of decisions made that are bad for business, but made for good, solid reasons. Often the alternative of bad is worse.

In which case, it isn't a bad decision.

Perhaps its a cultural thing, but bad & stupid have been synonyms since I was a whee lad in the 70s, and has been reinforced repeatedly by society, education and observation. Poorly thought out decisions (to be polite about it) usually produce bad results.

ryansface
02-12-2011, 23:18
Not exactly true. I have several friends, both male and female, that are obsessed with shoes and have to have what ever is the latest and trendy. They have displays and stuff and can tell you the history and stuff of each one.

No, I don't get it either, but the reality is there are people that collect shoes as a hobby...

*off topic* I apologise.
But then do they "get" your hobby?

I spend money on things that interest me. Football, GW, trainers.

It may be wrong, but compare it to a football agent:
You have inside knowledge, but until that player is wearing the shirt itīs not your place to comment. Obviously itīs a flawed comparision as it effects your business, but if an agent goes against his clients wishes then it could ruin the deal.
That analogy makes you out to be a tool of GW and I apolgise for that comparison, but you sell their items and as s$uch are bound by their decisions, no?

lbecks
02-12-2011, 23:26
I don't think a lot of you actually read his post. He said the new thing was about displaying images of what was about to be released before it actually goes on sale is not forbidden.

No one is complaining that you can't sell before release date, but if you can't even show your customers what is about to be released so that they can tell you they want it so you know to get it from them is insane.

And to whoever mentioned video games, they have upcoming releases displayed for months before they come out. I can go now and pre-order Halo 4 at gamestop if I wanted to.

Skyrim boxes and released dates were in the store when I went in to buy Modern Warfare 3.

If Bethesda told Gamestop that they couldn't put up display boxes for the game, or take pre-orders or run the trailer endlessly to new customers in their store, then Gamestop would never stand for it.

Bethesda is not that stupid though, because they like money. And not a few million dollars a year that barely keeps them out of debt. They like real money. The 100's of millions that video games get in real profit, because they aren't worried if someone sees what they are selling beforehand.

Agreed. I'd also add video games and movies embracing 3rd party review has helped a lot with their success. Something that GW has never done. There are people who were playing skyrim before its release. There are people who watch movies before their release. They're called professional reviewers and if you make a good product they can help sell a crapload of product for you.

BigRob
04-12-2011, 08:39
This reminds me of something that happened a few years ago now when the Tau and Woodelf armies had thier last release. GW put out a big boxset of models including things like Stealth Suits and Warhawk Riders that were not due an official release for several months. Even the Wood Elf armybook wasn't due until a few weeks after this armybox and it was touted by GW as being a pre-release special (and about Ģ150ish).

Now obviously the boxes were brought, broken up and put on eBay with things like the hawk riders ging for Ģ90+.

GW got in touch with eBay and threatened legal action over these sales of unreleased stock....except it wasn't GWs stock anymore....it belonged to the people who had paid good money for it.....didn't it? eBay didn't think so, they caved into GWs demands and closed all the auctions (I know, I was bidding :p )

A very confusing company given how little they make of the advertising possibilities available but what can you do, its how they want to run themselves (into the ground) and thats how its likely to remain. Isn't thier head of sales a guy who was very sucessful running Boots (a very large and famous highstreet chemist in the UK). He must know better surely?

LonelyPath
04-12-2011, 14:22
"Please note that with all new releases no products can be displayed or sold prior to release date"

All that means is that you cannot display the physical product or sell them ahead of release date. You can still show images of the products to people and accept pre-orders, you just cannot let customers see the actual product (i.e. the actual packaging, sprues, etc.) or fill those pre-orders until launch date.

Shimmergloom
05-12-2011, 09:25
3) I am about 75% sure this is Hobbit related. GW now have a disclaimer and Newline can sue the Indie, not GW. Remember GW have enough sales information to know that some pre-release hype is good for sales, and they have run this secrecy policy before.

Then I guess we won't see any evidence at all of the Hobbit Video game until release day. And Gamestop, Amazon, Best Buy, etc won't be allowed to take pre-orders, show any game play trailers or even inform their customers that a Hobbit Video game is in the works.

Your argument falls apart by the fact that Hobbit Merchandising will in no way be limited to Game Workshop miniatures.

AndrewGPaul
05-12-2011, 09:43
No it doesn't. New Line Cinema's licencing agreements with other companies have no bearing on what their agreement with Games Workshop might be. The people mentioning this as being linked to The Hobbit deal seem to be people who were working for GW, or were in contact with people who were, at the time of the initial Lord of the Rings release, and might be expected to know somehting about it.

Sai-Lauren
05-12-2011, 13:13
3) I am about 75% sure this is Hobbit related. GW now have a disclaimer and Newline can sue the Indie, not GW. Remember GW have enough sales information to know that some pre-release hype is good for sales, and they have run this secrecy policy before.

That'll likely be the fella.



It really doesn't matter. GW have made a deal with a big company. A company that can bankrupt GW with one claim. The Board might have felt that actually its better to have that control consistently across the lines, rather than try and protect one; that the financial return might be in excess of the losses made to ensure the secrecy; they have had this policy before, although Trade have never been that good at keeping secrets, and it didn't cause as much damage as is being touted now.

In fact, if they have to do it for one line, it's a lot easier for them to enforce it across all the lines - otherwise someone will pick up on a loophole, or something poorly worded (not all GW stockists use the English language, so there's all sorts of translation issues that would have to go via legal), or use their own interpretation of what's said.

For instance, we can pretty much say there'll be a Bilbo, Thorin etc party set (same as there were all the Fellowship party sets) - but if that's allowed to be pre-ordered, someone's going to think "why not allow this other set, which effectively contains a major spoiler about the story, to be pre-ordered?"

From their point of view, a blanket "no" is far better.

That they're having to put in this frankly stupid policy, is another matter.



Then I guess we won't see any evidence at all of the Hobbit Video game until release day. And Gamestop, Amazon, Best Buy, etc won't be allowed to take pre-orders, show any game play trailers or even inform their customers that a Hobbit Video game is in the works.

No, that won't happen - via the different contracts as said (although anyone wanting to buy a movie tie-in game has more money than sense in my book).

But I bet you that all the trailers etc only show images that New Line wants to release, or have already released to the media in some form, and anything they want to remain secret will have to remain so until the movie opens.

El_Commi
05-12-2011, 13:17
I'm not too sure you guys are taking this in the right light. I don't think it's GW trying to screw the customer over.

A friend of mine told me last night, that he was unable to get hands on any of the Christmas box sets. He is opening a shop, and is friendly with a lot of other indie retailers.
The retailers he knows have had to received less than their allotted number of box sets because (according to my friend)- both Wayland and Maelstrom have oversold their allotted number of sets. GW honoured as much as they could- but due to it being a limited run they had to pull sets from elsewhere.

IMO- it makes sense to tell retailers not to sell products they do not have yet, especially when they will be in high demand.

It sucks, because I probably won't get one now, as I was planning to order two (He/Skaven) via my friend. :<

shelfunit.
05-12-2011, 13:51
For instance, we can pretty much say there'll be a Bilbo, Thorin etc party set (same as there were all the Fellowship party sets) - but if that's allowed to be pre-ordered, someone's going to think "why not allow this other set, which effectively contains a major spoiler about the story, to be pre-ordered?"


Undoubtably correct - but the story is already in the public domain - it has been for the best part of 75 years. Unless they change the plot dramatically for the film (probably the second film will have a new story as it [I expect] covers the gap between the hobbit and LotR) this reason is a bit odd.

Brother Loki
05-12-2011, 14:47
The specific character designs for lots of elements will probably be kept very hush hush until the films come out, even though the story is well known. This was the case with the previous LotR films and I'm sure it will be the same again. For instance, I doubt we'll see any images of Smaug in advance, but you can bet that the GW sculpting team have the design sketches and/or 3D renders to work from. New Line won't want the first image the world sees of their new stuff to be a leaked GW photo.

yabbadabba
05-12-2011, 16:07
Your argument falls apart by the fact that Hobbit Merchandising will in no way be limited to Game Workshop miniatures.Not at all. At the time of the buiild up to FotR we already knew a fair bit about the film and imagery (the images turned up in almost every power point presentation at the time), and we had already seen some other related merchandise, yet we knew nothing about our own product part of the licence. One example of this was the image of the Balrog was not allowed any release before the actual film premier by anyone whereas we already knew what was in the core game box set 2-3 weeks before release We even got photocopied rulesets with certain images or wordings blacked out. The licences have a certain amount of individual space for negotiation, but that comes at an increasing price and bigger penalties for failure to stick to the agreement. No doubt to keep the costs low, GW opted for an information black out, whereas someone releasing a console game would need as much advertising latitude as possible as the market id far, far more competitive and crowded than GWs. Its entirely possible that the same could have happened now.

So I can see why you would think my argument falls apart :rolleyes:

Ravenous
05-12-2011, 16:09
Ahahaha!

Thats funny, so when I get my orders on wednesday I have to wait til saturday to show them off/sell them? Suuuuuuuure, I'll get right on that.

Tarliyn
05-12-2011, 17:35
Nike? Buying shoes is not a hobby. Why do clothing brands keep being compared to GW?

Buying shoes is a hobby for some. Lots of people collect shoes esp. Jordans, air force ones, and air maxes.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Shimmergloom
06-12-2011, 17:00
Not at all. At the time of the buiild up to FotR we already knew a fair bit about the film and imagery (the images turned up in almost every power point presentation at the time), and we had already seen some other related merchandise, yet we knew nothing about our own product part of the licence. One example of this was the image of the Balrog was not allowed any release before the actual film premier by anyone whereas we already knew what was in the core game box set 2-3 weeks before release We even got photocopied rulesets with certain images or wordings blacked out. The licences have a certain amount of individual space for negotiation, but that comes at an increasing price and bigger penalties for failure to stick to the agreement. No doubt to keep the costs low, GW opted for an information black out, whereas someone releasing a console game would need as much advertising latitude as possible as the market id far, far more competitive and crowded than GWs. Its entirely possible that the same could have happened now.

So I can see why you would think my argument falls apart :rolleyes:

The Balrog effects were not even done till nearly the time when the movie was released.

Basically you are trying to have us believe that out of all the advertising sources for the Hobbit, it is only for their miniatures that absolute secrecy is a must and poor old GW is being bullied by New Line to not show any images at all. Because remember this is not just images not approved by New Line, but GW has said that no images, no pre-ordering at all to be done by retailers until THE DAY you can actually physically buy these products.

And we are also to being led to believe by you, that because of New Line we can't see and retailers can't advertise any other GW products until release day. So for some reason warhammer and 40k are being forced to do this because of the Hobbit?

Because apparently New Line loves video game money, toy money, t-shirt money, poster money, etc, etc, but as for any miniatures, they don't want any advertising done for that AT ALL! Absolute secrecy!

You are going out of your way to make GW seem like a poor old victim here. Apparently the Dutch are willing to tell the world how to make the superflu to kill us all, but GW guards what a Vampire count miniature might look like as if it is a state secret.

yabbadabba
06-12-2011, 17:12
The Balrog effects were not even done till nearly the time when the movie was released. Nearly is when exactly? Because the stills and designs were with GW studio quite sometime before the release of the film. Considering the lead design time and that GW were not CADing metal minis at that time I seem to remember within a week or two of the film release we had the images of the finished and painted Balrog model.

Basically you are trying to have us believe that out of all the advertising sources for the Hobbit, it is only for their miniatures that absolute secrecy is a must and poor old GW is being bullied by New Line to not show any images at all. Because remember this is not just images not approved by New Line, but GW has said that no images, no pre-ordering at all to be done by retailers until THE DAY you can actually physically buy these products. Not at all. In fact I provided a pragmatic reason for it. That you choose to trivialise that reason is your problem and does nothing to support your position.

And we are also to being led to believe by you, that because of New Line we can't see and retailers can't advertise any other GW products until release day. So for some reason warhammer and 40k are being forced to do this because of the Hobbit? No that is an internal decision by GW, and again I have cited a pragmatic reason for it. As I have a far better knowledge of their internal security issues than you do, and my knowledge is minimal to say the least, I'd say you are in no position to decide whether GW are right or wrong in what they are doing from their own internal point of view.

Because apparently New Line loves video game money, toy money, t-shirt money, poster money, etc, etc, but as for any miniatures, they don't want any advertising done for that AT ALL! Absolute secrecy!

You are going out of your way to make GW seem like a poor old victim here. Apparently the Dutch are willing to tell the world how to make the superflu to kill us all, but GW guards what a Vampire count miniature might look like as if it is a state secret. If you are not going to be mature about this Shimmergloom, then there is no discussion, is there? Be sensible or don't bother wasting space please.

I am happy to discuss other reasons, but you fail to even vaguely come up with something worthwhile to discuss. As I have said the accountants and the sales channels will resist this approach for any but the most important of reasons as their data will tell them that it will lose them cash. So considering that do you have a single business reason why GW might take this approach?

SunTzu
06-12-2011, 18:08
I was working at GW when the LotR stuff started happening, and I can confirm that Yabbadabba is right on at least a few things regarding GW's agreement with New Line. Balrog images were entirely verboten until the premiere of the film IIRC, and I hardly think they were still finishing up the visual effects of the Balrog the day before the film was released - nope, they knew exactly what it looked like, GW had already sculpted the model, they just couldn't show it, not even to us staffers. Likewise, in the Two Towers, we had to go into the shop copies of the rulebooks we'd been sent and scribble over the photo of the Uruk Hai Berserker with black marker pen so nobody could see what it was, before they could go near the shop floor. That was an order we received from "on high" that GW had obviously received, in turn, from New Line.

There might well be a discussion to be had over whether the restrictions "make sense", but I don't doubt the Hobbit agreement has all kinds of similar requirements in it of a legal nature. Given that the Hobbit film might make in its opening weekend what GW typically makes in turnover in an entire year, it seems pretty clear that GW can't afford to **** about with this, because New Line can certainly afford much more expensive lawyers.

Does it make any difference in the long run? Unlikely. Would it make more financial sense to be open about everything? We may certainly speculate about that. None of that matters though. GW wanted the license, and a requirement of the license was certainly that they have to do what they're told when it comes to revealing imagery or other details of the film. If they didn't want to agree to that, they probably wouldn't get the license. (And losing the license would probably be strategically catastrophic, though I suspect less so for the Hobbit than it would have been for LotR).

Whether the wider clampdown on secrecy (ie. not just the Hobbit) was GW's idea to get people in the habit, or New Line's request so they know they can trust GW, is again up for speculation; but we can surmise that it must surely be linked in some way, and maybe breaching it would lose them the license, and that would cost GW a lot more than the extra sales of one 40K box would get them. I don't always agree with Yabbadabba by any means, and it's rare that I defend GW, but he's right on this one.

yabbadabba
06-12-2011, 18:22
I don't always agree with Yabbadabba by any means, Yeah, don't I know it ;)

and it's rare that I defend GW, I think we can make a distinction between defending and providing a possible explanantion for behavior. I rarely do the former, but often do the latter. Lots of people on here get that confused.

but he's right on this one. Being right isn't important here, but thanks for the support :D. Being calm polite, logical and sensible in a discussion is, something I am not always good at doing I will admit.

6mmhero
06-12-2011, 18:27
I think a fair bit of this will have something to do with the Newline contract, thats not to say GW were bullied but just what is in the contract as both Yabba and Suntzu have said.

However part of it will have something to do with indy's selling the product early in the past. While most indy's adhere to the rules about release dates there are a few that flaunt the rules to get early sales. At Selwg last year you could buy the Dark Eldar around two weeks early iirc.

Ultimately though it is for the Indy's to take up with GW why this has been done and how this might effect their sales etc.

frozenwastes
06-12-2011, 18:39
The secrecy rule didn't faze one local store, but the increased minimum order value meant they finally decided to cut out GW. So now there's one independent store and the 1 man GW store that's open 20 hours a week and that's it.

BobtheInquisitor
06-12-2011, 20:36
I don't think a lot of you actually read his post. He said the new thing was about displaying images of what was about to be released before it actually goes on sale is not forbidden.


I don't think it said "displaying IMAGES" though. There's a huge difference.

No retailer can display the actual product boxes before the release date, and in retail "display" is used to describe specifically a visual arrangement of product to be sold, with or without posters, etc..

Having worked in retail for years, I find the idea of building a display of a product we can't actually sell yet to be horrifying. Can you imagine how the customers would react? "Cat butt face" would be the least of your problems!

Voss
06-12-2011, 23:20
Having worked in retail for years, I find the idea of building a display of a product we can't actually sell yet to be horrifying. Can you imagine how the customers would react? "Cat butt face" would be the least of your problems!

:wtf: Most retailers do this all the time. Software stores put empty boxes of the next month's games on the wall under a coming soon banner, as do movie retailers. Bookstores display upcoming books behind the register (or they did when I still worked in bookstores), and so on.

Every hobby store I've frequented would put the coming GW releases up behind the register so folks could see what was coming and place orders. Not to mention let people flip through army books before they are actually released.

Never once have I met a customer who failed to understand a coming soon or 'for sale on XX date' sign.

Shimmergloom
06-12-2011, 23:32
So considering that do you have a single business reason why GW might take this approach?

They don't want people to see the terribe prices or the terrible rules until the very last second.

Plain and simple.

rodmillard
06-12-2011, 23:38
The problem with that is that it requires GW to realise that their prices and rules are terrible. Since they don't, it doesn't factor into their calculations.

*insert obligatory comment about Mark Wells' backside, both hands, and a map*

yabbadabba
06-12-2011, 23:54
They don't want people to see the terribe prices or the terrible rules until the very last second.

Plain and simple. So you don't have a sensible reason. Thank you.

The problem with that is that it requires GW to realise that their prices and rules are terrible. Since they don't, it doesn't factor into their calculations.
*insert obligatory comment about Mark Wells' backside, both hands, and a map* It also requires that all their customers have had a sudden attack of amnesia and have forgotten not only all the GW products they have bought in the past 12 months, games they have played etc, but that they are also struck with selective blindness when they enter their local store and don't notice the prices on all the other GW products :evilgrin:

Shimmergloom
07-12-2011, 00:04
I will admit that I have enjoyed watching you jump through more and more hoops this past year to desperately defend every action of GW's.

I can't wait to see what they come up with next year!

Until then, here's some images from the Hobbit to enjoy. They've been around since July, but don't tell GW, they don't think anyone knows there's a movie in the works!

http://the-hobbit-movie.com/2011/06/26/first-official-images-from-the-hobbit/

carlisimo
07-12-2011, 05:34
Until then, here's some images from the Hobbit to enjoy. They've been around since July, but don't tell GW, they don't think anyone knows there's a movie in the works!

When I read "can't display or sell" I think it means that a store can't put an unreleased box up on a shelf, nor sell it. If I were a shop owner I would still feel perfectly free to tell people about it and even show them the product, while making it clear that it doesn't "go live" until next week or whenever.

Max Jet
07-12-2011, 06:52
So you don't have a sensible reason. Thank you

You don't really see, that this whole "New Line Cinema did it" explanation doesn't make any more sense than that?

yabbadabba
07-12-2011, 08:26
You don't really see, that this whole "New Line Cinema did it" explanation doesn't make any more sense than that? No, "Newline didn't do it" - these are decisions made by GW; I suggest they are pragmatic reasons in response to their Newline contracts. It makes far more sense that Shimmergloom's infantile "because they are mean" explanation. I have backed up my reasons with sensible positions, including extremely valid reasons for opposing this from within the company. I have also had some support from people who were either there first time around, or understand how these things work.

We are not going to get this right without the inside view, therefore reasoned speculation is entirely appropriate. I have stated clearly, reasonably and within the bounds of my experiences of why GW might be taking this action; I have also explained something of thie history of these decisions when they have previously occured.

The closest I have seen to another explanation is
a) because of the impact of Indies selling/showing new releases before release day, and
b) because of the CHS case.
Both of these are very reasonable and I would not rule out them being additional concerns. I can categorically state though that a GW store manager doing is job vaguely right will not be affected by (a), so this is a minimal impact, and for (b) I would have thought that early pictures of new releases would protect GWs IP, not weaken it.

I have also stated before that have no love for Tom Kirby, Mark Wells and others, and there are many at GWHQ that instead of speaking up chose to pander to a business approach that deliberately began to freeze out veteran gamers as a fundamental part of the business. Again here Shimmergloom get's it wrong - I don't defend GW (as I have stated this move will hurt their sales), but seek to explain where information is missing.

But if people find it easier then I will leave them with their "GW is mean" explanation.

frozenwastes
07-12-2011, 10:19
Shimmergloom's position seems to not be that they are mean, but that protracted exposure to GW's product prior to release date may well reduce sales as it's lack of value becomes apparent.

Maybe GW has looked at when and how they have been marketing and found that products sold better when there was shorter times from unveiling to release date. Maybe they're looking at their decline in unit sales and how they've been operating an army of the month hype machine and figured that they need to change something. So they decided to change the nature of the hype to one of surprise and hyping the product closer to when it's actually available to purchase.

6mmhero
07-12-2011, 13:49
I agree with Yabba's post above. He is not defending GW just explaining why such a decision might have occurred. There is nothing defending GW unless you think that not pulling them to pieces is defending them.

TBH I think most independents will get round this rule somehow and it won't make a bit of difference to them.

I also don't think that they want to hide how much their figures and rules set cost or how good they are. They are not shy that they are at the top end of cost. However they believe that the product they deliver is the best and that people are willing to pay for that (not my view but theirs).

GW want their website, white Dwarf and Stores to be the place for first viewings of the new releases. that way they can either try and build hype (missed with Dreadfleet) or show the model off in all its glory rather than some grainy picture on the net.
With this being said, how far in advance do indy's get the new product these days? I would be surprised if this was in advance of a week.

Ravenous
07-12-2011, 15:33
Honestly Diamond comics has the same thing, they send secret shoppers in all the time to make sure you arent selling the walking dead or the like a few days before hand so its not a big deal for most retailers.

But working at a store has its advantages, like buying it 3 days after its built and painted :D

lbecks
07-12-2011, 15:50
Honestly Diamond comics has the same thing, they send secret shoppers in all the time to make sure you arent selling the walking dead or the like a few days before hand so its not a big deal for most retailers.

But working at a store has its advantages, like buying it 3 days after its built and painted :D

Sticking to release dates is pretty standard. But even with comic books I can look up the covers to Walking Dead or Invincible for the next few issues, up to half a year in advance. DC will put up preview blurbs and covers for months in advance.

Ravenous
07-12-2011, 15:53
Yeah thats all in Previews magazine, GW used to put stuff in there but slowly stopped to control the hype...

More like kill it.

xxRavenxx
07-12-2011, 17:52
Until then, here's some images from the Hobbit to enjoy. They've been around since July, but don't tell GW, they don't think anyone knows there's a movie in the works!

Tesco's sell their chocolate at 70% of my prices.


is this because:

A) I'm mean.
B) Its massive incompetence on my part.
C) The bigger company gets to negotiate on more fair terms with Cadbury than I do.


Some people really need to get over their conspiracy theories :)

Shimmergloom
07-12-2011, 17:57
It makes far more sense that Shimmergloom's infantile "because they are mean" explanation.

You're entire explanation was that mean old New Line was a big company and would run GW out of business if they let anyone know they were going to sell any product.

How is that different at all from it being GW's fault?

Oh yeah, you worked for GW, that's the difference.

The fact is that any contract from New Line, even if we were to buy into them not wanting to make money by pre-advertising, doesn't explain why this rule extends to warhammer and 40k products. You are expecting us to believe that a contract for the Hobbit, is keeping GW from letting indies advertise Vampire Counts until release day.

You are the one that does not have a sensible reason, yet you flame others for their explanations.

xxRavenxx
07-12-2011, 18:26
You are the one that does not have a sensible reason, yet you flame others for their explanations.

He wasn't flaming. The explanation was infantile. (Though the word immature would probably be more apt).

And his reason is sensible. If newline have stated that they want GW to prove that they are taking steps to stop industry leaks, to enforce street dates, and to tighten up on rumours, then GW will need to do that to keep their contract.

Think of it this way:

You don't get a pet dog till you prove you're responsible with the goldfish.


Theres not much more to it than that.

BobtheInquisitor
07-12-2011, 21:51
:wtf: Most retailers do this all the time. Software stores put empty boxes of the next month's games on the wall under a coming soon banner, as do movie retailers. Bookstores display upcoming books behind the register (or they did when I still worked in bookstores), and so on.


I worked in a book store, and we absolutely did not do that. In fact, new releases come in sealed boxes with the release date marked on them just so they will not be opened early. You might be thinking of a poster of a product, but you are completely wrong if you think any bookstore would ever put out product with a marked release date early, even for display. Stores get fined for that (at least in the US), and they tend not to receive new releases early any more.

Besides, I've seen how crazy customers get over new releases. People tried to bribe me to sell them some new releases early, and these were for the equivalent of James Patterson books. Things nearly turned violent at the HP7 release over a misunderstanding about who was guaranteed a copy; placing new copies we couldn't sell out on display before the release date would have only caused destruction.

6mmhero
07-12-2011, 23:59
Shimmer you seem to have a chip on your shoulder.

GW want to control the info and how it gets out. If that means having a one size fits all for every game system then that is what they will do.
At no point has Yabba said New Line has pushed GW around, however there is probably a list of items that New Line has told every Licensee cannot be shown until the movie is out. Any company that breaks this will be in breach of their contract (the contents none of us know).

There is no conspiracy.

yabbadabba
08-12-2011, 00:10
You're entire explanation was that mean old New Line was a big company and would run GW out of business if they let anyone know they were going to sell any product. No my explanation is that Newline would be within their rights to sue GW if it defaluted on its contract and that would break GW easily.

How is that different at all from it being GW's fault?
Oh yeah, you worked for GW, that's the difference. Nope, that makes no sense.

The fact is that any contract from New Line, even if we were to buy into them not wanting to make money by pre-advertising, doesn't explain why this rule extends to warhammer and 40k products. You are expecting us to believe that a contract for the Hobbit, is keeping GW from letting indies advertise Vampire Counts until release day.
You are the one that does not have a sensible reason, yet you flame others for their explanations.I have already explained how that might extend to 40K and WFB. I have already explained the contractual obligations that existed under the LotR licence, and have got collaboration. And no, that doesn't involve New Line directly, but it might have been a pragmatic response by GW to the situation required of them. I think you need to read a few more back posts to prevent yourself looking a little out of touch. Or maybe try and ask a polite question - no not now.

yet you flame others for their explanations. I haven't flamed others, but I have reacted to you. If you had tried a more balanced and considerate approach, you might have got some respect back.

drukawski
08-12-2011, 02:00
To get back to the OP's first statement, could you not (upon purchasing GW's product) simply disassemble GW's product, add some time and materials into it (i.e. primer, paint, glue, basing materials, etc.) thus making it now YOUR product, and then display YOUR product instead of GW's boxes until such time as you may? I would imagine if the model was well painted you could even sell it while demand was high to recoup your expenses (if not your time).

If they object to this, then by extension that would mean GW product actually belongs to the refiner/driller that originally dug the raw materials up out of the ground to sell to GW that went into GW's product. Or even to take things further, the product actually belongs to the people represented by the government that licensed the refiner/driller to pull the materials out of the ground so that GW could buy them to turn them into product to sell to us.

Of course I suppose the simpler way to handle all of this would be to remain quiet and not give reasons for this to ever become an issue.

frozenwastes
08-12-2011, 02:15
Is it possible that upon review of their sales data, GW found a correlation between shorter spoiler/display/marketing time and increased sales? That their sales are primarily the result of their sales force interaction with the public in their retail stores and with retailers in their trade sales and that pre-orders and advanced displaying of product doesn't do as much for them as we might think?

eron12
08-12-2011, 04:57
To get back to the OP's first statement, could you not (upon purchasing GW's product) simply disassemble GW's product, add some time and materials into it (i.e. primer, paint, glue, basing materials, etc.) thus making it now YOUR product, and then display YOUR product instead of GW's boxes until such time as you may? I would imagine if the model was well painted you could even sell it while demand was high to recoup your expenses (if not your time).

If they object to this, then by extension that would mean GW product actually belongs to the refiner/driller that originally dug the raw materials up out of the ground to sell to GW that went into GW's product. Or even to take things further, the product actually belongs to the people represented by the government that licensed the refiner/driller to pull the materials out of the ground so that GW could buy them to turn them into product to sell to us.

Of course I suppose the simpler way to handle all of this would be to remain quiet and not give reasons for this to ever become an issue.

Even if the OP could do such a thing, GW would simply stop dealing with him.

drukawski
08-12-2011, 07:03
Were that really a concern, do you think the OP would have flatly stated the following?


I shall, obviously, be ignoring the edict and telling my customers whatever I can about upcoming products...

I'm not really advocating his position, just suggesting an alternative which I would imagine meets all parties stated desires (and taking the opportunity to get a cheap shot in at the absurdness that is intellectual property).

Max Jet
08-12-2011, 07:25
I am all but convinced, that you are interested in discussing this matter as you say, because you do have this nasty habbit to just leave the discussion (sometimes with a boasted promise never ever to visit subforum XY again) whenever a) you cannot convince your partner or b) you run out of arguments but I will bite.


I have backed up my reasons with sensible positions, including extremely valid reasons for opposing this from within the company. I have also had some support from people who were either there first time around, or understand how these things work.

This is the thing I have a problem with. I think the reason you stated are far from valid as there are too many things you have to .. well just accept in order for this point to be reasonable. All the explanation really comes to nothing more than "better safe than sorry". In order to ensure New line cinema isn't going to enforce their legal power over GW for some leaks or information dripping GW just says "No information at all before official release"

Now I don't know anything about the truth, but it is pretty obvious when someone is pulling your leg. This explanation disregards.

a) The amount of information about Merchandise articles you can get from even smaller Toy manufacturers, jewelers and developers concerning the Hobbit movies.

b) That it makes no sense at all to enforce this policy across the entire range, i.e. more than just the Tolkien miniatures line.

c) That it's still a long time before the Hobbit line reaches the shops, who have to abide by this clause

d) The fact, that most of the miniatures probably reach the shop after the movie comes out.

e) The vague and interpretable definition of this clause.

The explanation that it all comes down to information control, concerning the miniatures itself (sale impact and costumer attention) makes somewhat more sense, than this having anything to do with the Hobbit products.

And please don't use the "I worked for GW for a very long time mate" joker, as it has been used quite often with statements like (from other people mind you) "GW have a special patent on it's plastic glue formula" "The XY mould cost 1 000 000 pounds" "GW was the first manufacturer to use multy part moulds" It simply stopped working after things like that.

eron12
08-12-2011, 08:26
Were that really a concern, do you think the OP would have flatly stated the following?



I'm not really advocating his position, just suggesting an alternative which I would imagine meets all parties stated desires (and taking the opportunity to get a cheap shot in at the absurdness that is intellectual property).

Yes, because telling people about a product is the same as assembling, painting and displaying the product before release date, then selling it prior to release date.

yabbadabba
08-12-2011, 09:03
Is it possible that upon review of their sales data, GW found a correlation between shorter spoiler/display/marketing time and increased sales? That their sales are primarily the result of their sales force interaction with the public in their retail stores and with retailers in their trade sales and that pre-orders and advanced displaying of product doesn't do as much for them as we might think? It could well be but that would indicate a significant change in shopping patterns, but it is definitely a thought. The only thing to counter that at this stage will be those Indie sellers on here who say their sales data says otherwise.

I am all but convinced, that you are interested in discussing this matter as you say, because you do have this nasty habbit to just leave the discussion (sometimes with a boasted promise never ever to visit subforum XY again) whenever It might be hard to believe but I don't read GW General - its too depressing. However when I scroll down to Rules Dev occasionally something like this will catch my eye on the front page, so I will have a look.

a) you cannot convince your partner or b) you run out of arguments but I will bite. That's not a nasty habit - if I have nothing left to add to a thread or I think the majority opinion is wrong but am not going to make a difference, then why hang around flogging a dead horse? Surely that's just good debating manners? Anyway..

a) The amount of information about Merchandise articles you can get from even smaller Toy manufacturers, jewelers and developers concerning the Hobbit movies. To be honest I haven't seen an awful lot to date although there is information out there. All I can say is we saw similar during the LotR build up and GW still had a similar stance then. If the contract enforced that position for LotR then it is reasonable to assume the same is enforced here.

b) That it makes no sense at all to enforce this policy across the entire range, i.e. more than just the Tolkien miniatures line. It doesn't but it might be a pragmatic move. To control one info stream but let two others go loose might be more problematic than enforcing a total clampdown on all information leaks. Internally the Studio is notorious for its leaks. And it does give GW a chance to look at how it controls its information for any post-licence times. I think Necrons got previewed on BoW before anywhere else weren't they? Could be now that GW has zero information links, they can now assess the impact of leaks better.

c) That it's still a long time before the Hobbit line reaches the shops, who have to abide by this clause Well remember the original release was for 2010/2011 for the Hobbit. GWs legal advice might have been just to get on with it, or without a confirmed date of release it might have been the advised position to start anyway - after all GW would have been designing for the original release date.

d) The fact, that most of the miniatures probably reach the shop after the movie comes out. After the movies come out no one cares, its before that matters. So, if after the movies come out this policiy continues then I will have to try and think of another hypothesis as that will rule this one out. Chances are then I will go for "the market has changed or they are all just complete idiots" stance, but I don't think that is a reasonable position at the moment.

e) The vague and interpretable definition of this clause. I apologise that I cannot quote you that clause or set of clauses. I think you will agree that it is the same with the vast majority of GW situations, we do not have the hard information so can only speculate.

The explanation that it all comes down to information control, concerning the miniatures itself (sale impact and costumer attention) makes somewhat more sense, than this having anything to do with the Hobbit products. Yes but as I have also said in counter, GW has data that some sales build up actually enhances sales more than a new blackout until release day. So unless, as Frozenwastes suggest, sales patterns have changed significantly I cannot think of another reasonable decisions. Now this could be an unreasonable decision, and therefore pointless trying to speculate because it comes from unreasonable minds.
On the subject of information control that has come and gone over the years as an issue at GW. GW were concerned that negative feedback could be affecting sales, but it was also proven that it was increasing sales as a comparison to a news blackout. And again I cannot see how something like the CHS case could affect this - if anything I would have thought as much forward notice as possible would protect GW. So can you see why I find information control outside of LotR not so convincing?

And please don't use the "I worked for GW for a very long time mate" joker, as it has been used quite often with statements like (from other people mind you) "GW have a special patent on it's plastic glue formula" "The XY mould cost 1 000 000 pounds" "GW was the first manufacturer to use multy part moulds" It simply stopped working after things like that. Well I am sorry but I think that is a ridiculous stance to take. Yes some people have said some naive things in relation to their time at GW, but to dismiss all ex-GW employees under this premiss is, to be frank, a little insulting. That would be equivalent of me dismissing your position because you have presented no evidence of having even worked in the market at a reasonable position, your opinion is null and void due to ignorance. Aside from people being rude I am happy to try an look at this from all angles.

Anyway please also remember that I don't agree with the policy, like alot of GWs business decisions since about 2000. Its merely a hypothetical debate for me, as I don't fall into the category of people who have to know what new things are coming out before the release

Voss
08-12-2011, 17:41
I worked in a book store, and we absolutely did not do that. In fact, new releases come in sealed boxes with the release date marked on them just so they will not be opened early. You might be thinking of a poster of a product, but you are completely wrong if you think any bookstore would ever put out product with a marked release date early, even for display. Stores get fined for that (at least in the US), and they tend not to receive new releases early any more.

Nope. I'm not thinking of anything else but opening up the SOS boxes, taking out copies and putting them on display behind the register (but not selling them before the street date). We were even provided with 'Coming soon' banners to display above the shelving from company HQ.

Now this was back in 1998-2003, but it was common practice in B&N/B. Dalton and Borders/Waldenbooks. I worked for all 4 (or two, depending how you looked at it) in my time.

The last few Harry Potter books may well have put an end to the practice, but it was extremely common and officially sanctioned before that.


. Internally the Studio is notorious for its leaks.

Ha, thats true enough. I can remember Jervis at a Grand Tournament one year talking to players at the hotel bar after the pub quiz (there were about 20 of us standing around), and someone got him started on orks, and he started going off on details about Gorkamorka (which hadn't come out yet). After about a minute he stopped, said something like 'I shouldn't be telling you lot about this,' then shrugged and kept talking. Good times. Getting genuine enthusiasm about upcoming releases directly from the staff was fantastic.

Max Jet
08-12-2011, 20:55
It might be hard to believe but I don't read GW General - its too depressing. However when I scroll down to Rules Dev occasionally something like this will catch my eye on the front page, so I will have a look.

I am sorry, but here we go again. Reminds me of the last time when you insisted on never ever visiting the News and Rumour section. Posting this sentence >IN< the News and Rumour section. I am deeply sorry but I won't go further into that.


That's not a nasty habit - if I have nothing left to add to a thread or I think the majority opinion is wrong but am not going to make a difference, then why hang around flogging a dead horse? Surely that's just good debating manners? Anyway..

Then nasty was an unrightfully used adjective by me, but still this is the thing. The lack of option c)
Being convinced that you are wrong, even if it is something small as admitting "Yes I do visit the News and Rumour section and I am not denying it despite posting in one."


To be honest I haven't seen an awful lot to date although there is information out there. All I can say is we saw similar during the LotR build up and GW still had a similar stance then. If the contract enforced that position for LotR then it is reasonable to assume the same is enforced here.
It doesn't but it might be a pragmatic move. To control one info stream but let two others go loose might be more problematic than enforcing a total clampdown on all information leaks. Internally the Studio is notorious for its leaks. And it does give GW a chance to look at how it controls its information for any post-licence times. I think Necrons got previewed on BoW before anywhere else weren't they? Could be now that GW has zero information links, they can now assess the impact of leaks better.

This would be quite convincing were it not for the fact that we are talking about nothing more than a clause strictly for independent retailers who cannot show their products before release date which hase nothing to do with the studio, any pragmatic move from GW or anything else besides the solely responsibility of independent shops.


Well remember the original release was for 2010/2011 for the Hobbit. GWs legal advice might have been just to get on with it, or without a confirmed date of release it might have been the advised position to start anyway - after all GW would have been designing for the original release date.

That sounds like way too much bureaucracy. Why would this policy still be enforced now then, instead of just changing or postponing the clause?


After the movies come out no one cares, its before that matters.

And this was my point. The miniatures don't get delivered to the independents after the movie premier, rendering the whole clause osbolete would the reason be the one you stated.


I apologise that I cannot quote you that clause or set of clauses. I think you will agree that it is the same with the vast majority of GW situations, we do not have the hard information so can only speculate.

Fine with me. The reason this forum exists is to express opinion on matters and my opinion is, that there is as little sense in your explanation as in "GW are the EEEVILZ" nothing more.


On the subject of information control that has come and gone over the years as an issue at GW. GW were concerned that negative feedback could be affecting sales, but it was also proven that it was increasing sales as a comparison to a news blackout. And again I cannot see how something like the CHS case could affect this - if anything I would have thought as much forward notice as possible would protect GW. So can you see why I find information control outside of LotR not so convincing?

True. Then my possible explanation cannot be true also.


Well I am sorry but I think that is a ridiculous stance to take. Yes some people have said some naive things in relation to their time at GW, but to dismiss all ex-GW employees under this premiss is, to be frank, a little insulting.

You got it wrong as I dismissed the Joker, not the person.
Using the "I worked for GW" as the last ressort for believability is what I criticize (It gets used, even by you). Everytime someone says "I worked for GW" he could have written empty brackets as far as I am concerned. That would be like me and you discussing about Quantum physics, you defending the plausability of the string theory and me saying "This is ******** , because I am a physicst and not you!" (Really? ******** get's censored?.. o.k insert humbug then)
It devaluates your opinion without good reason and it's not an argument at all. Using profession as an argument is like not talking at all. Someone with a true profession should have had the better arguments to begin with and not hide behind a paper tiger.


That would be equivalent of me dismissing your position because you have presented no evidence of having even worked in the market at a reasonable position, your opinion is null and void due to ignorance. Aside from people being rude I am happy to try an look at this from all angles.

So please see my above point.


Anyway please also remember that I don't agree with the policy, like alot of GWs business decisions since about 2000. Its merely a hypothetical debate for me, as I don't fall into the category of people who have to know what new things are coming out before the release

It doesn't matter as far as I am concerned. Your personal opinions and preferences dont devaluate or validate your points, which I am adressing.

We will not come to an agreement, because my scepsis demands to many logical holes to be filled and my knowledge is to little to find a filler for them myself.

yabbadabba
08-12-2011, 21:14
snip I started writing some counter points to this before I realised it was a waste of time. The problem isn't you personally, its that this is a thread about the "new rule", not about me having to defend my activities and behaviours on here to people who, to be frank are anonymous and unimportant to me outside of this thread. This is not a place that even begins to have demands on me over that. Until I get more information, I will stick to my current point of view as I have not seen anything that is more logical, sensible or in line with the way GW operates from my experience, limited that it is.

Yes we will disagree. Good luck on finding your answers, but it won't be on here without more information from GW themselves.

bolshie
08-12-2011, 23:36
Is it possible that upon review of their sales data, GW found a correlation between shorter spoiler/display/marketing time and increased sales? That their sales are primarily the result of their sales force interaction with the public in their retail stores and with retailers in their trade sales and that pre-orders and advanced displaying of product doesn't do as much for them as we might think?

Perhaps, but my feeling is that by denying the louder voices on the internet the opportunity to create 'internet wisdom' prior to release, they are hoping to encourage people to experiment and buy a wider range of models.

drukawski
09-12-2011, 00:06
Yes, because telling people about a product is the same as assembling, painting and displaying the product before release date, then selling it prior to release date.

Your assuming "sell it while demand was high" means specifically: "selling it before the release date"... those are your words, not mine.

Does GW specifically state that if you buy their product at below GW fixed prices from a GW distributor that you MUST then sell that product to someone? Couldn't an Independent Retailer just purchase 11 boxes of unit X and keep one of the boxes for themselves eating the profit loss? If the Independent Retailer could do that why shouldn't the Independent Retailer from then displaying their own personal property in their store regardless of whether its been "released" or not by GW? If they can't when exactly does GW product become your personal property?

eron12
09-12-2011, 00:34
Your assuming "sell it while demand was high" means specifically: "selling it before the release date"... those are your words, not mine.

You are correct, I did make that assumption, though I think demand would be higher when that is the only one of that model availible, and drop after the release.


Does GW specifically state that if you buy their product at below GW fixed prices from a GW distributor that you MUST then sell that product to someone? Couldn't an Independent Retailer just purchase 11 boxes of unit X and keep one of the boxes for themselves eating the profit loss? If the Independent Retailer could do that why shouldn't the Independent Retailer from then displaying their own personal property in their store regardless of whether its been "released" or not by GW? If they can't when exactly does GW product become your personal property?

Again, such an action would most likely lead to GW terminating its relationship with the retailor.

drukawski
09-12-2011, 00:42
Again, such an action would most likely lead to GW terminating its relationship with the retailor.

I'm not trying to be a wiseenheimer here, I'm actually asking because I don't know. I've not run an Independent Retail outfit selling GW products before.

chamelion 6
09-12-2011, 16:31
*off topic* I apologise.
But then do they "get" your hobby?

I spend money on things that interest me. Football, GW, trainers.

It may be wrong, but compare it to a football agent:
You have inside knowledge, but until that player is wearing the shirt itīs not your place to comment. Obviously itīs a flawed comparision as it effects your business, but if an agent goes against his clients wishes then it could ruin the deal.
That analogy makes you out to be a tool of GW and I apolgise for that comparison, but you sell their items and as s$uch are bound by their decisions, no?

Probably they wouldn't. I've not brought up my gaming around them. It's ot that I'm embarrased, but why bore people with something they're not interested in.

Whether I get it or not doesn't mean much. That they enjoy it does.