Bean counters take over from creative people, company loses its way. GW parallels GM.

[Brass Scorpion]

This book by a former GM employee of about 4 decades has interesting parallels to what has happened to Games Workshop. When the bean counters take over and push the creative people to the side when steering the company, bad things can happen. And with all the cost cutting and price hikes dominating every move GW makes the past couple years it seems they might learn something from the problems the much larger GM Corp. has encountered.

The author of this book has since been invited back to GM to help them get back on track. When will GW get back to catering to their customers' love of creativity instead of letting draconian cost cuts, price hikes and information policies dominate everything they do?

http://www.amazon.com/Car-Guys-vs-Bean-Counters/dp/1591844002/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1320163260&sr=8


Book Description
Publication Date: June 9, 2011
"It's time to stop the dominance of the number-crunchers, living in their perfect, predictable, financially-projected world (who fail, time and again), and give the reins to the 'product guys'...those with vision and passion for the customers and their product or service."

When Bob Lutz got into the auto business in the early 1960s, CEOs knew that if you captured the public's imagination with innovative car design and top quality craftsmanship, the money would follow. The "car guys" held sway, and GM dominated with bold, creative leadership and iconic brands like Cadillac, Buick, Pontiac, Oldsmobile, GMC, and Chevrolet.

But then GM's leadership began to put their faith in numbers and spreadsheets. Determined to eliminate the "waste" and "personality worship" of the bygone creative leaders, and maximize profitability, management got too smart for its own good. With the bean counters firmly in charge, carmakers, and much of American industry, lost their single-minded focus on product excellence and their competitive advantage. Decline soon followed.

[TheBitzBarn]

Problem with that "Theory" is that it takes in no account for the UAW destruction of the American Auto Business and the existence and power of the UAW is the reason Bean Counters took over because the UAW was crushing the companies under demands and fear of strike and do poor quality work because they knew there existed no penalty for poor performance and the UAW would protect the workers even when the workers were the issue.

In the early 80's the UAW was striking as GM , Ford and Chrysler were closing plants because they wanted more Money to make a crappy car. The book sounds nice but you have to lay half the blame for GM failures on the UAW.

[Wildeybeast]

So, if I understand correctly, you think that 'bean counters' are running GW and making the decisions, not the product guys? In which case you couldn't be more wrong. For a start, if that were the case, Forge world wouldn't exist as it is a company driven by design, not profit. Secondly, the people that decide which producst that get made are those guys in the design studio, who are definitely not bean counters. I'll agree that the accountants are probably the ones setting the prices and maybe having some input in release schedules and decisions like delaying WD for sunscribers and quashing the rumour mill, but you cant say that they are responsible for things like Dreadfleet or the redesign of DE. These decisions are made by the guys in the deign studio, just as they always have been and always will be, not by bean counters.

I'm also curious as to what 'cost cutting' measures you think GW have made. As far as I know they are continuing to invest in their design and manfacturing process (FC) and are not making any significant reductions in staffing or stores. These things are funded by price hikes, yes, but they are hardly examples of a company in trouble having to cut costs.

[Lord Azaghul]

Just a few thoughts based on the synopsis, coupled with my own opinions:

Its (GW is ) really no different then ANY other corporate entity.

1) all corporations are self serving
2) all corporations exist to make a profit.
3) math (or bean counting) is the most stable method known for controlling/running a business

Creativity is always used in the start up of any business, and I wouldn't suggest that GW has lost their creativity or their hiring of creative people. Creative people aren't just the ones who come up with great ideas, they are also the people who find solutions. I would, however, suggest that GW is not perusing the solutions that many of us (Note: I didn't even say majority) would like to see: game balance.

Part of gw problem is the inability to adapt to a better business/game model - however - gw's products are still selling, so they don't see the need to change to a more balanced release system.

Any business will stagnate if there refuse to innovate and create - gw creates (new models) unfortunately their innovating has a very bad habit of invalidating prior army releasing - IE: power creep - but again - their products are still selling...until players wise up and stop paying GW doesn't see the need to change.

Just my theory!

[TheBitzBarn]

Not sure I agree with the Theory.

You need to add a 4th point
4) All Public Corporations have a duty to create profit for the share holder. We seem to have forgotten that one lately

Game balance is subjective. I would say they have been Much better at it as of late with the rapid increase of FAQ's but one man's game balance is another man's "you broke my game" so I would say they are trying to walk that tight rope.

Where do they have a problem? Adapting to a better business model How do you explain that? They have increased their release schedule dramatically when you look over the past 10 years form 2002 to 2007 if you had 4 total releases a year that was good. They had a issue with metal raw material prices so they removed that issue and created Finecast. They plastic Models are detail wise the finest n the business and with each release maintaining that level or topping it. They have increased the quality of the terrain models. Players have wised up and see the best Models with the WOW factor out there are GW's

[evcameron]

Not sure I agree with the Theory.

You need to add a 4th point
4) All Public Corporations have a duty to create profit for the share holder. We seem to have forgotten that one lately


Thank you BitzBarn! Too often I come to this site to be very frustrated by people who thing that GW is somehow evil for trying being profitable. You hit the nail on head!

High five!

[pauljc]

BitzBarn gets it.

[Lord Azaghul]

Not sure I agree with the Theory.

You need to add a 4th point
4) All Public Corporations have a duty to create profit for the share holder. We seem to have forgotten that one lately

Where do they have a problem? Adapting to a better business model How do you explain that? They have increased their release schedule dramatically when you look over the past 10 years form 2002 to 2007 if you had 4 total releases a year that was good. They had a issue with metal raw material prices so they removed that issue and created Finecast. They plastic Models are detail wise the finest n the business and with each release maintaining that level or topping it. They have increased the quality of the terrain models. Players have wised up and see the best Models with the WOW factor out there are GW's

4) I thought that was covered under my point 1 :D But yes, you're right.

Better Model: The physical products GW release are very nice, among the top mini's available. Its there rules, or better yet, their release of new rules to the game that I have a biggest problem with.

In short the codex/army book system. This really shouldn't be the place to add new rules to the game every 3-6 months. I'm not talking about adding a 'flavor' type tweek, but changing a or creating or violating established rule mechanics, w/o updating other armies. And I"m thinking of things like the necrons getting to split fire. (I'm willing to bet 6thed gets some of that). I'm think about stuff like ASF in fantasy, or 'Hatred' getting a sudden change in 1 army book but not others. GW may create fantastic models but they are very terrible with rules and game dynamics = they don't understand how their game actually works.

What they know how to do is add +1 to the next book release. That obviously leads armies into 'showing their age'. I don't really find it...welcoming or fair to those players who have invested hundreds of dollars and hours on their chosen army, only to have it 'out dated' in 6 months, and not updated to 5-10 years. Its terrible customer service, with one objective: to get you to buy the newest toy.

That's what I meant by an out date business/game model.

[TheBitzBarn]

I disagree with you on the codex issue I really think they know they game they just do not care about competitive players and the ULTRA kill or be kill Tournament players. That is where you see Army of the month. If comp and paint score and soft score tournaments were the standard as they use to be then this would not be such an issue.

The Majority of the player base is NOT an ULTRA competitive tournament player and even a good General can make and old Codex win I did it for years with sisters. I did it with Ogres and I am not the BEST general in any way. Hel the Guy that won the Australian Warhammer Championships a couple years ago took a Dogs of War Army talk about outdated. But he won.

I think your issue might be more limited than you think.

[Kawauso]

I'm going to side with Bitzbarn here and say that the 5th edition books are a clear demonstration that, by and large, GW has gotten much better at game design. 5th has been really good for the game, and for the most part the books in 5th all mesh really well together.

Historically I would say GW has been more about writing and sculpting, but lately they've become more capable in terms of game design. They still have plenty to learn, mind, but they're getting better.

Yes, it's a problem that old armies get left behind with the way things are...but there's no easy way around that short of updating all armies at once. Which would be a massive, massive undertaking.

As Bitzbarn said though, you can still win with old armies. Competitive play is one thing, but casually, it's a lot easier. I have a friend who's been doing just fine with Tau and Sisters (though he's really been let down by the Sisters 'update' recently...), and he's had very little difficulty keeping pace with new armies like IG, SW, SM, Tyranids, BA and GK. I actually think he's become a much better general for it.

[Wildeybeast]

Well, if you go all the way back, GW consisted of Citadel minatures, making random stuff to support D&D before amking cool stuff of their own. In the end they decided to make some rules to go with their cool models and they have never really lost the underlying principle of making cool models, with the rules giving you a reason to use them (and thus buy them). The amount of 'wow' models released in the last 12 months show they have really gone back to this. The design process consits of John Blanche doing a bunch of cool drawings and people going 'lets make models of that' and then making rules to go with them. It also interesting to note that most of the people writing rules do other jobs in GW first, they aren't expert rules writers with a track record of success elsewhere (though it is a very specialised field). So I agree that rules aren't their speciality, but they are gettign better. Bear in mind that the 'power army of the month' is more of a 40K things, they are pretty balanced in Warhammer.

[Lord Azaghul]

Bear in mind that the 'power army of the month' is more of a 40K things, they are pretty balanced in Warhammer.

I do have do disagree on this one point.
Prior to 8th ed I stop playing WHFB, BECAUSE it was 'power army of the month'.
40k (IMHO) it kind of that way now, but not as bad as as 7th ed fantasy ever WAS.

I think 40k still has a better sense of balance then fantasy has, but I also thing these is alot of room for improvement.

Fantasy still hasn't won me back yet, 8th was fun for about 3 months...its a 'fun' game, but not a fair game. (I play dwarves).
My general conundrum is: if its not meant to be 'fair' why have points?
I want fair and fun :D

Good discussion here.

[Wildeybeast]

And I have to disagree with you, I feel that Fantasy is pretty balanced. There are some armies which suffered under 8th rule changes (I play WE so I know your pain), but I don't feel the one upmanship you get with 40k (SW, DE, GK) is so prevalent in fantasy. O&G, TK and OK have all been strong armies but none of them have been game changers and are in line with armies like Empire and HE in terms of competiveness. I actually think there is more balance in fantasy as the rules have been around longer and as such they have had longer to get them right (I don't think any of changes from 7th to 8th actually needed making). I also think there is still too much of the the power army builds in 40K, but I guess that is as much about the way people play as anything. There are certainly imbalances in both games and neither is perfect, I guess it depends on which bugs you more. I think we can both agree though that these imbalances are not due to accountants!

[Lord Azaghul]

I think we can both agree though that these imbalances are not due to accountants!

Fair enough!

I'd '+1' you for that, if 'like' was a forum option! :D

[TheBitzBarn]

7th Edition Fantasy was perfectly fine it was the VC and Daemom Army books that broke the game.

5th Edition 40 does suffer form army of the month but after a month or so everyone figures out a way around the power build. This issue is partial due the the Internet and Net List with in the competitive circuit. Remember Ork Nob Bikers and how fear they were no people say Orks are a Second tier army and the Leafblower. These are no so much due to bad but the players hell bent or winning at all cost.

Plus Dwarves can now charge in Fantasy never happened in 7th edition

[eldargal]

Add Dark Elves to the 'things thats broke 7th' list, but yes it was those three books not the ruleset or the other eleven that caused problems. Though the tendency for 7th to favour MSU was something I really hated all along. 8th is superbly balanced and the two 8th ed books show no sign of any tendency to unbalance things.

5th edition of 40k is balanced, except for C:IG and perhaps C:SW. Everyone likes to sneer at Ward but C:BA and GK are both extremely well balanced internally and in comparison to other books. In my own experience with Eldar and Dark Eldar it is mech IG and some SW builds I struggle with more than anything else.

As to the GW business plan, it changes all the damned time. Yes they are struggling to break into the American market as much as they would like to but this is a problem pretty much all British companies face when expanding into the former American colonies. GW are still larger than (nearly) all their competition put together, they are the only company to have a succesful retail chain ,which is responsible for their ubiquity.

It should be noted that GWs business plan upto 2005 DID fail, they had a 50% reduction in sales and were left with a bloated, inefficient business structure. They changed business plans, cut costs and boosted profits. So every time someone spouts the usual liquid excrement about some monolithic, failed GW business plan it just makes me laugh. Metaphorically. Usually I just think 'you twit' and go read something more interesting.:rolleyes:

[TheBitzBarn]

Well form know a region manager very well in GW the biggest issue they had was the complete drop off a cliff sales in LOTR once the Return of the King was released sales of LOTR went form 40% in some areas to a little as 3% in my area. They continued to predict VERY strong sales in the LOTR line and that failed miserably.

They have really broken in in the us as North America but they could be doing more. This shows in the rapid expansion of one man retail stores in the US.

[eldargal]

Yup, the main problem with the business plan was that it was too reliant on the LOTR bubble to mask inefficiencies in the corporation.

GW is doing well in the US, but not as well as they would like from what I've heard. Sales are around the same level as they are in the UK and given that the US has, what, nearly six times the population they would like them to be higher. That's why they sent Kirby over there last year.

[Lord Azaghul]

Just a few comments:

I agree, 7th ed rules we pretty solid, DE, VC, DoC however broke the game. That being said, aside from magic in 8th, most of the 8th ed changes are fun.
And Yes, dwarves charging is what made 8th fun for 3 months!

40K…well I play and love IG, have since 4th ed. I’ve got a ton of vehicles but I really love my platoons, unfortunately many of the books AFTER the IG release (DE, BA, GK, NIDs) really validate ‘meching up’ has a defense against so much of the anti infantry shenanigans in those books! If any thing GW made IG even better by releasing things like ‘the doom’ ‘pain points’ ‘psy-ammo’ and the general malaise of FNP that has come to permeate the game in late 5th ed.

Since I play IG, I don’t complain much, I love the vast amount of options, good options in that dex, its really where I feel ALL ‘dex’s should be.

And I final note: GK made me angry because I also have a SM army. SM made me sad because the rules/cost are so very inefficient for 5th ed game play, then GK came out…and all I could think of was how drastically uncool/unfair it was that the GK 'dex has a solid point cost and equipment per marine, and standard marines we all just trash by comparison…just because I bought the army has a hobby project doesn’t mean I don’t want to win!


EDIT: BTW, Necrons are the first army that sounds really fun to me since I picked up SM 2 years ago