And to conclude the sorry saga GW have now carried out Exterminatus and deleted their Facebook page.

They had over 1,000 negative comments on the IP thing, but could have been better off weathering the storm and letting it die down. Instead they've removed a free advertising channel with over 100,000 subscribers and made themselves look even more idiotic.

To be fair, I had a quick look at the Facebook page last week and thought that if I was in charge at GW, I would also order exterminatus!! The whole thing was just full of heretical negativity, not just the IP thread. The sort of advertising one can do without maybe...

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/

Deleting the FB page is a desperate measure for sure and displays either a fundamentally flawed grasp of the use of social media, or realization that the situation is utterly beyond repair. If I were in charge of GW's communication on social media I'd be very much in doubt about the best course of action too. Obviously the dissatisfaction and critique isn't just caused by the single IP incident, but the result of accumulated frustration with GW's business strategy and totalitarian approach to the hobby as a whole. The latest incident was really just the spark that set off the firestorm. Combine that with a poorly thought out PR strategy on social media in general, and it becomes extremely difficult to damage control. But again: simply deleting the channel for criticism will be seen as a display of arrogance and a lack of understanding for being on social media in the first place. You are there for the dialogue with your consumers. Otherwise you might as well use traditional advertising. But dialogue requires creativity, initiative and freedom on behalf of the people in charge of communications, which I suspect might be difficult in an organisation with such a history of neurotic control.

_________________
Sofa General

Nobody expects the Inquisition!!!
http://theepiclounge.wordpress.com/

It's like the official GW forums all over again you can't mess people about within a specialized hobby area so much and allow (broadly) publicly viewable feedback.

_________________
AFK with real life, still checking PMs

This will bite them in the butt, a sad day for GW that insist of making the same mistakes time and time again.

If I were part of GW senior management team, I would probably adopt the same strategy, with a few minor tweaks.

GW practically single-handedly create the market for tabletop wargames by their extensive and extremely expensive network of retail stores. It is simply not possible to be cheap and permissive whilst this is the case. It is not the 1980s, there are good quality competitors out there and, crucially, they are easy to find and purchase. That means the only thing that can keep people buying the product is to lock them in - defend IP, comtinually update models and rules. Do you think they would make more or less profit if they were to listen to what people want? I think it is quite clear, even after considering the better esteem they would be held in by their customers.

GW actually makes most of its profit on IP licensing, and hardly any margin in its models. It therefore has to be extremely careful with it. Not pursuing infringement opens them up to unfair trading allegations and would utterly destroy the business - "hey, you allowed so and so to produce a Game called Space Marine, but you charge us millions - that's illegal". However, GW are arguably overly conservative with what they purport to constitute infringement,which means they often engage in spurious enforcement action (e.g, marks they don't even own). They need not be so, and they could also make an effort to offer licensing terms for IP they have no intention of monetizing in the near term (e.g. Epic). For me, they are therefore losing good will. And unlike the wider strategy, IMO this loss of good will is not counterbalanced by any reduction in risk or maintaining sales.

Funnily enough though, this particular case isn't the best example of bullying enforcement action. IP law is complex, e.g. "Ork" is not the same as "space marine", and a general reference to marines in space is different to describing a model as a space marine. So the question is, if you saw a sci fi book called "space marine", would you be likely to think it might be made by GW? Personally, going by the title alone, I definitely would. The issue then becomes about whether a space marine is a protectable trademark (on the basis of whether it is simply descriptive). And that is certainly not clear.

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list

First and foremost, GW don't create the damn market for tabletop wargames. They've endured where others have faltered, certainly, but there have been competitors (easily accessible ones at that) for ages. This is especially the case in places without GW stores (which are admittedly more common outside the UK). Plus, many GW stores are shutting down their playing space, meaning they're not really creating a market at all.

Second, there's the question of whether GW's trademark on Space Marine is valid. There's a pretty solid case that it isn't, IMO. They have it, so they should defend it. But treating them with anything but contempt for trademarking terms that they didn't invent is ridiculous.

The major reason I'd think a book called Space Marine was by GW would be because I know they're gits who'd try to stomp anyone who did it who wasn't them. That's not really a recognition of the trademark.

_________________
The Apocrypha of Skaros 1.1
Rogue Trader Expedition 0.4
The Horus Heresy 0.5
Night Lords 0.1
My Trade Thread

You would. I would. Lots and lots of people would not.

_________________
Nitpicks Knapsack (Scratchbuilding and 3D designing and printing and painting)

More people would not as opposed to would. As large as GW is, it's a tiny tiny fish in the huge SciFi literature market.

I will also point out that GW claims trademark on Space Marine (though they actually didn't - can't be bothered to write all the details. If you're interested there's a great thread at Warseer) but attempted to use DCMA to have Amazon pull the book. Any legal aid knows TM != CR which is what makes me smile.



For clarification: Marketing approach? Lawyering approach? Social Media approach?

I couldn't really get behind any of the above.
A. they actually don't do any real marketing. I will admit that they're big enough that they're running on inertia however so fair enough.
B. this is but yet another example of the type of abuse copyright, trademarket, and patents were NOT intending
C. In this case they followed the Applebees self immolation plan, to hilariousness I might add.


Historically inaccurate. They popularized it, and to that I give much love to the company. However this growth was due largely in part due to the great customer service, company-customer interaction, and tremendous customer loyalty and goodwill they gathered from being an honestly great company. This is not the GW of today and I am sad to see it.


Yes which is why debacles like this are more important to avoid now.


Ahh the Microsoft Business plan (says an employee). Worked great for them in the end and they're still paying for that in public perception to this day. Apple has gone on to be the poster boy of this approach and we'll get to see them soar and crash the same in another decade.


It's a continuum and right now they're far to far to the asshat side of the spectrum which is hurting the bottom line. They simply need to ratchet this behavior back from 11.


Good insight Kirt. They are not a hobby company anymore. They are an IP company. I agree that you have to protect IP but when you specifically go out of your way (or appear to, to the whole world) to pick on a small independent ebook using a law not applicable using a term you actually don't have trademark on, you look like a dick, right or wrong.

For those in the hobby world, the anger and resentment and vitriol has less to do with this specific situation vs all coming to the surface from year of crap service, perceived price gouging, and general asshattery coupled with genuine outrage at what is, again perception, of specifically picking on parties to win by lawyering and not the law.

meh...

Time to move along...

_________________
He's a lawyer and a super-villian. That's like having a shark with a bazooka!

-I HAVE NO POINT
-Penal Legion-Fan list
-Help me make Whitescars not suck!

OK so maybe I exaggerate, but my feeling is that this is a bit naive - it's a question of proportion. I'd be happy to be proven wrong, but I imagine that GW's market share for first timers is in the 90%s. That is what I mean by creating the market - probably everyone on this forum has been around the block - we're not typical of the market. Walk into any GW store and you will see what I mean. I can only comment on what it's like in the UK of course, but I'm not aware of any competitor that has any significant number of retail stores in any country. I suppose it's possible that things have changed a bit but I am quite sure that, had GW not existed, literally nobody I ever knew in person who got into tabletop wargames as a child would have done so.

I agree that they are overly aggressive, bullies and take spurious enforcement action. As I explained, I don't think it's doing them any good, so if I were them I'd change it, but I'd still enforce the marks they -do- own.

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list

Agreed, as I said, it is questionable whether the mark is protectable, and they use all sorts of spurious bullying tactics all the time.

What I mean is that if I became CEO tomorrow and had the same constraints, I wouldn't change much about the foundation of the business. That is, an IP company (which is profitable) which generates its own fans (therefore value for its IP) via its gaming products without any need for much marketing. Perhaps I rambled a bit, but basically I would change mainly:
1. The way the IP is enforced. IMO their claims are far too wide. They have to enforce certain things that *might* be infringement for the avoidance of doubt, even when it damages their good will amongst their customers. But they go far above this and rely too heavily on the recipient not having any legal backup of their own to counter their spurious claims.
2. Social media. They just don't have the business model to make this work in the way they have done it.

I'm not so sure. The stores project exactly the same image and enthusiasm they always did, and they still have great customer service. People have always complained violently about the prices since as long as I remember. For whatever reason, they did and still do manage to create a walled garden where people generally are not willing to forgo their existing investments to switch to a competitor. And that is why when I say "create the market" I mean "get the kiddies hooked". And, just sayin', 11 year olds don't care about DMCA takedown notices.

Exactly. It's a very good business plan. And incidentally as a consumer and a software professional, I absolutely hate it whilst simultaneously craving the type of thing it allows them to sell (i.e. vertical integration). However I'm not so sure Microsoft would change their strategy if they got to do it again (they're doing quite fine actually) - sure it is damaging, but the payoffs are far larger. I'd say far more dangerous for them was when they stopped making good products. Apple's immense wealth is backed by exactly this lock in strategy, as you allude to - do you think anyone would last 5 minutes in the board room if they suggested to open up? I don't think we'll see an Apple crash as a result of public perception, it will be because the products aren't superior enough to the competition any more. Or maybe long overdue antitrust cases.

Agreed.

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list

The thing is that none of the other companies have retail stores. Comic book stores/gaming stores are inherently more diverse than GW stores, so people are more likely to try something else. OTOH, many are pretty terrible at selling things to people. It's a tough call, but without GW I think independent stores would fill some of the gap.

Figuring out what would have happened without GW is pretty tricky, since they've been around for quite a while. That said, there were a LOT of sci-fi wargaming rulesets out there in the eighties and early nineties, and I'm also pretty sure that D&D can lead to wargaming. So I don't think GW is as critical as you might expect.

My own first miniatures game was Battletech - the Mechwarrior computer games were rather helpful in that regard.

_________________
The Apocrypha of Skaros 1.1
Rogue Trader Expedition 0.4
The Horus Heresy 0.5
Night Lords 0.1
My Trade Thread

In the UK i think GW, or the people who later started GW were the first people to sell D&D here (bringing it from America). So D&D may have lead to fantasy wargaming, but the proto-GW were the first people to sell that in the UK as well. Gets a bit circular.

_________________
AFK with real life, still checking PMs

It might even be that Miniature wargaming predates D&D and GW both

_________________
Nitpicks Knapsack (Scratchbuilding and 3D designing and printing and painting)

yeah like 1913. Do check outHG Wells Little. Wars

_________________
He's a lawyer and a super-villian. That's like having a shark with a bazooka!

-I HAVE NO POINT
-Penal Legion-Fan list
-Help me make Whitescars not suck!