mertaal wrote:
There's a school of thought that the increased prices are in response to the fall in sales- an attempt to maintain the same profit margin at a lower sales volume.
I think you're right that this
is their mindset but unfortunately I don't know that it can realistically work with what are generally accepted to be luxury goods.
(This isn't bashing GW, simply shedding light on why that particular move probably isn't the most appropriate given the product.)
One thing to always consider about a good when determining its price is its elasticity (how one economic variable affects another i.e., how a rise in price may/will affect a rise in sales). Some companies have the advantage of being able to sell products with little-to-no or low elasticity (low elasticity simply meaning that a change in one variable won't affect another).
To contrast the difference between low and high elasticity, let me share a lil' story. Two years ago, the company that supplies my electricity
doubled the cost of my energy. I received a note with June's bill telling me that July's bill would realistically double unless I started to live more rustically. I wasn't a happy man. Nevertheless, I grinned and bore it because they have a monopoly in this area and I (to some degree) need my electricity.
To come back to miniatures (or luxury goods, as mertaal and aelfwine aptly called them), it's hard to significantly raise prices without cutting out huge pieces of your consumer pie. In the above example, I continued to give money to the electric company because to some degree, I "needed" their product. Most people wouldn't necessarily use the word "need" when it comes to 20 or 25mm models, respectively. We might all "like" or even "love" them; but will we die of hunger or freeze to death without them?
I honestly don't hate GW. I still have too many fond memories in their stores to really bear them any ill will. It just seems like, as a student of economics, that the current solution for revenue loss can only really work for a company selling water in the desert; not a company that is selling luxury goods.
My girlfriend works with Pandora jewelry's advertising leadership and they often struggled with the following, that aelfwine brought up:
aelfwine wrote:
Other companies in GW's specific situation might say: we have noticed our brand has become an elite luxury brand, with high brand value and profitability in key ABC demographics, but we are losing sales in lower income demographics, thus we will make a cheaper range. But GW cannot do that either.
If anyone is familiar with Pandora, they are the hobby jewelry brand that allow you to customize bracelets with decorative charms that you pick out. When they found that their jewelry came with too high an initial price tag for many people, they started giving away the bracelets themselves free with purchases of 3 or more charms. Despite a slightly less profitable initial transaction, their overall sale of charms skyrocketed (more than compensating for lost bracelet sales) as people began to trickle in to buy more and more accessories over time. It may not relate 1:1, but I think it's an interesting, similar example of the merits of getting people to the table rather than terrifying them with the initial costs of participation.