Louise Sugden has gone Rogue

[Noserenda]

Yeah ive worked for and with GW over the years and known an awful lot of people at or previously at GW HQ and i get remarkably consistent stories about the culture, even as things change they stay the same after all. The main constant being people working their dream jobs clinging to that even as bits of it turn nightmarish. 

Not everyone ofc, at least one of the people i know up there has like 30 years with the company so obviously they are happy enough but even the most fanatically pro GW person i know who still works for them will share a few horror stories about corporate when we are just chatting alone.

(God its tough to not be too identifying in case things get skimmed up and used against them in a court of HR, which happens, or possibly happened as the one i know about was yeeears ago)

[Felix Antipodes]

GW trying to clamp down on ‘personalities’ who interface with the general public isn't new.  Their publications haven’t listed author names for decades, much to some peoples annoyance.  This is just more of the same company policy from what I see.

[WrathOfTheLion]

The hands isn't a bad format at all, but I think it's weird when inorganic. Many painting channels also do that, but they're usually longer form, so you don't just see a couple brushstrokes, then a cut. When it feels manufactured like that, it's a bit jarring as compared to just seeing someone work.

[Lexington]

21 minutes ago, Felix Antipodes said:

GW trying to clamp down on ‘personalities’ who interface with the general public isn't new.  Their publications haven’t listed author names for decades, much to some peoples annoyance.  This is just more of the same company policy from what I see.

I mean, it’s true that it’s not new (tho less than ‘decades’ - barely over a decade, if that, IIRC), but it’s also had some disastrous consequences. Remember how a few years back they flirted with taking author names out of novels for a while? Resulted in Dan Abnett taking a multi-year hiatus from GW, and a general talent bleed  from the Black Library that I don’t think one can reasonably say they’ve come close to recovering from.

 

Just because GW is implementing it over a long period doesn’t make it a good idea. Like, did Warhammer+ really need to be more bland and unappealing?

[MegaVolt87]

Old GW built itself on individual personalities, this really made the brand more personal and on our level. New GW will probably move to AI voiceovers and vtuber presenters in the not too distant future for video content. Its going to be trippy watching a vtuber interview a codex designer for instance. 

[Felix Antipodes]

Never claimed it was a good idea.  Confession time - I’m one of the ones who bitched about the removal of author credits from the codexes, etc.  I like to know who did what.

I’m surprised if it was less that a decade since they did it.  Seems ages ago, when the internet wanted to string up Matt Ward, which led to that decision.  Memory is a funny thing…

Was also unaware that they were considering removing author names amongst the many sins of that era.  No wonder Dan left and so many others went as well.  Don’t recall it actually happening though.  Did any get released that way?

[Lexington]

27 minutes ago, Felix Antipodes said:

Was also unaware that they were considering removing author names amongst the many sins of that era.  No wonder Dan left and so many others went as well.  Don’t recall it actually happening though.  Did any get released that way?

A few of the initial AoS novels, I think. Not many beyond that. Saw some ex-BL staff taking about it on Twitter once, it apparently more or less led to a mutiny from the author corps, and the idea was quickly canned.

[Felix Antipodes]

Not a surprise really.  One of the few sugar hits of being an author is seeing your name (or nom de plume) up in lights on the cover. 

[Antarius]

I've never actually seen any of her videos, but perhaps I should give her new channel a go.

I do wonder slightly how many ex-GW presenters the market can sustain. I mean, from all accounts she seems to be immensely talented so nothing against her and I certainly hope it works out for her. I personally like the idea of the whole hobby/painting dimension being somewhat separate from GW (I find that it gives the best results when it comes to creativity, tools and advice although I, like everyone else, loved Duncan), but the name/face recognition is obviously a huge asset when it comes to starting your own thing.

I just wonder if there's an inbuilt "audience ceiling" of how many people migrate from watching GW presenters to watching ex-GW presenters and how that affects the chances of new defectors.

Edited April 12, 2023 by Antarius

[Orange Knight]

In regards to Duncan, I never watched any of his content after he left GW.

 

I like Louise more - both as an individual and her painting style. On the topic of how many of these guys the market can sustain, that remains to be seen, and it depends on the content they do.

 

I really enjoyed Louise's video that briefly covered painting, lore and theory.

[Kastor Krieg]

26 minutes ago, Orange Knight said:

In regards to Duncan, I never watched any of his content after he left GW.

 

I like Louise more - both as an individual and her painting style. On the topic of how many of these guys the market can sustain, that remains to be seen, and it depends on the content they do.

 

I really enjoyed Louise's video that briefly covered painting, lore and theory.

Very much in the same boat. I'm aware of Duncan after he hit the road, but I was following Louise before she went to GW and I definitely will follow her now. I'm glad she's free to explore and build her brand.

[Xenith]

Interesting to see and definitely some issue that's making people leave, if not the sheer earning potential of running your own business after building a name. 

 

With a bad boss it might be a case of the grass is greener, as many, if not most organisations have at least one asshat in a middle management position, however they're working for themselves to presumably get around this. I'm in the same position. 

[lansalt]

I just saw her video about the Rainbow Warriors and it's great. If she can keep an steady output of quality content like that, she's going to be very sucessful. I really liked the mix of lore history, painting, and genuine manic pixie dream girl persona.

 

[Sea Creature]

Not excited about the Patreon pay wall.

[Gattopardo]

3 hours ago, Antarius said:

I've never actually seen any of her videos, but perhaps I should give her new channel a go.

I do wonder slightly how many ex-GW presenters the market can sustain. I mean, from all accounts she seems to be immensely talented so nothing against her and I certainly hope it works out for her. I personally like the idea of the whole hobby/painting dimension being somewhat separate from GW (I find that it gives the best results when it comes to creativity, tools and advice although I, like everyone else, loved Duncan), but the name/face recognition is obviously a huge asset when it comes to starting your own thing.

I just wonder if there's an inbuilt "audience ceiling" of how many people migrate from watching GW presenters to watching ex-GW presenters and how that affects the chances of new defectors.

The whole problem here is very interesting.

 

All the discussion about toxic workplaces and stuff is a bit misplaced in my view. It's not that it's impossible that there are some legitimate complaints - in fact, I'm sure there are. But here's the thing. These complaints and these types of problem are very common - indeed absolutely standard - for businesses in creative industries. GW should count their blessings that the only area where this is a serious problem for thrmy is their painting videos, as it would be much worse if it was also true for sculpting, games development, lore, etc. But even if the workplace culture for people who are the face of GW's hobby content was truly wonderful, lots of these people would still be leaving. The earning potential and creative freedom they can have running their own channels, Patreons, etc, is just so much greater than what GW can ever realistically give them that it's simply inevitable. Let's put it this way - someone like Richard Gray has no reason to ever go work for GW irrespective of their pay or conditions, and the same ultimately applies to the likes of Duncan Rhodes or Louise, who have similarly strong personal brands (although neither of them are as good as Richard, obviously!). 

 

You can see that GW are struggling with this. They give these people a platform and help them create their own personal brand and following - but once this has happened they can't realistically match the pay or freedom these people can have if they go independent, and they're struggling to work out how to handle that. It's a new experience for GW to have a subset of key employees who have legitimately strong bargaining power with them. That simply hasn't been the case in the past even for some of their most important creative talent. Having said that, it's obviously not the right response to try to hide the people who front their content, just focus on their hands, dub their voices and the like - because this is bad content that people don't want to see.

 

Ultimately I think they may have to come to some kind of agreement that's similar to how they deal with Black Library authors and reflects the bargaining power that the popular faces of their painting and hobby content will have.

 

Fortunately for GW I do think this is a limited problem as it's only people who do painting videos that can get this kind of following and earning potential really. And as Antarius says,  there clearly will be a limit to the amount of this type of content that there is a market for. Louise is very talented and has a very distinctive style and persona so she will do well, but the market here is very much not an unlimited one and while I'd expect the top people to do very well it will get increasingly hard to carve out a distinctive and profitable niche. So it may be that the problem is more of a temporary one for GW. We'll see ...

[Stitch5000]

19 hours ago, Kastor Krieg said:

Why do you insist they aren't? Do you?

Because I actually have. I've worked with GW staff in retail, I've worked with GW staff in IP management. I've also heard many stories from people at high places - both GW and Black Library. I've heard what Peachy and Duncan had to say, how not only they were treated, but people around them.

How they are not bashing the entire organization and all people in GW HQ - how they say there are tons of inspired hobbyists, authors, artists. And yet, there is a toxic culture, micromanagement, disparagement of achievements, lack of recognition, wages are actually poor and budgets are tiny or non-existent. Just listen to the vids linked above and to the stories how the processes around photography were handled. How the artists were treated in Eavy Metal.

People don't quit companies. People quit bosses. And some of the bosses at GW are what Peachy and Dunc and others say they are - juvenile, vindictive, toxic. That's enough to run people out of the door, even though they're stating that they're quitting their dream job.

I guess that's the fun thing eh? We don'typot really know where the other person is sitting... For all you know I could be Louise's former line manager or coworker,

When you say you "worked with GW Staff in Retail" and "you worked with GW Staff in IP management" I note your careful choice of words... You aren't actually saying that you worked for Games Workshop Group PLC. Is that intentional?

Anyway, that's kind of redundant.

It doesn't HAVE to be a toxic environment for people to want to leave. GW have no prerogative to facilitate any kind of establishment of personal branding and it;s pretty clear that there is money in doing so. The needs and requirements of a company are not always going to match up with the ambitions and desires of an individual and so they choose to move on. 

That's where it is... People don't just quit companies or bosses, they also just choose to move on. 

What I'm most interested in finding out though, is what people are really going to watch this new channel for. It;s pretty clear from the previous efforts that people are looking for some kind of "tell-all" expose from former GW stuff. It's a kind of self fulfilling prophecy though, you start your own channel and realise that people don't actuallu come to watch you paint and enjoy your own hobby and before long you have to dish some dirt (maybe embellished a little) to keep up with the morbid fascination of teh viewership. 

We've not yet seen the "Why I quit GW" video with the internal message of "I didn't get promoted as fast as I would have liked and the commute was a pain in the arse."

Edited April 12, 2023 by Stitch5000
typo

[Redcomet]

3 hours ago, Sea Creature said:

Not excited about the Patreon pay wall.

She has to pay her bills and you know eat

[appiah4]

2 hours ago, Stitch5000 said:

I guess that's the fun thing eh? We don'typot really know where the other person is sitting... For all you know I could be Louise's former line manager or coworker,

When you say you "worked with GW Staff in Retail" and "you worked with GW Staff in IP management" I note your careful choice of words... You aren't actually saying that you worked for Games Workshop Group PLC. Is that intentional?

Anyway, that's kind of redundant.

It doesn't HAVE to be a toxic environment for people to want to leave. GW have no prerogative to facilitate any kind of establishment of personal branding and it;s pretty clear that there is money in doing so. The needs and requirements of a company are not always going to match up with the ambitions and desires of an individual and so they choose to move on. 

That's where it is... People don't just quit companies or bosses, they also just choose to move on. 

What I'm most interested in finding out though, is what people are really going to watch this new channel for. It;s pretty clear from the previous efforts that people are looking for some kind of "tell-all" expose from former GW stuff. It's a kind of self fulfilling prophecy though, you start your own channel and realise that people don't actuallu come to watch you paint and enjoy your own hobby and before long you have to dish some dirt (maybe embellished a little) to keep up with the morbid fascination of teh viewership. 

We've not yet seen the "Why I quit GW" video with the internal message of "I didn't get promoted as fast as I would have liked and the commute was a pain in the arse."

When you say "GW has no perrogative to facilitate any kind of establishment of personal branding" I can only look at GW's WH+ efforts and laugh.  Please show me one single form of media entertainment that does not rely on personal branding.  You can not have media entertainment without celebrities.  GW just want to have their cake and eat it.  They are a greedy and obnoxious company.  Their entire marketing strategy is built on customer exploitation on many levels.

Edited April 12, 2023 by Tyriks
insult removed

[grailkeeper]

On 4/7/2023 at 8:17 PM, Redcomet said:

Besides her skills at mini painting, she is a skilled traditional artist and musician too.

 

It is definitely a win for us as a community. 
 

You can get her to paint a mini for you on her patreon, for a rather tidy sum however 

I didnt know she did music.

[Orange Knight]

I would love to have her paint a mini for me...

 

But unfortunately my money and savings have been eroded in the last year or so.... 

[darkhorse0607]

6 hours ago, Antarius said:

I've never actually seen any of her videos, but perhaps I should give her new channel a go.

I do wonder slightly how many ex-GW presenters the market can sustain. I mean, from all accounts she seems to be immensely talented so nothing against her and I certainly hope it works out for her. I personally like the idea of the whole hobby/painting dimension being somewhat separate from GW (I find that it gives the best results when it comes to creativity, tools and advice although I, like everyone else, loved Duncan), but the name/face recognition is obviously a huge asset when it comes to starting your own thing.

I just wonder if there's an inbuilt "audience ceiling" of how many people migrate from watching GW presenters to watching ex-GW presenters and how that affects the chances of new defectors.

 

 

I think there is a larger conversation to be had around this as well, not directly with the ex-GW market saturation, but with saturation in general by GW, and I can't help but wonder if that is going to help or hinder folks leaving.

 

IMO it'll boil down to their personalities and what they're bringing to the table like Louise, Duncan, or even Darren Lathem for those short months he had his channel up, but at the same time, you also can't seem to get away (at least in my experience on social media, or youtube) from the GW saturation. On big release weekends, Youtube is flooded with channels that all have gotten the releases for free and are hyping/painting the products. Then on IG, there are more and more of the "I am proud to be part of the team that was in the building when this AMAZING miniature was painted/created" posts, or some of the largest painting accounts are also on the NDA program, hyping products and showing them. Now clearly I'm into GW stuff and that's why the algorithms are showing me those posts, but it can be a lot.

 

Obviously not trying to be negative at all to the folks that have these accounts, or are in the program or anything like that, I just wonder how much more directly related GW stuff can fit into the sphere without folks start getting tired of it, and if that happens then will it ultimately hurt folks like Louise who are trying to get out on their own and start something.

 

Just shower thoughts really

[Stitch5000]

1 hour ago, appiah4 said:

 Please show me one single form of media entertainment that does not rely on personal branding.  You can not have media entertainment without celebrities. 

Literally any number of anonymous musicians disagree, cartoon artists etc... "Media entertainment" doesn't have to rely on forcing a human face onto screens. 

Miss me with your tirade about reedy obnoxious companies and customer exploitation...  YThere are enough threads about that. 
 

[sarabando]

12 hours ago, WrathOfTheLion said:

The hands isn't a bad format at all, but I think it's weird when inorganic. Many painting channels also do that, but they're usually longer form, so you don't just see a couple brushstrokes, then a cut. When it feels manufactured like that, it's a bit jarring as compared to just seeing someone work.

Its quite difficult to film AND paint in this manner those who can do it well have some of the most Tony stark in a cave style camera set ups ive ever seen :D Ive tried doing it for my YT channel and never got results that i was happy with. Also even recording in 1080p the amount of time you spend painting means just colossal files. 

[WrathOfTheLion]

36 minutes ago, sarabando said:

Its quite difficult to film AND paint in this manner those who can do it well have some of the most Tony stark in a cave style camera set ups ive ever seen :D Ive tried doing it for my YT channel and never got results that i was happy with. Also even recording in 1080p the amount of time you spend painting means just colossal files. 

Oh yeah, the folks doing it have a full rig with an overhead camera.

 

It works fine for those with the right setup and actually showing you as they paint. It's kind of a waste for the WHC ones where they don't actually do all that much of the painting on screen.

 

Not surprised it doesn't please them, has the negatives of not even showing their face, on top of not even being used effectively.

Edited April 12, 2023 by WrathOfTheLion
spelling

[Lexington]

37 minutes ago, Stitch5000 said:

Literally any number of anonymous musicians disagree, cartoon artists etc... "Media entertainment" doesn't have to rely on forcing a human face onto screens. 

These are, uh…not the media types I would mention when trying to make the case that creative media can operate without creating individual celebrities.

 

Like, yeah, there’s unnamed studio musicians, cartoonists that work under an original creator’s name for continuity and such, but there’s also Michael Jackson and Charles Schultz.

 

Hell, on the cartooning end, Bill Watterson’s active attempts to ward away celebrity just ended up with people treating him like some mash-up of holy shaman and cryptid.

 

Celebrities are gonna happen through creative work. It’s kind of inevitable.

Edited April 12, 2023 by Lexington