Unconfirmed: More Layoffs at WotC

[Fifth Element]

Bean-counters count beans. They don't count soft-assets. They attribute values to those things at year end for tax purposes. But they don't count them - and they certainly don't plan to manage or grow those assets with the short term hiring policy that you describe.

Speaking as a professional bean-counter, while it's true that you can't count intangible assets, they are considered when making business decisions. Or at least, they should be. (Though you certainly don't worry about them for tax purposes, the only intangible assets that affect your taxes are the ones you pay cash money for).

But that doesn't mean that those values aren't real and that they don't matter. It just means they are very hard to count and harder still to manage.

Indeed, they are impossible to count and very difficult to estimate a value for. And management of them can be very difficult. It's easy to play armchair CEO and dismiss certain corporate decisions as being short-sighted or misguided, but it's typically more complicated than it seems.

 

[Dausuul]

If you are correct, then the December lay-offs looked good on paper, but the bean counters are now seeing less net beans as the true and tangible impact comes along.

I really doubt that is the case.

It's not "less net beans," period. It's "less net beans than the business would have made if it didn't engage in such practices." And it's an exceptional bean-counter indeed who can reckon up that sort of hypothetical bean with any degree of certainty.

Measuring the financial impact of a single well-defined business initiative is bloody tough. I know, I've helped do it. Measuring the impact of "fuzzy stuff" like morale and experience lost due to layoffs... it's virtually impossible for a single business, which is why we have studies across large numbers of companies. And the results of those studies indicate layoffs are typically bad for the company in the long run. A couple of articles on the subject:

Lay Off the Layoffs
The Real Cost of Layoffs, Cost Controls Article - Inc. Article

Now, maybe WotC is the rare example where layoffs are beneficial (for the company, not the laid-off employee). However, the odds are against it. Just like 90% of drivers think they're better than the median... any given person who thinks that might be right, some of them will be right, but the majority are wrong.

 

[JohnRTroy]

The big problem I see is WoTC making short term decisions over long term ones. This is based on several things they did.

They sell off GenCon, then realize they want a Con, so they make Winter Fantasy the official one for D&D.

They spin off Dragon and Dungeon licensed to Paizo, then they revoke the licenses for that.

They create the OGL, then revoke it, and before that change strategies (licensing out stuff like monster IP for Tome of Horrors and stuff like campaign settings, then reversing their stances).

I see them making a lot of short term decisions that appear to be biting them in the rear. And while I can see layoffs as a possibility to keep profit flowing, I think a constant rotation of creative types will not be good for the company long term.

 

[Desdichado]

How many still work for WotC? Have they successfulled themselves right out of a job? Business is always looking good and the future is always looking great and then suddenly you're looking for work. It's a successfuling shame, if you ask me, though I like the new definition of successful we've developed.

You're being ridiculous. If you're going to ask me to "prove" my statement that D&D appears to be successful, then I'm going to also insist that you establish any kind of causal link for these wild ass assertions that you're making.

And, really? You're going with the "tinfoil hat" trope as a way to counter the argument that seeing layoffs is a sign that not all is well? Brilliant. You've successfulled yourself pretty good there.

You don't think "WotC is lying about how successful D&D is" is tinfoil hat territory?

I have no words.

 

[Desdichado]

That was unbelievably tacky. If I could give you negative XP, I would.

Another human's well-being is more important than your opinion about a game.
-blarg

Uh... excuse me, but didn't we establish a long time ago that Andy Collins voluntarily left WotC?

 

[Desdichado]

Sometimes businesses can thrive despite management seeming to do everything they possibly can to screw things up. I'm not saying that is the case here, but sometimes the market can be so good that even incompetent management can be overcome.

While I don't disagree with that on general principle, I think it's a bit (a lot, really) more of a hard sell to suggest that now is one of those times.

 

[Herschel]

The intarwebs: Boosting tin foil sales for two decades and running.

 

[ruemere]

In reply to Mark Hobo wrote:

[...]
You don't think "WotC is lying about how successful D&D is" is tinfoil hat territory?

I have no words.

Term "lying" might be to strong to use here, however "avoiding factual statements" appears to be appropriate.
It's a common practice and form of brand protection, since being viewed as unsuccessful could damage sales.

Hence use of "tinfoil hat" is not appropriate here.

Regards,
Ruemere

 

[Dausuul]

You don't think "WotC is lying about how successful D&D is" is tinfoil hat territory?

I have no words.

Oh really? Find me a company that admits to having a bad business strategy in place. Regardless of what executives are saying to each other in the privacy of the conference room, regardless of what shows up on the internal profit-and-loss analysis, the company's going to put on its best face for public consumption. You think they want their stock to tank?

I don't think WotC is lying, per se, though the possibility is not nearly as far-fetched as you seem to believe--hello, Enron? I do think they're putting a carefully positive spin on the product line regardless of its actual success or failure, because that's what you do as a company. It's SOP. I'd be shocked to find a company that didn't do it. All the children are above average, and every product line is doing well and going big places until the day it's canceled. Only after cancellation will the company admit, "Yeah, this line wasn't doing so hot."

Unless you can find me a place where they give specific numbers on how well they're doing, I'm not going to accept the assertion that D&D is just fine and the outlook is rosy, based purely on the company's public statements of confidence and optimism. (I'm not asserting that D&D is not fine, by the way, just that we have no way of knowing and vague "We're excited about the future of D&D!" statements are evidence for exactly nothing.)

 

[Dausuul]

<deleted, double post>