Unconfirmed: More Layoffs at WotC

[Belen]

Andy Collins is gone. I cannot say that makes me unhappy. I thought he was really poor at design with a narrow vision of D&D that he pushed on everyone else.

See my warning below. ~ PCat

 

[I'm A Banana]

Since I'm not one of those tinfoil hat conspiracy types who's going to claim that WotC has been lying to us about the success of D&D, I'll take those comments at face value.

No company has ever come out and said "One of our flagship products, that we have poured millions of dollars into, over years, and remain dedicated to for the next few years at least, isn't doing as well as we would have hoped, and it is entirely our fault."

Even if such a thing were true, it would be couched in "market conditions" and "exciting new directions" and "external factors" and "perfect storms." You don't say a central product is failing. Even if it is. You probably don't even believe it. Even if it is.

But even if it is, this entire side-convo is a red herring. You don't have to not be successful to think that laying off some staff is a good idea. Heck, you can be at the top of everything, entirely in the black, the most profitable you've ever been, and still think that firing people is a grand idea to squeeze another few dollars out of the rock. Cutting staff is a time-honored tradition for it.

I imagine D&D is still very successful, but that's essentially a subjective call based on what I would (reasonably) define "success" to be. It's entirely possible that Greg Leeds or Hasbro brass have a different definition.

And it doesn't really have any bearing one way or another on hiring or firing. Any statements about the current health of the game based on HR practices are, at the very least, misinformed.

And on the other note, I would broadly agree that a job whose corporate culture seems so...tense...would not be a job that I could perform well at. I think Steel Wind overstates it a bit, but he's got the the right idea. The idea that labor is expendable is something that worked well in the Industrial era, when anyone can pull a switch, but not so well now that your creative staff is your core provider of things you actually sell.

Not that D&D hasn't been taking steps away from that since before 4e (Minis: make 'em once, sell 'em forever).

 

[Jdvn1]

Collectively. They hope that their properties outperform their previous mark collectively.

Do you not understand that is what I posted as the following?

"Collectively" doesn't make you right. Previous has nothing to do with turning a profit. Hope has nothing to do with turning a profit. Companies want profit to be greater than zero at all time periods, regardless of other periods, and they consciously plan for it when possible.

You posted that WotC hopes their properties to outperform their previous marks. I'm saying the property (D&D, WotC's property) plans to make a profit. If you agree that D&D is making a profit, let us move on.

Can't seem to find where you claim I posted that, please link to it for me.
...
Never posted either that I can find, please link to it for me.

My apologizes, I got your post and someone else's confused. Being a 'moron', I think, is moot anyways. I never said anyone was a moron, you characterized my statement as that.

But either the policy is causing the D&D brand to lose money or it's not causing the D&D brand to lose money. In the long run, losing money equates to going under/is self-destructive/is suicidal (in a business sense).

Also, aside from being mis-characterized as claiming that Hasbro is staffed as morons, I see you mis-characterized my argument in your first reply to me, in which you said that

the claim seems to be that D&D is fine because WotC exists

Which isn't the claim.

It doesn't seem to be necessarily supported and might even be untrue if you consider that the regular layoffs in the D&D departments of WotC suggest otherwise (i.e. dissatisfaction).

They are a way of making your workforce constantly nervous and less than productive as they divide their time between working and keeping abreast of other employment opportunties. That's not stability.

You may not like their employment practices, but regular, scheduled layoffs is a stable way of maintaining a workforce. Firing randomly, on the other hand, isn't. It's not a way of maintaining stable nerves in a workforce. Which makes for more productive employees is a different issue--either way, if you have evidence that the workforce is spending time keeping abreast of other employment opportunities, please let us know. I've only heard that WotC employees are generally happy with their jobs, despite being aware of the employment practices.

What negative aspects have been mentioned during the quarterly reports? You're citing non-mentions as evidence of averageness and thus success?

The evidence to support that there are layoffs in the D&D departments is the layoffs in the D&D departments. There is no evidenced to support that there are as many (any?) layoffs in other areas. If there are, please show them.

You're citing non-mentions of firings as other WotC brands as evidence that they're not firing and thus stability? Non-mentions as status-quo makes sense anyways, if you've ever watched or read or heard any kind of news (and, certainly also in financial news).

 

[Elton Robb]

One question:
How many layoffs do they need to do until they overwork the staff? The RPG Dept. is one that can use as many creatives as possible in order to churn out product. If there is one guy left on staff of the RPG Dept, then that would be bad for WotC.

 

[Jdvn1]

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.

As has been mentioned, success and size of workforce are not necessarily correlated. Computers caused a lot of people to lose jobs, but businesses did well. Just because you successfulmake a point doesn't mean it has any bearing on reality. I've seen plenty of companies say the future doesn't look great while talking to new hires.

 

[mudbunny]

You may not like their employment practices, but regular, scheduled layoffs is a stable way of maintaining a workforce. Firing randomly, on the other hand, isn't. It's not a way of maintaining stable nerves in a workforce. Which makes for more productive employees is a different issue--either way, if you have evidence that the workforce is spending time keeping abreast of other employment opportunities, please let us know. I've only heard that WotC employees are generally happy with their jobs, despite being aware of the employment practices.

I submit that anyone taking a position at WotC is well aware of the regularity of layoffs.

 

[Mark]

Companies want profit to be greater than zero at all time periods (. . .)

That's the essence of what I posted.

My apologizes, I got your post and someone else's confused.

Apology accepted.

You may not like their employment practices, but regular, scheduled layoffs is a stable way of maintaining a workforce.

You may like the practices, I do not, nor do I agree that "regular, scheduled layoffs is a stable way of maintaining a workforce."

(. . .) if you have evidence that the workforce is spending time keeping abreast of other employment opportunities, please let us know.

I've already stated that I don't believe they are morons. I think that's evidence enough that anyone working in a corporation that thinks "regular, scheduled layoffs is a stable way of maintaining a workforce" ought to be keeping one eye on other employment opportunities.

I've only heard that WotC employees are generally happy with their jobs, despite being aware of the employment practices.

I've only thus far seen one post that glowingly referred to being laidoff as a happy circumstance.

You're citing non-mentions of firings as other WotC brands as evidence that they're not firing and thus stability? Non-mentions as status-quo makes sense anyways, if you've ever watched or read or heard any kind of news (and, certainly also in financial news).

Now you wish to maintain that the non-mentioning of non-firings in other sections of the company is evidence of stability? You have a truly dizzying intellect.

 

[DaveMage]

One question:
How many layoffs do they need to do until they overwork the staff? The RPG Dept. is one that can use as many creatives as possible in order to churn out product. If there is one guy left on staff of the RPG Dept, then that would be bad for WotC.

No, they have freelancers.

 

[mudbunny]

I've only thus far seen one post that glowingly referred to being laidoff as a happy circumstance.

People saying that they are happy with their jobs, even whilst aware of the possibility of getting laid off is not the same as being happy to be laid off, and it is rather disingenuous to suggest that Jdvn1 was suggesting that was the case.

 

[blargney the second]

*mean stuff*

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