Unconfirmed: More Layoffs at WotC

[Wicht]

Perhaps you don't know what shortsighted and self-destructive mean?

Shortsighted means trading in long term good/gain for immediate profit/gratification.

Self Destructive means engaging in behavior that will eventually lead to ruin or loss.

Being able to point to an immediate benefit from an action does not negate the possibility that it is both short-sighted and destructive. It is impossible in the short term to say with certainty and accuracy that a particular behavior is not short-sighted as we cannot predict the future. It is easier though to point to certian things and conclude, based on prior experience, that there might eventually be problems. For instance, a man who insists on continually driving drunk might be able to say, truthfully, "I've never had an accident yet." But I would feel confident in saying that he will if he does not change his behavior.

Creating a hostile work environment can not have long term benefits and will eventually produce detrimental results, though they may not be immediatelly obvious. Profits may indeed be up and creative people may still work in such a place. But eventually, there will be that talent who decides they would rather have security than that moment of bliss and so will go elsewhere. You will have moments in which good people, who do work for you now, will decide its not worth it and leave. The full ramifications may be impossible to predict but one cannot help but feel that they will eventually, over the long term, manifest.

All that aside, I hope for the best for those people who are now seeking other work.

 

[Hadrian the Builder]

We don't know the sales numbers so we DON'T have facts on D&D's performance, so we can't conclude with certainly that this management policy has any effect, destructive or otherwise, on the brand. It's hard to analyze WotC's management decisions and conclude that their revolving door is entirely exploitve and "bad".

For one, probably everyone that works at WotC, and every prospective employee knows the company's reputation for anuual layoffs. And knowing gives you the power to prepare somewhat.

Second, working at WotC means putting "WotC, a subsidiary of Hasbro" on one's resume. That pedigree helps when looking for a new job.

Finally, I don't know about how good the pay and benefits are, but a primary benefit is that you get paid to play and create for the game you love. If you know that you're likely to be laid off eventually anyways, you enjoy it the best you can, for as long as you can, and plan an exit strategy.

If you really believe that Wizards is in a tailspin then buy from Paizo. When (IF) the time comes that Hasbro decides to unload the D&D brand due to poor perfomance, I bet Lisa Stevens has the smarts and the wherewithall to snap up the opportunity and take good care fo the brand.

Being laid off sucks, and I don't like the revolving door strategy, but if I could work at WotC for awhile I would, and the talent is lined up 9 deep to do the same.

 

[Desdichado]

They continue to exist. With smaller and smaller staff. Thats all we know. So its not (yet) suicidal, but it can be other things.

And given how long that environment has perpetuated, it doesn't seem like it's ever going to be suicidal either. Everything else is either speculation or knee-jerk emotional reaction. WotC continues to prosper with this strategy, so the claim that it's a disastrous one is easily disproved.

The claim that it's one you wouldn't want to work under, however... well, that's fair game. I wouldn't either. My condolences to those who've lost their jobs. It's tough. I work in an industry that just went through a lot of uncertainty, contraction, and job loss too, and although we seem to be coming back from the worst of it, I know it's a tough thing to endure.

But lets not let our empathy put us in a position where we're making claims that are easily demonstrably untrue.

 

[Lisandro]

It seems clear to me that WotC has a very well thought out plan for managing one of its most important brands.

1 - Lay off all the experienced, talented people who know the game intimately.
2- ...
3- Profits.

These news do not bear well for WotC or D&D especially, whatever denial state some people may be in. In any company, but more so in one that gets its money off creative people, experience and peace of mind regarding job security are invaluable assets.

 

[Dausuul]

And given how long that environment has perpetuated, it doesn't seem like it's ever going to be suicidal either. Everything else is either speculation or knee-jerk emotional reaction. WotC continues to prosper with this strategy, so the claim that it's a disastrous one is easily disproved.

Companies can stay in business in spite of bad management practices, especially if they have a near-monopoly in their market. That doesn't make the bad practices any less shortsighted or self-destructive, it just means the company has enough advantages elsewhere to offset the effects.

And I want to see their bottom line and year-over-year sales figures before I accept the statement that they are "prospering." Right now all we can say with certainty is that they haven't gone out of business, which is not at all the same thing. TSR was shooting itself in the foot every which way - bad management practices were the least of its problems - and it still hung on for quite a few years before it finally crashed and burned.

 

[Mark]

WotC continues to prosper with this strategy, so the claim that it's a disastrous one is easily disproved.

(. . .)

But lets not let our empathy put us in a position where we're making claims that are easily demonstrably untrue.

Please, demonstrate. As far as I have ever known, there is no data to prove nor disprove the prosperity of which you contend.

 

[Maggan]

1 - Lay off all the experienced, talented people who know the game intimately.

Not all.

whatever denial state some people may be in

I don't think it's denial, since not everyone at R&D have been laid off. I believe it is possible to run D&D with a small and focused core staff.

I believe that there is a potentially effective strategy to adopt for D&D, and that is to have a few in house editors and designers, who farms out all the heavy lifting to freelancers.

All the RPG companies I've worked for have done this, to varying degrees. D&D is not, IMO, dependant on WotC having a huge design staff. There are other ways of doing things.

It doesn't have to be "denial" for people to consider that other strategies than "gotta hire them all" could result in a successful D&D.

That said, good luck to those who were laid off!

/M

 

[Dausuul]

I don't think it's denial, since not everyone at R&D have been laid off. I believe it is possible to run D&D with a small and focused core staff.

I believe that there is a potentially effective strategy to adopt for D&D, and that is to have a few in house editors and designers, who farms out all the heavy lifting to freelancers.

Certainly that's a perfectly viable business model. But where do yearly layoffs come into this? In fact, where do layoffs at all come into it? If you want to hire people for two years and then fire them, hire them for a two-year contract and let them go at the end. It's not that complicated, and in fact I should imagine it's a great deal less paperwork than laying people off... you don't have to jump through all the hoops to make sure you aren't leaving yourself open to a lawsuit.

 

[MortonStromgal]

Layoffs are never good but it doesn't mean that WOTC is doing bad, just under performing. If your a 2 million dollar company and your projecting 80 million in earnings, people are going to get laid off because your not hitting that 80 million mark but that is what your hired staff to fill for. You still may have made 4 million dollars or more but you cant justify the staff for an 80 million dollar company. I've sat in some meetings where the CEO was crazy and the CFO was a yes man. It was a 60 million dollar company and they were projecting 90 million for the next year despite the declining economy (which several people pointed out was an insane number). When we ended at 72 million, we had layoffs... big surprise. I'm sure that after a few adjustments the projection and the actual will line up better and the staffing will become more steady.

 

[Jdvn1]

Please, demonstrate. As far as I have ever known, there is no data to prove nor disprove the prosperity of which you contend.

The argument is:
The strategy has stood the test of time. They've used it for many years (even during a major recession), and it it apparently working for them because they have survived. If it wasn't working for them, they would have changed their strategy (this is part of the concept of revealed preference).

While it's not necessarily a "proof" (proving such a thing is very difficult), given many data points it tends to be pretty reliable (many data points could be the same strategy for many years or many companies using the strategy). Of course, with the volatile nature of many industries, what works then may not work now, but there's probably more evidence that the strategy isn't suicidal than evidence that the strategy is suicidal.