WotC Greg Tito On Leaving WotC: 'It feels good to do something that doesn't just line the pockets of *****'

We reported earlier that WotC's communications director Greg Tito had left his 9-year stint managing the Dungeons & Dragons brand for a political appointment as Deputy Director of External Affairs for the Washington secretary of state's office.

Greg Tito Leaves Wizards of the Coast

Greg Tito, formerly the communications manager in charge of overseeing messaging for the Dungeons & Dragons brand, is departing Wizards of the Coast for a career in the public sector. Tito announced that he would be joining the Washington secretary of state's office starting this week, ending an...

www.enworld.org

In a surprising turn of events, Tito criticized his former employers, saying "It feels good to do something that doesn't just line the pockets of a**holes." He later went on to clarify "Sorry. I meant "shareholders".

Tito is now Deputy Director of External Affairs for the Washington Secretary of State office in Olympia, WA.

 

[MacDhomnuill]

There must be a culture barrier in this thread, because as a Canadian I truly don’t understand some of the offense taken by some here. He insulted shareholders, obviously meaning rich people not the small-peas average person. Is insulting the owner class too taboo for some Americans? Is the A-word too offensive to American sensibilities? Is daring to dislike a former employer’s practices a bridge too far?

Or maybe it’s simpler than that: some of the folks offended here by Tito’s tweet about WotC/Hasbro are the same folks offended whenever anyone else disparages WotC/Hasbro. That can’t be a coincidence…

They’re never gonna love you back, dudes. Swallow that pill, you’ll be happier for it in the long run.

Some Americans don't just enjoy the oppression brought on by the filthy rich they revel in it.

 

[billd91]

Bad publicity in a small town like I am in, can kill a small business. Too much risk in that it can literally ruin my livelihood. Put my family on the street.

People often forget how fragile small businesses are. How I do it out of love for it, because I could make much more working for a big company, while being more secure as well. So as a small business owner I am very risk adverse. I am not opposed to 80 work weeks if it takes a while to find a good employee.

Often people just assume it's greed, or any number of things. But for small businesses it's just survival, as the current situation is quite hostile to us.

I think that is very important context for what I said.

EDIT: For context, a 10% drop in sales from bad publicity, and my business fails. It's gone within a year.

I guess the follow up question is why would that business have bad publicity? Is it possible said hypothetical business might deserve the bad publicity? Undeserved bad publicity may be unfortunate, but deserved bad publicity is justice and suppressing that bad publicity means that justice is suppressed.
My bottom line: WotC pretty much deserves its criticism by departing employees. Criticizing those employees is misplaced. Outright saying they should be red flagged (or, ultimately, black balled) by prospective employers is outrageous.

 

[Azzy]

Some Americans don't just enjoy the oppression brought on by the filthy rich they revel in it.

Sad, but true.

 

[DinoInDisguise]

I guess the follow up question is why would that business have bad publicity? Is it possible said hypothetical business might deserve the bad publicity? Undeserved bad publicity may be unfortunate, but deserved bad publicity is justice and suppressing that bad publicity means that justice is suppressed.
My bottom line: WotC pretty much deserves its criticism by departing employees. Criticizing those employees is misplaced. Outright saying they should be red flagged (or, ultimately, black balled) by prospective employers is outrageous.

Believe it or not, disgruntled employees can stretch the truth, or even lie. If they see their dismissal as not fair - and they never do see it as fair - they very well could just make it up.

The past owners of this business had just that. Where an employee was fired for stealing. Police report and everything. But that employee told their friends a very different story. Another employee was caught consuming alcohol while on the job. That employee gave a very different story - in spite of camera footage.

There is two sides of every story. Small businesses, largely, just can't ever be on that bad side. So I just avoid any chance that it would happen.

I want to reiterated. I'm speaking from the perspective of a small business owner. One with fewer than 5 employees. Hasbro is not nearly as vulnerable to such things.

 

[LordEntrails]

The employer I was quoting stated he treats them with "Flexibility and Employee Friendliness" when the hiring market is slim and changes it to more rules and control when the he has the leverage of more potential employees.

That he's got the ability to run his company in a way that is employee-friendly and flexible, but chooses not to.

I suggest you go back and re-read that "employers" statement. Pretty sure it does not say what you think it says.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding even after re-reading the posts, but pretty sure they are not the employer, they are talking about the behavior of the company they work for.

 

[DarkCrisis]

Won’t someone think of the feelings of the corporate overlords? Corporations are people too!

 

[Oofta]

Oh, no. I don't claim he said something he didn't.

I claim there's a reasonable assertion of his motivation based on recent events. That one can divine his reasons by using context, rather than taking his words to mean "I don't want my job to be working for a corporation selling stuff."

Which is -also- something he didn't say.

You literally stated

...
Dude was treated badly and spoke up about it. People who refuse to hire people because they're scared they'd speak up about the bad treatment tells me their employees are treated badly and just haven't spoken up.
...

If you can provide a link to where he stated that he was treated badly feel free to provide a link.

 

[Steampunkette]

I suggest you go back and re-read that "employers" statement. Pretty sure it does not say what you think it says.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding even after re-reading the posts, but pretty sure they are not the employer, they are talking about the behavior of the company they work for.

Maybe. I might have misread his intention when he stated "My organization".

You literally stated

If you can provide a link to where he stated that he was treated badly feel free to provide a link.

-I- asserted he was treated badly based on the context we all know and I also provided and referenced. I did not say "He said he was treated badly"

 

[Oofta]

Maybe. I might have misread his intention when he stated "My organization".

-I- asserted he was treated badly based on the context we all know and I also provided and referenced. I did not say "He said he was treated badly"

You are making an assumption based on nothing more than what appears to be your bias and stated it as fact.

Companies lay off people for a lot of reasons. My father ran a small business of 6 people and had to lay off someone. He didn't treat his employee badly, in my father's case it was because the job had become obsolete. There is no evidence that Tito was treated poorly.

 

[Rabulias]

Large shareholders absolutely get heard. Additionally, mega shareholders such as Blackrock, Morgan Stanley, and others often get seats on the board which allow them to directly influence business decisions.

Yes, large shareholders as you mention get reps on boards, but I would still say I doubt executive boards weighed in on the initial decision making we have seen from WotC. That level of micromanaging would be silly. Do you really think the OGL plan was an agenda item on a board-level meeting?

I would imagine that the spike in D&D Beyond subscription cancellations maybe -- maybe -- brought the matter to the board's attention, and they may have mandated WotC staff to fix it, but I highly doubt the board made the decision to put the SRD into Creative Commons.

Maximizing shareholder value has come at the expense of long term stability, investment, and future profits. Many companies now poor their margins into buybacks etc that boost short term gains. They have also used loans to fuel spending to boost short term shareholder profits at the expense of their credit rating.

I will agree that many boards take a decidedly short-term view to profits, and I agree this behavior is bad for many reasons. But most executive boards set "big picture goals" and rarely get into the details. One could argue that the boards are indirectly responsible for "boneheaded decisions" by making maximum profit their priority, but it is a very broad brush to paint all shareholders as the ones making those decisions. There are many companies driven by maximizing their profit that do not tick off their fans and customers.