WotC Is Mike Mearls still in WotC?

[Fifth Element]

there was no grand consparicy, they just got older and left and those that came in were younger.

The problem is that the age of the hosts of a Youtube show is being presented as evidence that there is an active goal of making the D&D design team younger, just to make it younger.

 

[AnotherGuy]

The problem is that the age of the hosts of a Youtube show is being presented as evidence that there is an active goal of making the D&D design team younger, just to make it younger.

Bold emphasis mine.
I'm not arguing that is the case or not.
But if they were going the younger route it would likely be that it also serves as a cost cutting exercise.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

The problem is that the age of the hosts of a Youtube show is being presented as evidence that there is an active goal of making the D&D design team younger, just to make it younger.

yeah and I don't get that at all

 

[bedir than]

Per his LinkedIn he's working on MtG game design

 

[Fifth Element]

But if they were going the younger route it would likely be that it also serves as a cost cutting exercise.

Sure, but the "if" is the operative word there. Finding reasons to explain why something might be happening is speculation if the thing you're explaining isn't actually happening.

 

[Maxperson]

Well, it was WoTC intention to replace him and other older folks with younger ones. (Just look at D&D Beyond)

So age discrimination. Hope they sue.

 

[Maxperson]

It makes good business sense.

Violating the law and getting their rears sued for huge amounts of money makes good business sense?

If they are trying to appeal to a younger audience, then having host that that younger audience can relate to, increases the appeal of the game/community to that younger audience.

You aren't allowed to do that.

 

[Composer99]

So we're going from "what is Mike Mearls doing?" to "WotC is shoving old folks out the metaphorical door so the young'uns can be the face of the brand!"...?

 

[beancounter]

Violating the law and getting their rears sued for huge amounts of money makes good business sense?

You aren't allowed to do that.

Companies (no, I'm not singling out WoTC), can get very crafty in how they push out older workers. They navigate legal pifalls and word things just so, making it difficult to pin it down and prove discrimination.

11 Sneaky Ways Companies Get Rid Of Older Workers

Companies looking to ditch older workers can be creative about how they try to avoid age discrimination claims. An employment lawyer describes some of their nastiest ploys.

www.forbes.com

 

[Ruin Explorer]

You aren't allowed to do that.

I mean, in practice you totally are, though, with brand leaders and the like, because it's very easy to express it in terms of qualifications and experience and further senior people who want careers, do not sue for age discrimination.

Suing for that a career-ender for a senior position. If they want you out, they'll get you out. If you're senior and you don't understand that, well, you're really proving their point.

Age discrimination laws aren't there to prevent changing the leadership of a brand to help it reach new markets. They're there to stop the 50-something person from getting fired because they're slightly slower on their feet than the 20-something person, or the like. In normal, non-executive roles, suing on this basis absolutely makes sense. At an executive level, especially in a brand leadership role? You might as well announce your retirement. Because at best you're going to get a payout and end up out anyway. And basically unhire-able.