layoffs?

[mlund]

It depends on what you mean by "have to."

If your RPG division expected to make $10,000,000 dollars this year, and it now looks like it's "only" going to make $8,000,000 dollars this year, does that mean you "have to" lay off people so your numbers are better?

If your company expected to make $100,000,000 dollars this year, but screwups with your digital initiative mean that you "only" made $95,000,000, does that mean you "have to" lay off people in other departments so your numbers are better?

To use a Hasbro example, if your overall revenue is down, and all divisions have negative revenue, and one division (say, Wizards) has positive revenue, does that mean you "have to" make 10% cuts across all divisions (including Wizards, your ONE profitable division), just so your numbers are better?

That really depends on the circumstances.

Hasbro is a publicly traded company. Somewhere on the order of hundreds of thousands to millions of people (thanks to Mutual Funds) have some fractional stake in the company - from individual investments to retirement accounts to educational savings vehicles. Everything Hasbro has on its books is the property of those people - not the management or the employees. Without those assets neither management nor labor can produce revenue. The company has an ethical obligation to put the interests of the shareholders ahead of the personal interests of both management and employees.

This means that you have to be a good steward of your cash flow, statements of net income, and share prices. If that missing $2,000,000 is going to cost your company its credit rating or mark the difference in return on investment between developing D&D and making toaster ovens then you'd better make the lay-offs to labor and management necessary to recover that $2M. Similarly, if recovering that $2M keeps you from a hostile board meeting this year but hurts the company's 5-year prospects you have to take your lumps now, not patch the issue just long enough to jump ship!

Violating the trust that thousands of people have put into your company - a trust that impacts their prospects for retirement, college for their children, and providing for their loved ones after they are deceased - is reprehensible when you misuse the funds for an over-seas junket and is likewise reprehensible when you misuse the funds to keep your friends and allies in employment past the time when the company could best employ their services.

- Marty Lund

 

[xechnao]

is likewise reprehensible when you misuse the funds to keep your friends and allies in employment past the time when the company could best employ their services.

- Marty Lund

Unfortunately this is the rule, not the exception.

Moreover you listed some things which sound reasonable but fail to consider the more general picture of a company's side effects to the overall economy. There are individual companies and there is the overall economy: one may in fact have chances to grow in expense of the other. But what it really matters in the long run in not the company but the overall economy.

 

[DaveMage]

The company has an ethical obligation to put the interests of the shareholders ahead of the personal interests of both management and employees.

That's too vague a statement - even with your claification.

Quality people can very much make the difference between profitibility and failure. If you can't attract a quality workforce due to poor labor relations, you're likely doomed to fail - or at least not realize the profit potential you otherwise could have made.

By slicing such a large chunk of good people, a company risks losing those they still have, as they too will see the "writing on the wall".

To use a potential example (and I have no idea if this is actually happening at WotC, but something similar could), if I'm Bruce Cordell (3E Psionics Guru), and I'm tasked with writing Psionics for 4E, and that book hasn't yet been completed, I have to wonder if upon its completion that I'm now suddenly "expendable". If so, I'm looking for a new job, like, NOW. Should Bruce leave before the book is significantly done, and someone takes over who screws it up, the book will be panned, sales will fall, and some of the "savings" that were realized with the job cuts is now lost.

Hopefully this isn't the case, but it wouldn't surprise me.

 

[occam]

There is some truth to this, but to subscribe to it fully ultimately leads to paralysis. Unless you can take your grievance directly to the persons responsible for the decision (and good luck even finding out who to contact, getting their contact information, and actually being heard), there is nothing you can do to hold the company responsible for decisions you consider unethical, immoral, or otherwise wrongheaded.

Boycotting a company for unethical or immoral behavior, or because they make shoddy products, or some other similar reason makes sense. I still don't buy from Exxon or Microsoft, for example. (Not that I have any illusions as to the effect of that, or the relative "goodness" of competing oil producers, for example.) But boycotting a company because they laid people off, with the intent that they will lose money and thus be forced to lay more people off... Wha??

 

[Mark]

Vaernon-

Not trying to be confronational, but curious; is this conjecture or based on economic data? My understanding matched Zil's, that low-cost entertainment like movies, games, etc. have lots of staying power in bad economic conditions because folks need the escape. High-ticket non-essentials like new cars, big televisions, etc. are unquestionably impacted-- you are right about that-- just not sure about the RPG market, since I would describe that in the former category.

I think that the comparisons of such are often overblown since any year someone purchases a new car they almost undoubtedly would be hardpressed to spend the same kind of money on movies, games and all forms of entertainment of that level combined. Whereas while some might continue to play games, certainly anyone with less money can also only spend less money, whether that be on games or movies or anything. The difference being that it is easier to see when people are not buying cars or televisions, and one could make the assertion that what little they spend is on smaller ticket items, but if people are not buying movies then one might still assert that they are buying small ticket items though in a different area. It is also harder to get hard numbers in industries where many companies are privately owned.

 

[billd91]

Boycotting a company for unethical or immoral behavior, or because they make shoddy products, or some other similar reason makes sense. I still don't buy from Exxon or Microsoft, for example. (Not that I have any illusions as to the effect of that, or the relative "goodness" of competing oil producers, for example.) But boycotting a company because they laid people off, with the intent that they will lose money and thus be forced to lay more people off... Wha??

Ethics, morality, and wrongheaded decisions are typically subjective, particularly when you consider that there are competing ethical and moral compasses for just about any situation.

Now, I might consider a major round of layoffs right before the holiday season (and taking away the laid-off employees' expectations of income from the company just when they are seeing a spike in their expenses) to be of questionable moral virtue. If that's true, wouldn't it make sense to boycott them for doing so?

 

[darjr]

David Noonan was the face of the D&D podcast and I think it was Johnathan Tweet who wrote the bonus tools, or was primarily responsible for their creation. Digital guys both.

bonus tools - Wizards Community

 

[HolyGrenadeFrenzy]

Well, after giving 4th Edition a go and definately gaining an opinion myself on the matter, I would have to say that 4e is not doing as well as the company planned.

The claims of,"It will never change!", does not bode well for the game either.

Most gamers I have seen seem to be highly disappointed to just straight out turned off and they continue to purchase 3.5 matterial and even produce more while ignoring the current product as anything more than a honey pot for the older versions.

Perhaps 5th edition will be drastically different in a more positive directio for WotC and Hasbro.....not to mention the rest of the D&D community.

Now, we can protect 4th edition or we can see its short comings and look at what was scratched that needs reinterated for a new edition but.....players will continue to just use the new system as a source book if they are unhappy with it.

You would think that a gaming company would be familar with this trend that players will use just about anything for the first couple steps of the creative process and then reinterate what works for them without permission and without doubt when it suits them.

White Wolf has been learning about this too, over the past couple years, with the effects their new systems had on their consumer market.

Getting a few new people to buy your game because of the streamlining to be like WoW only works until you see the drop in purchasing power that you get when your core and old timers give you precious little until you improve your mistakes.

Sure, I will collect the current line but.....not each of my players will and they are GMs, DMs and Storytellers all.

Understanding this is hugely important in a Role Playing Game Company.

Only lifers really see it for what it is....although they don't completely agree on everything, they do agree on many things.

Col_Playdoh was right about a skill based system, in my opinion, and the 3.5 was doing quite well to lean in that direction. The problem isn't that the current edition is not tight enough but instead a little too tight where it should be less rigid. I mean some of the methods could be done by different means and going for a video gaming mechanic type system just offends many players.

Myself, using many, many systems over the years do not believe any system is completely superior and each has its benefits and weaknesses yet....a solid RPG system should have an adaptive system envelope inherently core to any system so you can alter and upgrade to something better.

In other words, I may use a steel trap from time to time but I do not want to limit my gaming expereince to things that many concider akin to a steel trap. More options yet a comprehensive system is a tall order sometimes, I realize.

Short cutting things is often not the answer that gamers want or need for example. Now I know that many call this nerfing or dumbing down but in essence it just looks like a short cut that didn't work out too well.

Personally, I believe that everyone can learn and benefit much from the current edition, regardless of what system you use. I just hope that 5th edition is much improved for us.

 

[Mokona]

Violating the trust that thousands of people have put into your company - a trust that impacts their prospects for retirement, college for their children, and providing for their loved ones after they are deceased - is reprehensible when you misuse the funds...to keep your friends and allies in employment past the time when the company could best employ their services.

Very well said.

In fact, cowardly management that refuses to adjust their workforce is stealing money from little old ladies in order to protect their image from angry fans.

Instead of letting people go one at a time it appears that Wizards of the Coast clings to employees until the last second and then makes big cuts all at once. I daresay that Wizards of the Coast management could do things differently but they haven't and tend to have layoffs at the end of the fiscal year (December).

If losing Dave Noonan instead of cutting a vice president is worse for the long run profit of the company then that is also stealing from little old ladies who own shares in Hasbro. If foolish management leads to lower value of the company because fans are peeved at layoffs then that is also misuse of shareholder interests.

 

[occam]

Now, I might consider a major round of layoffs right before the holiday season (and taking away the laid-off employees' expectations of income from the company just when they are seeing a spike in their expenses) to be of questionable moral virtue. If that's true, wouldn't it make sense to boycott them for doing so?

Not if your goal is to pressure the company into preventing further layoffs.