Unconfirmed: More Layoffs at WotC

[Dausuul]

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.

Nobody said it was suicidal, just stupid. And the claim was "prosperity," not "survival." It's entirely possible that the D&D side of Wizards has been hanging on by its fingernails for years. It could even be headed down a slow-motion slide to oblivion, the same way TSR was. We wouldn't know.

I second the person who was curious to know if the same crap happens on the M:tG side of the company. I see Mark Rosewater, the current "face" of M:tG design, has been with Wizards since 1995.

 

[Scribble]

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.

I think the issue is they don't really know what the timespan will be.

They know at some point there will only be room for x amount of money to be spent on x area of the company... But how to best decide to spend that money and exactly what amount that money will be isn't something you can answer from the get go.

So instead of hiring on with a definitive contract, they leave it open with the terminate at will clause.

Then later on down the road when you find out what X amount is, you get the horrible job of figuring out on whom to spend it.

Sux no matter what way you look at it sure, but it doesn't automatically mean it's "suicidal." And in a way, I'm sure the EEs already know their jobs aren't perfectly secure from the start.

I mean, after what? 9 years of the same strategy- Fool me once...

Too bad the game industry isn't big enough that the designers have the power to motivate the company, rather then the other way around.

 

[Jdvn1]

Nobody said it was suicidal, just stupid. And the claim was "prosperity," not "survival." It's entirely possible that the D&D side of Wizards has been hanging on by its fingernails for years. It could even be headed down a slow-motion slide to oblivion, the same way TSR was. We wouldn't know.

Sorry, "self-destructive." I'm not sure what the difference is, but the argument applies nonetheless if you replace "suicidal" with "self-destructive."

The likely case is prosperity, not survival, because since breaking even--exactly--for several years is pretty unlikely (and we've already acknowledged that losses are unlikely as well), so they've probably seen some profits. Whether or not that passes your definition of "prosperity," is kind of moot: once we establish they have made a profit, the cut-off for "prosperity" is subjective.

And, like I said earlier, if the strategy wasn't working for them (if they've been in a slow decline), they'd change their strategy. They haven't. The TSR analogy doesn't apply because a) it was a different company with different strategies, and b) they didn't stick to one such strategy for their lifespan anyways, they desperately tried a number of things to stay afloat. This isn't the case with WotC--they've been pretty consistent in their practices.

 

[tomBitonti]

This is getting to be quite a side discussion, but regular layoffs as a strategy provides a way to trim under-performing employees, and provides a clear statement to employees that they need to maintain a competitive edge.

That may be viewed as a downside, in that there tend to be pressures to "work as a part of a team". That is true, but one has to be careful to find a team that accurately recognizes contributions, and that doesn't create modes where a person ends up doing another person's work.

For a number of professions, for example, working in a stage production, or for a professional sports team, the idea of competition for scarce slots is hardly a surprise. What perhaps is the difference is that individual contribution is probably more recognizable. Plus, a sports team is probably a much more transparent environment, what with very visible public performances and coaches and trainers in abundance.

What is corrosive is mind games played by team members and managers, where personnel undercut each other, or mis-represent work done, or hide information, or evaluate performance on the basis of friendship or familial relationship, or on poorly quantifiable means. The corporate environment has quite a lot of hidden information.

Net: Competition for scarce slots is a usual way to operate. Also: A part of being a profession is understanding this, and learning both how to be competitive while also working within team and managed structures.

 

[Jdvn1]

This is getting to be quite a side discussion, but regular layoffs as a strategy provides a way to trim under-performing employees...

It can also be a way to get rid of high-salary employees, people at the top of their pay grades.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Why hasn't Hasbro tried to sell off Wizards to another company by now is beyond me, even I am aware that selling off underperforming subdivisions of their company isn't Hasbro's usual modus operandi.

Because it isn't the games themselves which are important... it's their brand names. So long as the names "Dungeons & Dragons" and "Magic: The Gathering" and "Pokemon" have any sort of resonance with the general public, there's no way Hasbro's ever going to just let them go. There will always be a way to make money off those brands in some sort of fashion at some point in the future... even if it's not the actual games themselves. Quite possibly the film industry, maybe eventually something else.

Transformers, G.I.Joe, Battleship, Monopoly, Candyland etc. etc... all properties that are being branched out to Hollywood. At some point the stink off the D&D movie will finally disappear and a new one could possibly be branded and released. Same with a M:tG film if they were so inclined.

I think we've learned from the comics industry that even if the hard copy sales have fallen by the wayside compared to their golden monetary age... there is still money to be milked by the brands. It's just a matter of finding the right method to do so. So I wouldn't get anyone's hopes up that the "Dungeons & Dragons" brand gets magically released back into the wild any time soon. The potential future earnings for the brand for Hasbro is too great to just dump it to some other small indy game company for a couple mil.

 

[Mark]

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.

Sadly, the claim seems to be that D&D is fine because WotC exists, while brands like MtG and Pokemon tend to have the actual reputation for being the breadwinners of WotC. In the absence of numbers showing the prosperity of the D&D brand specifically, and given that the target of regular WotC layoffs appear to mostly be from the D&D sections of the company, I often find the claims of D&D being in good shape post-Hasbro takeover to be suspect. Seems more like a property that Hasbro has hope will perform longterm because it had a 30+ year history when they picked up WotC. I don't think they've found the right medium for it yet but guess they are working toward it with their trends toward making it more MMOPRG-esque. When the virtual gametable is finally accomplished and the rules are revised to the point of being able to jump in and play D&D online at any time night or day for monthly fee, and move that game seamlessly between that virtual environment and the tabletop, then I think they'll be a lot closer to achieving the type of monthly and quarterly numbers they'd like to expect from the brand.

 

[Umbran]

In the absence of numbers showing the prosperity of the D&D brand specifically, and given that the target of regular WotC layoffs appear to mostly be from the D&D sections of the company, I often find the claims of D&D being in good shape post-Hasbro takeover to be suspect.

Okay, it is a long thread, so maybe I missed it - has anyone done a count to see how many people have been let go from other parts of the company?

I ask merely because we must be careful of the appearances - we are apt to talk a lot about D&D-side layoffs, while layoffs in other portions could happen without comment on these boards. We remember what we see, and all that.

 

[TerraDave]

This is getting to be quite a side discussion, but regular layoffs as a strategy provides a way to trim under-performing employees, and provides a clear statement to employees that they need to maintain a competitive edge.

From what we know--which is limited--top performing employees seem as likely to be let go, if not more so. We have heard of many of these people.

 

[Pramas]

For the record, WotC has not published Pokemon for 7 years now, though many ex-WotC folks work for the company that does (Pokemon USA).