WotC: Goodbye, Loren Greenwood, hello Greg Leeds

[Maggan]

Been in pharma and biotech awhile and have seen many an MBA nonscientist sink many a firms because they assumed they knew how to manage any market, science or therapeutic area. They best guys I have seen have been scientists who have transitioned to marketing (PhD + MBA guys).

And after being in IT/web for 12 years, having witnessed the IT boom and bust, as well as having worked in the rpg business, I have seen many bad business people. And some good.

I've seen plenty of self made people drive up a company, just to burst it into pieces because they couldn't handle managing a company, or manage people. I've seen plenty of self made people build solid companies and grow into good managers. And all along the way there have been business people to help and to hinder. For every sucess story, there are at least one disaster waiting to be recounted.

Today, when I'm looking to grow my company over 15 employees, I'm looking for good business people to help with the transition. We don't need another self made entrepreneur in the company ... he'd probably kick me out as soon as he got the chance.

So, on topic, I think it is good for WotC as a company that a suit is at the helm. Whether it is good for the game, I'm not so sure. Maybe Magic will blossom, and D&D will wither, all the while making WotC stronger. But the success of one game line is not the same as the success of the company.

Only time will tell.

/M

 

[WizarDru]

I think there's a lot of hyperbole flying about, here.

Has D&D thrived under gamers? Yes, it certainly has. Has it thrived under non-gamers? Define 'non-gamer'. Greenwood started with WotC in 1996. More than once, the company has exceeded financial annual goals. Does that make him good or bad? Why can't a company have both kinds of Greenwoods, Eds and Lorens?

The contention is made that when Gary was at the helm, D&D thrived and that when the Blumes and Lorraine were at the wheel, the car wiped out. Yet that's not necessarily a straight-forward argument. How did the Blumes get in the door? Gary invited them, because first he didn't want to wait for the capital from C&R and then later because he didn't want to actually run a business day-to-day. Once D&D took off, so did Gary, heading out to California to try and drum up licenses for the brand. That left the Blumes to run the business entirely on their own with virtually no oversight, nearly killing the company. The Blumes, as noted, were hardly stellar businessmen themselves....but people seem also to forget how Gary knew them....THEY WERE GAMERS, TOO. So the idea that having gamers in charge is a boon to the company is demonstrably false. It isn't necessarily a detriment, but it certainly hasn't shown itself to be any added benefit.

It's also widely assumed that Lorraine Williams nearly deep-sixed the company...but it's not a given that it was done because she didn't understand the business or gamers nearly so much as she made some bad decisions. Under her direction, the fiction department grew and the company was able to support a LOT of different products. There are anecdotal notes about her from several former employees...some good and some bad. There's no question that she made some bad calls and nearly destroyed the company...but her being a gamer had nothing to do with it. Her desire to put for her grandfather's legacy, her bad call on CCGs and her belief that they could cover bad lines with good ones all did their part. However, it's also clear that TSR under Gary did no more market research than the Blumes or Lorraine Williams, so we'll never know how D&D would have proceeded. Gary himself went on to New Infinites, where his lack of business acumen again led to loss for himself and other investors.

All of which doesn't reflect on Mr. Leeds, of course, as NONE OF THESE PEOPLE HAD MBAs. Even if we were to accept as a fact that MBAs running game companies are a problem, which many of use DON'T, the fact remains that no one with an MBA got involved with the D&D brand until it had nearly gone out of business THREE TIMES aleady. When the MBAs got involved, WotC managed to survived at least two rounds of layoffs without products slipping or failing to make their financial commitments.

The mark of a good business isn't avoiding a downturn so much as SURVIVING one. WotC has rolled with a lot of industry changes and managed to come up swinging more than once. CCGs fading? Still on their feet. Pokemon license lost? Still on their feet. Paper costs skyrocketing? Still on their feet. WotC both independently and with Hasbro has managed to put out a lot of products that weren't successful and not put the company in mortal danger.

I'd hazard that a lot of folks severely underestimate how much of WotC's success is owed to non-gamers in the infrastructure, like the guys who order paper and printing services, the guys who manage the distribution networks or the folks who make sure that their books are balanced. It's good to have gamers in the structure, but being a gamer is neither an indicator of success OR failure for the company as a whole.

 

[apoptosis]

And after being in IT/web for 12 years, having witnessed the IT boom and bust, as well as having worked in the rpg business, I have seen many bad business people. And some good.

I've seen plenty of self made people drive up a company, just to burst it into pieces because they couldn't handle managing a company, or manage people. I've seen plenty of self made people build solid companies and grow into good managers. And all along the way there have been business people to help and to hinder. For every sucess story, there are at least one disaster waiting to be recounted.

Today, when I'm looking to grow my company over 15 employees, I'm looking for good business people to help with the transition. We don't need another self made entrepreneur in the company ... he'd probably kick me out as soon as he got the chance.

So, on topic, I think it is good for WotC as a company that a suit is at the helm. Whether it is good for the game, I'm not so sure. Maybe Magic will blossom, and D&D will wither, all the while making WotC stronger. But the success of one game line is not the same as the success of the company.

Only time will tell.

/M

Dont get me wrong I believe business skills/experience are essential to running a good business. At the same time I DO NOT believe that managers can cross areas indiscriminately. It is essential (of course with everything there are exceptions) that management have a thorough understanding of the subject matter.

I think it is important that the person who takes the helm REALLY understands the game, the people who play the game and the challenges in gaming and production of games.

I am not a believer in people who can broadly manage "anything" because they have managed something else (I am a director so I am not anti-management)

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

It's not the possession of an MBA, it's a certain managerial mindset that causes the problem. All too many managers I've seen pop out of college with their MBAs and are certain they can manage anything regardless of their experience in that area. The prime requirement of management is experience, only experience can teach the truly important lessons on how to run a business or a division of that business and that is on a completely different axis from the degree. My personal experience tells me that companies often succeed in spite of management rather than because of it. That far too often managers don't have the proper level of experience in the area and it's up to their subordinates to show them how the lessons of their MBAs apply in practice.

 

[Tetsubo]

My experience? My experience is that I have an MBA.

Oh... Whoops! Didn't think those boneheaded blatant insults you made earlier might possibly apply to a person who was a gamer too or something? Or just didn't care?

Businessmen don't always run a good business and non-businessmen can be successful. But your anecdotal experience to the contrary, actually knowing about how business works tends to make one better at running a business. I could show you hundreds of case studies where "MBAs" ran a business successfully and people involved in the product had no idea how to do so.

I'm glad that you have experienced good management. I never have. Maybe I've just been unlucky.

 

[Sanguinemetaldawn]

The contention is made that when Gary was at the helm, D&D thrived and that when the Blumes and Lorraine were at the wheel, the car wiped out. Yet that's not necessarily a straight-forward argument. How did the Blumes get in the door? Gary invited them, because first he didn't want to wait for the capital from C&R and then later because he didn't want to actually run a business day-to-day.

Hmm, thats interesting spin, to put it mildly.

"In order to finance the publication of D&D in 1974, he and his partner Don Kaye had brought in a friend named Brian Blume, whose father, Melvin, was willing to invest money in the company. Kaye died in 1976, and Brian got his brother Kevin named to TSR’s board. Gygax was the president of TSR, but the Blumes effectively controlled the company; to keep Gygax further in check they brought in three outside directors, a lawyer and two businessmen who knew nothing about gaming but always voted with the Blumes."


What is your source for the reference: "didn't want to actually run a business day-to-day"?

My understanding was as minority owner the Blumes ignored his guidance/direction/wishes, and being effectively marginalized, he went to LA in an attempt to actually accomplish something. And once again, he did, in the form of the D&D cartoon.

And bringing in the three outside directors who did not know gaming, only to see TSR fail, doesn't exactly buttress your case.

Once D&D took off, so did Gary, heading out to California to try and drum up licenses for the brand. That left the Blumes to run the business entirely on their own with virtually no oversight, nearly killing the company. The Blumes, as noted, were hardly stellar businessmen themselves....but people seem also to forget how Gary knew them....THEY WERE GAMERS, TOO. So the idea that having gamers in charge is a boon to the company is demonstrably false. It isn't necessarily a detriment, but it certainly hasn't shown itself to be any added benefit.

You know, its strange that you feel the need to emphasize this when I not only already explicitly stated this, but referenced anecdotes. And now that you are arguing the point, I am curious, to what degree were the Blumes actual gamers? Anyone know?

I suppose Brian's contributions in the form of Boot Hill and a WWII wargame say something, but given the lack of success of either game, coupled with Rigby, Digby and Bigby, I am not sure it says what you think it says.

Investing in latchhook rug kits is a bizarre direction for a gamer guiding a business to go, but not for the "Medium Rary" Blumes.

However, it's also clear that TSR under Gary did no more market research than the Blumes or Lorraine Williams, so we'll never know how D&D would have proceeded.

OK, but THIS IS EXACTLY MY POINT (heh)
Gary didn't need to do market research because everytime he sat down to play, he was doing market research. Everytime he went to a convention he was doing market research, etc.

Thus the difference.

Gary himself went on to New Infinites, where his lack of business acumen again led to loss for himself and other investors.

Well, he was certainly defrauded by Baker, but it is precisely because Gygax WASN'T working in a business role that this happened. Trusting Baker was a mistake, but that has more to do with being a judge of character. When a person in a position of responsibility chooses to become a fugitive, thats not really business acumen. That has more to do with background, and even then, it can be totally unpredictable as our intelligence agencies have found out the hard way.

I'd hazard that a lot of folks severely underestimate how much of WotC's success is owed to non-gamers in the infrastructure, like the guys who order paper and printing services, the guys who manage the distribution networks or the folks who make sure that their books are balanced. It's good to have gamers in the structure, but being a gamer is neither an indicator of success OR failure for the company as a whole.

I suspect you are incorrect. Aside from children possibly, most people people don't think you need to be a gamer to arrange for book printing/binding contracts, or accounting, or other mundane duties typical to many businesses. And none of these functions is terribly critical; all of these functions can be (and often are) subcontracted out to some reasonably competent 3rd party.

If, however, you are asserting that creative oversight, line development, and editing for a game would be done as well or better by a non-gamer than an otherwise equivalent gamer, then I would like to see some evidence for that.


I am trying to think of an RPG company successfully run by a non-gamer, and not coming up with anything. You'd think with the dozens of companies out there, there would be at least one.

Can anyone think of one?

 

[Zamkaizer]

It's not the possession of an MBA, it's a certain managerial mindset that causes the problem. All too many managers I've seen pop out of college with their MBAs and are certain they can manage anything regardless of their experience in that area. The prime requirement of management is experience, only experience can teach the truly important lessons on how to run a business or a division of that business and that is on a completely different axis from the degree. My personal experience tells me that companies often succeed in spite of management rather than because of it. That far too often managers don't have the proper level of experience in the area and it's up to their subordinates to show them how the lessons of their MBAs apply in practice.

Isn't it awesome, then, how this fellow is not some young punk just out of college with an MBA and blimp-sized ego, but an experienced individual whose credentials make him especially qualified for his position? Sure, he might have had some hand in reducing the Star Wars toy line to comics industry levels of pandering, but that's neither here nor there.

 

[CharlesRyan]

I'd hazard that a lot of folks severely underestimate how much of WotC's success is owed to non-gamers in the infrastructure, like the guys who order paper and printing services, the guys who manage the distribution networks or the folks who make sure that their books are balanced. It's good to have gamers in the structure, but being a gamer is neither an indicator of success OR failure for the company as a whole.

Well said.

I'll just further point out that D&D has never been more successful than it has been over the past 8 years. During that time WotC has had three chief executives, not one of which was a gamer. Now we have a fourth, who is also not a gamer. So what?

 

[diaglo]

Well said.

I'll just further point out that D&D has never been more successful than it has been over the past 8 years. During that time WotC has had three chief executives, not one of which was a gamer. Now we have a fourth, who is also not a gamer. So what?

so it ain't D&D anymore.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

I am trying to think of an RPG company successfully run by a non-gamer, and not coming up with anything. You'd think with the dozens of companies out there, there would be at least one.

Can anyone think of one?

Uh... Wizards of the Coast?

Or Games Workshop.

In other words, companies big enough to go public, at which point the Board tends to demand serious business acumen at the top.

You can find dozens and dozens of "successful" game companies the size of Green Ronin and Necromancer and Goodman Games, and as long as your definition of success doesn't require the company to be any bigger than that, I don't think it's required.

I personally like a nice mix of small, privately-owned, gamer-operated companies, as well as mega-corps the size of WoTC with mainstream reach, to grow our hobby. But I think it's pure childish folly to expect a company the size of WoTC to put a gamer in charge.