Pixar reportedly conducts rare layoffs
sfgate.com
sfgate.com
Susman, likewise, was a longtime Pixar employee. She is also the hero of one of the company’s most legendary stories. During the making of “Toy Story 2,” a Pixar employee accidentally wiped the servers of nearly the whole movie. Thankfully for the animators, Susman was working from home while taking care of her newborn child — her backup copy saved the film.
Having done great work in the past is not enough to incentivize others to keep you around.
Have a bad day? Fuck you, you're fired. Doesn't matter that you saved the company tens or hundreds or even millions of dollars last year. That was last year. What have you done for the bottom line today, peon?
Also, think about this, these people were promoted multiple times for going "above & beyond". They just weren't an optimal fit for their last roles.
Please explain to me exactly how it was that one director's fault that the movie lost $100M.
Because in reality, it's going to be a lot more than one person's fault that a movie was a dud. Especially when there are so many moving pieces behind a piece of content's popularity.
It was a bad idea from the start, and was never given a chance to correct.
Steve McConnell was a big proponent of the worst bugs start in the Requirements Phase.
Same goes for almost any project.
The people that greenlight garbage are frequently fired, too, but that usually means they need to delay buying that second private island.
People further down the food chain, might actually end up having to put their kids to work at McDonald's, instead of sending them to college.
It's impossible for you to say with certainty that a single decision caused the movie to flop and it's disingenuous to think so. Especially disingenuous to say it's one person's fault that an entire movie was pitched, greenlit, made, and then flopped. There are literally thousands of people who made decisions along the way, starting from the initial greenlight which would have been given by multiple people.
That's a rather bold statement (mine was equally rash).
I suspect the reality comes in, somewhere between.
In any case, I am not into excusing the top management, when it comes to these failures. I think that lower-echelon bus-fodder hunts can be symptoms of terrible, unaccountable, higher-level managers.
Even if someone lower down the chain made the error, it can often be determined that the environment (maybe even the reason they have the ability to screw things up), was because of top management.
When I was a manager, successes were owned by my team, and the failures were 100% mine.
Managers are critical, and I have come to learn that the vast majority of them are ... shall we say ... works in progress?
Perhaps part of the problem here is new leadership rushing things out the door or succumbing to sunk cost fallacy.
Yes, it would require extreme buy-in from senior management.
I think here she has fallen foul of the old “you are as good as your last result” during a costs downsizing period.
But where does that leave us as a society?
I just feel this cynical statement is as silly as a blanket statement as one that would say the opposite, something like "companies provide value and jobs and take care of employees"
I would argue though, that the way you describe companies is definitely more true of larger companies because people just aren't invested/attached to each other and that enables that kind of thinking (employees just lines on a spreadsheet).
Many small businesses (and small business owners like myself) do want to build a team and take care of the team and hope the team also invests back into the company. That doesn't mean they can't lay people off if they can't afford to keep them. But things are more likely to be human at a smaller size anyway.
Still, I don't want to paint with too broad of a brush.
Many small businesses (and small business owners like myself) do want to build a team and take care of the team
Sure such places exist, but are they the majority? Some people get lucky to work for such companies, I'd guess most of humanity is just not that lucky.
I will agree strongly that in my interactions with dozens of small businesses, the way we do (and want to do) business is in the minority. There was once a phone call with a small business to explore a partnership and I messaged my exec team on slack "I don't like how ___ lied about something as small as ____, don't really want to get into a partnership with businesses that have such red flags" – but that is sadly too common. Call me naive, but I have to feel satisfied at the end of the day that we tried our best to do the right thing in our little corner, even if that limited our growth (and it certainly has).
IMO because financial systems are so much more robust we should be moving to either a daily pay or even a prepay model. But likely that would take regulation because it doesn't benefit the decision makers.
Additionally the status quo is such that the employer is earning interest on a pay period worth of capital, while the employee is eating the inflation on it. A spread of about 4 interest + 4 inflation = 8%
Not our problem. exec + mgmt creates the incentives set and reaps nearly all the rewards for it. Don't take personal loss for something you do not have meaningful equity in (ie you will not participate in the rewards). And btw the vast majority of equity plans are not meaningful equity. Compare your compensation to exec layer and decide if you're getting a proportional share, I'd argue unless your C suite compensation is around 10x the lower paid folks (it's usually closer to 100x) then no, you're not equitably participating.
Now, if you own a meaningful part of the rewards, go HAM.
Pretty much every single issue that we face as humanity will have a business component in the solution. Even larger government-funded solutions will have to fund private contractors to carry out whatever actions, and in many cases, make a difference whether some companies go above and beyond. Take public transit. The buses and trains are manufactured by private industry. So would you like to ride in a train manufactured or driven by people that every step of the way had a "not our problem" attitude?
How about the concept of having pride in your work? I'm honestly not trying to make excuses for predatory and greedy management. I'm not. I am arguing that having a "not our problem" makes you just as bad as the evil management. In both cases, the consumer (you) suffers.
I wasn't aware there was even a question about fairness regarding equity. Sure, some places would be even more cutthroat in their negotiations, but if you want more equity, usually you have to take more risks. Has that calculation changed in any fundamental way?
The reality is that we do ride in those trains.
It is not up to random employees to decide that today is a great day to go above and beyond. It is up to leadership to create a company that make that an easy and rewarding decision every day.
If you want a better system, you're going to have to replace the existing systems.
Well the gov't bit is a trick cause they have a monopoly[1], of course I want them to do their best work with what boils down to a forced purchase. (ie when I pay my taxes, I'm forced to purchase a basket of goods decided by politicians and lobbyists) .
However, when it comes to private businesses? Let em die, I spend my money at the companies that give me the best value for my dollar. (yes sometimes premium, not always frugally).
> of having pride in your work?
Totally agree, find an employer that has that culture, then give them your absolute best. My point was do not throw your pearls to swine, do not martyr yourself at a company that does not value those things.
[1]: not that I'm automatically advocating for ending all gov't monopolies, I don't have a good alternate solution at hand for some cases, but still can recognize one of the properties of the choice
Some of us work in roles that are essential to society. When essential workers choose the "not my problem" mentality, it literally becomes the problem of everyone in society.
Working more than 40 hour weeks? Agreeing to less base compensation for more equity?
Something like sacrifice beyond what is required to stay employed or beyond what would be marginally valuable to the person making the sacrifices.
If you'll be fired for not coming in on Saturday, well then you gotta do that. But if you'll not be neither fired, nor sufficiently rewarded (IMO the most common case), then it's personal loss to sacrifice saturday for a reward that will almost entirely be reaped by C suite and Shareholders. Even if equity is part of your comp package, it's likely you'll own less than .01% of the company & your productivity.
If I am (and my coworkers are) are having fun, and we're collectively moving the business forward, then great. Things are low stress, with a pile of money coming (and I avoid places that expect unsustainable hours, so that is not an issue).
If that's not how things are going, then, well, the tech gold rush probably has a few more decades in it (minimum), and there are other plenty of other companies that do offer those things.
So go ahead and take care of me, but put it in writing. In my experience its pretty common for small businesses to have wishful thinking and have a desire to take care of the team, but for one reason or another, be unable or unwilling to actually follow through once they get into the details of it.
Socialism, being a system where the workers collectively own the business, has a lot more credit if they wanted workers to feel invested.
Capitalism, being a system where workers produce the value but see a small portion of it, basically incentivizes dehumanizing the workers. The greater system creates a society where almost every interaction one has in their day to day life is a transaction. Jobs are like renting a space. Why would you make improvements to a space when a landlord can evict you and benefit from your extra effort.
Small businesses are often, in a sense, infantilized. They're not like the big nameless corp, they're your neighbor, they're a smol bean who can't hurt. The reality is small businesses can get away with a lot more BS. IMO I'd be far more alert working at a small business waiting for the CEO to do something dumb or damaging than a large corp.
Unless the small business gives employees a sense of ownership(actual stake, cooperatively owned) why should they feel invested? They're in the same precarious spot as any other employee. The power balance is greatly weighed against them.
> But where does that leave us as a society?
The problem is the structural incentives, not the fact that workers respond rationally to them.
To fix the problem, fix the incentives, don’t try to guilt trip workers to ignore them to give unrewarded gifts to their employers in an upward transfer of wealth. Because, if we encourage people to do that, where does that leave us as a society?
I'll worry about that once we address what it does to us as a society that CEOs outearn workers by 400:1 while oddly almost never being affected by layoffs.
Same goes for smaller businesses: Campaign for worker protections, and then we'll talk. (Some small businesses do in fact bend over backwards to protect their employees - and they usually get fierce loyalty as a reward. But the average business cares very little about long-term impact on workers)
Think about probabilities. Does doing good and relevant work increase your chances of promotion and better pay? Yes. Does it decrease your chances of being laid off? Yes.
So it seems like doing good work is your best chance at doing well, although nothing is guaranteed.
Now obviously if you're doing the minimum at work because you're growing your own business - that could be the superior strategy. But if you're doing the minimum so you can just waste time doing nothing - seems worse.
In my opinion the optimised outcome is a good life, not good employment.
This entirely depends on the work culture, and projects. Optimize for next employer (or side hustle, startup, contract etc) ... The primary negotiation point (initial offer) has already lapsed once you work for someone, so you will not be able to reap benefits from your "good work" under that employers definition.
MBAs have game theoried the f--- out of the workplace and the only suitable defense is to do so back. Tailor your response to how aggressive this has been done (eg if you work for a family business, or a culture that clearly is going above and beyond to not be that...)
This is so hilariously false.
Being in that cohort obviously hurts you - though obviously nothing is guaranteed.
Yeah, they should employ you forever if you, out of luck, not work, had some hard drives at home in 1998.
But, assuming they save a company orders of magnitude more than their entire salary for the rest of your career, it’s probably worth it to keep such people around indefinitely assuming they continue to actually work. If for no other reason but to incentivize other people to go above and beyond.
I’ve seen the other side of this where employees decided not to save the company 10’s of millions because it would be a hassle and they wouldn’t be rewarded for it. Nobody wins when you fail to reward people.
you also hear this from customers, but of course generally nobody wants to be a customer of a smaller unknown company either. same thing - they're happy to get a quote and use it as leverage against a big competitor.
as long as you want that upside of security or a big paycheck or prestige or "never got fired for choosing" or whatever imaginary thing you've convinced yourself of, you're also going to get a corresponding downside when the going gets tough.
live by the sword, die by the sword. if you're unhappy about the dynamics of big companies, maybe consider a change.
In practice, these are the smells I look for, but sadly, it’s not always visible in the interview process:
* Each of the organizations of the business produce more evidence of their worth than actual value they bring
* Blame is deflected causing everyone from C-level to individual contributors speaking with the passive voice within internal communication
* Yes-men/women bubble up to the top and those who pose contrary opinions are not welcome
Unfortunately, most companies have some degree of these, but there are some that are worse than others. I’ve just found that starting my own thing is going to be better long term for my mental health even if it puts me in a more precarious financial situation.
Yes, there are companies that are extreme in their mercurial attitudes towards employees. But so are there people like that.
Do you similarly say, I don't do anything above and beyond for other people because that one time some boy/girl/friend left me because I had a bad day?
No, you find the people who value you. And because there needs to be balance, you show that you value them by sometimes going above and beyond.
And besides that, you should be tying everything you do for a company to some self-oriented goal. Like these folks laid off from Pixar, do you think they are now at a net negative in life for having been laid off?
Their lives have been enriched through skills, relationships, income, savings, experiences, etc.
Does it suck to be laid off? Definitely.
But if you come away from a 20 year career at a company feeling empty and used then I'd say that's more on you than on the employer.
If you think to yourself, "I could have given so much more time to my family but the company forced me to work." No, you did that to yourself.
You work for an abusive employer? Plan your escape.
As fortunate as it is that she had these copies of the data, it's not like she helped them by being really, really good at her job, she helped them from the coincidence of working from home for a while.
I guarantee that if Lightyear had done well, they'd be talking about how these layoffs happened because Disney is a "woke corporation" that hates white male leads or some other reactionary conservative culture war mad-lib bullshit.
> I'm pretty sure she fought for a lot of Lightyear stuff to be included in the final release.
Happening to have a backup copy in your house 25 years ago doesn't justify your current role of being good at losing the company millions of dollars. Disney and Pixar have had a series of movies that in the main have had bad production and writing decisions attached to them, so even though the technical delivery (e.g. animation; music) and performances are generally very good, they are just boring. A lot of the spark seems to have gone.
If you watch the latest Disney or Pixar movies and compare it with something like the Arcane TV series, which is unbelievably beautifully animated and extremely well written, it's night and day. The talent that led Pixar has fizzled or been replaced over the years, and they can't pay people a fortune to lose them money forever.
Turning Red appears to be the worst, on a $250m budget (and probably similar for marketing, it took $20m[3].
[0] https://www.boxofficemojo.com/title/tt1979376
[1] https://www.boxofficemojo.com/title/tt2380307
Anyway, I’m much more interested in talking about what I thought you were originally: the qualitative “creative spark” that makes (or made) Pixar movies so special.
[1] https://www.boxofficemojo.com/chart/top_lifetime_gross/?area...
Coco had a domestic theatrical release and was in theaters in over 50 other countries.
Luca did not get a domestic theatrical release (except for one week in one theater). Internationally it was in theaters in 20 countries. Similar for Turning Red except it was only in theaters in 17 countries.
Luca and to a lesser extent Turning Red did reasonably well in those countries where they were actually in theaters considering that it was during a pandemic when attendance was down. If they had been released in theaters in a non-pandemic year and in all the countries Coco was in they would have probably been at least $500m movies.
Luca was the most streamed movie of 2021 (10.6x10^9 minutes of streaming) (and it was #9 in 2022 with another 5x10^9 minutes) , and Turning Red was the second most streamed movie of 2022 (11.4x10^9 minutes) (#1 was Encanto at 27.4x10^9 minutes).
BTW, Encanto did get a domestic theater release and an international theater release in almost as many countries as Coco and yet only pulled in $256m worldwide. I think that's a pretty good illustration of how much the pandemic affected box office.
You can see this from her IMDB: https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0839877/ She was on the development team on Toy Story 2 and then a Producer there after.
I do feel bad for her losing her job, but 23 years is a LONG time ago to have define your entire career and that story is somewhat apocryphal from all accounts internally.
If we're talking about loyalty, the rest of her career there after is actually much more interesting to talk about. I think its a disservice that a site like this boils her down to a role she didn't do and a singular event for clicks.
It's hard to argue how that's wrong.
Like your track record for instance.
That it works for all those things, but somehow not employee performance is a bizarrely inconsistent assertion to make.
But nothing lasts forever.
Obviously we don't know the full story, but people make mistakes, underperform, or somehow lose their touch. If it's a pattern and the person obviously just doesn't want to work there anymore, fine.
But on balance, I think it's better to counsel, coach, and develop people over time, regardless of experience or tenure or attitude. Not only do I believe employee churn to be more expensive in the long run (brand reputation, institutional knowledge, handover premium) but I believe it to be ethically wrong.
This attitude has personally served me well. I can't prove it with data, but my heart is whole and I have no regrets about going above and beyond to retain and develop employees.
I'd rather die without guilt and have a packed funeral – than a trillionaire and alone.
I just think that there is this foolish and ultimately costly view of employees that they are interchangeable parts, when in fact there are more effective ways to improve financial performance.
Not to say that Susman is a bad employee, obviously she remained employed there for decades more and was promoted repeatedly to high positions, just that "saving Toy Story 2" is likely one of the least impressive parts of her resume.
If you want to say what you think is important about an article, that's fine, but do it by adding a comment to the thread. Then your view will be on a level playing field with everyone else's: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...
* Onward - $140M
* Soul - $120M
* Luca - $50M
* Turning Red - $20M
* Lightyear - $226M
It used to be that Pixar films regularly got past $1B in revenue. This new reality where they gross very little is strange. And this new reality likely means that Pixar has to reduce costs.
In contrast my kids loved the new Mario movie which I thought was not very good. However, we all liked the sonic movies so... <shrug>.
I used to see ads for Pixar movies everywhere. Now? Not so much…
- They overproduce. They used to make roughly 2 movies over 3 years; now they often release more than one movie per year.
- John Lasseter was "metoo'd" in 2017. They've not had any real success since - the last bonanzas were two sequels in 2018 and 2019.
The competitor landscape has not changed significantly in the last decade.
I really don't think the market is any more saturated today than a decade ago.
I agree with you on Lasseter, btw. It does seem that his departure was the start of Pixar's creative gap.
So it isn't that Lasseter is irreplaceable, it is that they didn't foster internally the next generation of leaders. And that in turn makes it looks like Lassater was a unique genius.
It's hard to drive box office sales, when you're using it as a lose leader to drive Disney+ subscriptions.
Who takes the blame for poor box office sales in this scenario? Doesn't seem like the directors fault.
On the other hand, other animation studios are putting out some really good films, the two animated Spier-Man films, the Puss in Boots sequel, etc.
Pixar needs to raise it's game and try telling more interesting stories.
* Luca - Cute visuals but the story was not aiming very high. Huge missed opportunity with the underwater world, which was bland and almost like they ran out of time to flesh it out.
* Onward - A mess of a story that never got refined. Lots of ideas loosely coupled. When the most memorable aspect is walking pants, you have a problem.
* Soul - This one came so close to greatness. I definitely felt the creative team pouring themselves into this, but it somehow didn't click like its spiritual cousin Inside Out (a hilarious and tear-jerking masterpiece, Pixar at its best). The "core" of Soul was a bit confused, I thought: you search for a purpose, but you don't really need a purpose, and you should let go of your purpose...?
Being responsible for saving Toy Story 2 is a good thing, yes. She should be celebrated for that, yes. However, it should not potentially shield her from any and all repercussions in the future.
Toy Story 2 came out 24 years ago. Her child has had time to grow up and have children of their own by now.
If they had fired her within the year, yeah, I'd have been upset. That's a dick move to do to someone who saved your company however much it would have cost to reproduce all of that work.
But 24 years after the fact, yeah, I have no issues disconnecting the two events.
> But there was another twist. After all the efforts to save Toy Story 2, most of the original version of the film ended up being chucked out anyway. Bosses didn’t think the movie was good enough and it was remade.
So I don’t see how saving a backup of a version that was mostly thrown away saved the movie.
https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/...
In 2002 Dave Smith decided to make synthesizers on his own again, but as he did not own the name Sequential any more he resigned himself to naming his company Dave Smith Instruments (or DSI).
In 2015, after talking it over with the head of Roland (another major Japanese synth manufacturer), the President of Yamaha decided to unilaterally give Dave Smith the highly prized Sequential trademark (and sequential.com) back. It is my understanding that Dave didn't even know they were going to do this. They just gave him the intellectual property as a gesture of goodwill between synth manufacturers and in recognition of everything he had done. DSI was promptly renamed Sequential.
Pixar could learn something from this.
I also wonder if people just expect such a person to have a job for life after one such "heroic" performance. I wish I could be so lucky.
On the other, they were associated with a flip, and corps are known to be all about $ and ‘what have you done for me lately’.
On a third hand, because why not, job security is being able to find another job and with their track record of saving the day in a big way and operating at that level for twenty years, they’re hopefully already pretty set and if they want to keep working should have little trouble finding a new team who’d be excited to have them.
Which isn’t in any way to diminish how much it sucks. Wish them the best.
Both things could be true, they likely had a great symbiotic relationship (20 years after the incident, who knows how many years before, for people at the talent level of working on Pixar movies, they could leave and work anywhere else, but they chose to stay at Pixar for a reason), AND this person's position just didn't make it when determining how to make cuts.
It's just an unfortunate situation but seems to not really line up cleanly with the "was this loyalty" question.
this was the most non-news layoff I've seen in some time and I don't understand why we are pretending it is a conversation piece, especially with this title.
discussions about corporate loyalty of lack thereof... what? the incident in the title was 2 and a half decades ago and even then, why get married to an organization? that sounds like a sure-fire way to contribute to wage gap for your demographic
"people don't leave jobs, they leave managers" well, you clearly haven't met me and everyone I know.
> what dictates whether layoffs are news?
> this was the most non-news layoff I've seen in some time and I don't understand why we are pretending it is a conversation piece, especially with this title.
I think it got great reviews too? (Except for the people angry about the gay 'kiss hello' obviously)
If anything, it's the bigoted parents who are gasping in shock and outrage at an extremely mundane scene.
This is pearl clutching taken to the extreme.
I have a rainbow star trek shirt on right now. I support the gay and lesbian community in anyway I can. I will not take my children to see these movies. There are simply too many other options that do not push this crap on me that I will choose instead.
My kids have been at birthday parties with gay couples. Wanna know what questions they asked about it? None! Because they are children and have no concept of sexuality.
The studios are pulling out all this forced crap as soon as the strike is over too so obviously someone somewhere is reading the writing on the wall.
Parents have had enough of this crap and we’re not afraid to speak up.
I’m one of the good guys! I have gay friends!
> I support the gay and lesbian community in anyway I can.
Well, you know, as long as it isn’t the most trivial of inconveniences to you.
Get over yourself and unclutch your pearls, Karen. Your kids aren’t going to be traumatized from seeing two men kiss in a passing scene and you’re not going to have to do your job and have the simplest conversation with your kids.
“Sometimes a boy likes another boy, and that’s perfectly normal.” is not the end of the world, even if it comes up, which it realistically won’t. Stop pretending like it is.
You say you support the community, but your actions show you clearly don’t. Not even remotely close. I hope you don’t consider yourself an ally, because you are far from it.
You do not get to decide what I think is appropriate for my children. End of story.
I am not looking for your acceptance or affirmation. I am looking to raise strong healthy children. Judging by how my children interact with others I would say so far I am succeeding.
Your children are going to be just as strong and healthy seeing two men kiss and seeing gay, lesbian and trans folks and their relationships existing. You thinking otherwise while pretending to be an ally is disgusting.
As someone who is gay, you can proceed to fuck right off with your pretend allyship. You should take off your shirt, you don’t deserve to wear it.
Yeah, I totally said that.
> You thinking otherwise while pretending to be an ally is disgusting.
Next time, don't pretend to be an ally when you clearly aren't. I'd say have a good day, but I would rather you didn't.
Children do not need to be sexualized. They MUST not be.
> It’s gotten to the point where I was worried the Mario movie might have sex/gender propaganda in it. Luckily it was just a kids movie. There are few “just kids movies” these days. Puss in boots was the last one previously.
You didn't seem to have a problem with Mario's entire mission in the entire series to save his female love interest. Or the wedding references throughout the movie (you know, the ultimate culmination of a couple). Or the fact that Puss and Kitty got together at the end of the most recent Puss in Boots. Or the literally millions of other expressions of straight relationships in media day in and out.
But the second two men dare even hold hands? RED ALERT SEXUALIZING MY CHILDREN.
Go clutch your pearls elsewhere with this bullshit argument.
push what crap? the existence of gay people? why is it "pushing" something to more fully represent reality in our media? why should movies continue to pretend that gay people don't exist just because some parents refuse to teach their children about totally normal things?
This isn’t negotiable. They are my kids and I will raise them as I see appropriate.
I vaguely remember a scene with a character and her partner was revealed to be a woman but I don't remember any agenda or propaganda about it.
What exactly was being pushed? Or was it the backstory about how the writers and animators wanted to include a same-sex element for years before?
That companies are pushing these narratives is not secret and it is ok that these companies believe it to be more profitable to make these types of movies. It’s also ok for me to refuse to take my children to see them just like it’s ok that I do not allow them to watch YouTube or any other non curated video source.
None of this is me trying to limit the rights of anyone except for my children of course. It’s not me calling for anything to be banned or to force my views on other parents.
I’m simply saying I have had enough of these companies trying to push this culture war bullshit on my children and I do not care who in the world I anger by doing that. To do anything less would be a disservice to what I consider most sacred.
There are few “just kids movies” these days. Puss in boots was the last one previously.
Very curious how you've managed to avoid the pattern of movies that "focus on sexual situations" until recently. One of the most prominent tropes in children's media is a princess who needs to kiss or be kissed by a prince in order to resolve the plot!
Lightyear cost 200m and made 220m. It didn't even make a profit in the US market.
It's hard not to consider it a massive flop.
The best his agent for decades has been able to do for him is get him a staff writer job. Dude is a brilliant Executive Producer, works his ass off to make his shows great, decades of experience, 20+ writing credits on his IMDB profile (tons of merit in his resume) and this is now his reality. Uncredited staff writer.
But I'm still sorry about your BIL. I have friends who have met similar fates, sometimes with great loss up to and including divorce / breaking up of families, and exacerbated stress leading to severe medical issues. It's normal in the Los Angeles technical job market to know someone who has been through something like that.