As a stockholder in Hasbro and a long-time player (Basic D&D 1979) and lover of the community, can we all agree that this guy needs to GET GONE NOW...? For Pete's sake! The guy pulls down over $9 Million (yes... you read that right) and has DECIMATED this brand.
Screw up after screw up and misfire after misfire. If any of us did at our jobs what this guy has done at Hasbro, we'd be checking Linkedin right about now...
Come watch us save the multiverse in "The Lost Dragons of Phandelver" - a homebrew based on Lost Mines of Phandelver, Dragon of Icespire Peak, and They Tyranny of Dragons. https://www.twitch.tv/kdinla The Gatewalker Saga - Dragons Beware
I agree regarding recent screw ups and misfires as far as WotC is concerned, and perhaps his lack of previous experience in leading supply chains with this level of diversification didn't help. However, considering the current economic climate and the bloodbath that is the toy market, would it have really mattered who the CEO was?
One should be careful what you wish for--Cocks has issues, to be sure, but there is reason to want him over the unknown factor of his replacement. Devil you know and all that.
The reality is that Hasbro is a company aflame. Long before Cocks took over, they tried to expand too rapidly, believing the toy boom could continue for some time. But then Toys-R-Us, their biggest purchaser, imploded, closing in 2018. Then COVID shut down all the factories in China, disproportionately hurting the toy production line. Then they had inflation cutting into folks' wallets, making them less inclined to spend money on non-necessities, like toys and gaming. Now, things are improving some economically.... and their main competitor, Mattel, released an extremely well-regarded movie that gave a whole bunch of people Barbie-mania, causing many to spend their money earmarked for toys on Barbies rather than Hasbro products.
It has been hit after gut-punching hit, mostly due to factors outside of Hasbro's control drastically exacerbating their existing weaknesses from over-diversification in their own markets. Layoffs, closing unnecessary office buildings, and refocusing on your successful brands are natural and necessary components to survival.
Cocks took over as CEO after most of that--he inherited a dumpster fire of a company and always was going to have to make some decisions that would make him look like the bad guy.
Of course, he certainly made a number of his own blunders that exacerbated problems. Take, for instance, the whole OGL thing. Wizards had a pretty darn good reason for wanting to change their license--a racist stole Wizards' intellectual property and tried to publish a bigoted version of Star Frontiers. Wizards was able to stop that because they had IP law on their side... but it exposed a key weakness with D&D. Bigoted Star Frontiers got a lot of press--but was protected. If Ernie Gygax decided to make Bigoted D&D using OGL licensing... Wizards could only stand by and watch. But Cocks dropped the ball with the messaging, got behind the story once leaks happened, and ultimately Wizards, Hasbro's, and his decision paralysis let misinformation and trolls define the story. And that is only one of many of Cocks' PR blunders.
But, flawed though he is--he has one major advantage: He used to work for Wizards. He knows Wizards of the Coast, knows a lot about their brands, and, perhaps most importantly for our purposes here, he is an actual player of the games Wizards produces.
And let's look at D&D, for example. D&D as a brand is hardly decimated. The game has more players than it ever has before. The game has a new updated set of rulebooks which (a) are going to allow Wizards to fix some of the current 5e problems without causing the shock a new edition brings to the playerbase and (b) which contain new elements supported by 80%+ of the tens of thousands of players who vote in the UA polls (a formidable sample size which lends credibility to the polling data). The game also continues to grow in new ways--Beyond support for third party publishers is a big step that both supports non-Wizards content creators and provides new options for adventures beyond what Wizards publishes. There is the VTT which is in the works, which (while not personally my cup of tea), could be a great asset to a whole lot of players looking for an exciting online play experience.
Cocks has his issues, is terrible at PR, and certainly could be better. But the games are doing (mostly) fine and have continued to grow--and that is something that should be applauded.
Because the reality? Cocks could do a lot better, but he also could do a whole lot worse. And, if we removed him--removed the devil we know? When a company on fire looks for a new CEO, they often look for someone out-of-house who is going to make some hard financial decisions. That means, if you get your wish, you are very likely to end up with someone who never had experience working for Wizards. Might have never played D&D. Someone who holds no love for the game. Someone whose only experience, only interest in D&D is the numbers on the page.
So, think long and hard before you make your wish. Do you want the bumbling mediocrity that is Chris Cocks, who at least cares about the game itself? Or do you want the complete unknown of a corporate surgeon, knives sharpened to make some indiscriminate cuts?
Is Cocks to blame for nobody wanting to buy Star Wars and Marvel toys based on characters that Disney has made completely unlikable?
But sure... go for it... call for his resignation if you're a stockholder. Being a D&D player doesn't have anything to do with it though.
He's been CEO since February, prior to that he was in Charge of WotC. He's the mastermind behind the VTT, the OGL 2 disaster, and is probably the guy who hired the Pinkertons for Magic The Gathering Loss prevention. The big 3 mistakes of 2023. Now as for toy sales being down, that is mostly due to Toy sales being universally down as we are in a (Checks terms ) "a Recession" even though we are at some of the historically lowest unemployment rates in history. The average citizen just doesn't have the same free income we did 5 years ago. (Low wages will do this) So hasbro not doing well is not unexpected, as they haven't really changed their models to accommodate how consumers are buying products, and what products people are willing to buy. Instead of making toys less expensive to the customer they are making more expensive limited collectable runs. Which is the dumbest plan ever, started by his predecessor, and not stopped by him.
Instead of making toys less expensive to the customer they are making more expensive limited collectable runs. Which is the dumbest plan ever, started by his predecessor, and not stopped by him.
Toys are drastically more expensive to produce than ever before due to increase production costs, increased raw material costs, and increased tariffs. You cannot simply cut prices to get out of that hole. If your profits decrease by 50%, you need to double your sales to offset the decrease in cost—the toy market is not in a place where decreased costs are going to so substantially increase sales as to make up for the lower prices.
Premium products are a pretty good idea in this particular environment, all things considered. They do not cost too much more to make than regular products (plus, you only have to pay import fees on a lower number of items), you don’t have to invest too much in a large print run, and you can sell them at extremely high mark-ups to a specific target audience likely to have disposable income. They are a safe, easy way to turn a profit, and a pretty good way to prop up a business.
They cannot be the only model, of course—a business, particularly a toy business, needs to have offerings available to a wide range of people. But saying they are a bad business idea kind of misses the point—a business needs to have offerings to a wide range of people, and “wide range” includes having offerings to those at the higher end of the economic spectrum.
Hasbro is in a bad way. Their legacy products are falling sharply in demand, with apparently no expected uptick. It debt load is problematic, but manageable at the moment. But if this grand plan to monetize D&D by at least one order of magnitude in revenue falters, Hasbro is in deep trouble. Frankly, it sounds like the VTT itself is a technical winner. I did not expect that, but the reviews from people I trust, well, they like it. But whether that technical success can be translated into a financial success, that is another matter. Given the leadership at hasbro and wotc, I don't have any faith in that happening. But we will know 12 months from now. The VTT has to be coded with the 6e rule set, so it will be tied to the 6e rollout.
Instead of making toys less expensive to the customer they are making more expensive limited collectable runs. Which is the dumbest plan ever, started by his predecessor, and not stopped by him.
Toys are drastically more expensive to produce than ever before due to increase production costs, increased raw material costs, and increased tariffs. You cannot simply cut prices to get out of that hole. If your profits decrease by 50%, you need to double your sales to offset the decrease in cost—the toy market is not in a place where decreased costs are going to so substantially increase sales as to make up for the lower prices....
those are excuses. I can go to the local market here in Los Angeles and buy toys made in the USA that cost $5, but if I go to a box brand store the same kind of toys by the big name companies will sell toys made in China for $25 ~ $50, as someone on a budget the $5 toy at vallarta is a better option. The problem here is Supply & Demand Toys have a constant demand, but the people who buy toys do not have disposable income. If you are in the business of making toys, you have to keep your costs and prices in the range the average consumer can afford. Mattel seems to do well at this. Balance. They have inexpensive options for all their big toys. Hasbro did the opposite and hopped for salvation from the collector market. That was a bad gamble and it will sink the company if this continues.
example: Walmart prices here: Barbie (Mattel) vs Star Wars (Hasbro)
Barbie Dreamtopia Royal Doll, Blonde with Pink Skirt, Shoes and Hair Accessory - $5.97
Star Wars The Rise of Skywalker Rey & Kylo Ren - $7.99 (btw this is not a new this year toy, but looks to be reduced price but not on sale)
if you want something current ie from this year:
Star Wars The Black Series: Ahsoka Tano Now $22.53 You save $4.75 was 27.28 You save $4.75
So you can see, Mattel has an inexpensive Barbie, made to be inexpensive, designed to be a cheap toy easy to buy for kids, while if you want the same from Hasbro you are buying a toy from years ago that hasn't sold, and if you want something new to this year it started out at $25+
For sake of fairness Film tie in Barbie:
(Barbie The Movie Collectible Doll, Margot Robbie as Barbie in Inline Skating Outfit $26.22 listed as a best seller) <- in demand, selling well at a high price, looks identical to the lower priced Shelf Stock Barbie which is also selling well, even if not a film tie-in. Ironically the Made for Film Margot Robbie doll which was not labeled as Mattel but some other company is at over $60 not selling, and has a single 1 star review.)
Which brings me to Hasbro's plan this year. They make toys, had a D&D film coming out, designed Dice that transforms into D&D monsters, they licensed it out to a company that makes toys for films, over charged for them, and they didn't even release in a timely way for the film. I personally cancelled my Order because of the OGL thing, and almost didn't go to the film because of the OGL. Glad it was solved just in time so I could see it, the film was good, and I wish more people went. But Hasbro ruined the release due to bad PR in the months leading up to it. Also This has been the Year for Hasbro to really show the world their worst side. If you are in business to make toys and games, never look like an evil greedy company, it will hurt your sales. BTW No Toy company is more evil or greedy than Mattel, but they allowed for their film to make the board look like evil greedy jerks until Barbie made them nice. they basically allowed self deprecating humor to be depicted in what was basically a 2 hour commercial that customers had to pay to watch.
Meanwhile Hasbro.... they need to really change their facing, they need to lower the cost on their staple products, so they retail price is easy for the greatest number of customers. They need to back off on Collectable for collectable sake, they need to allow for their loved products to grow as the market demands. They need to also advertise where people will see the advertisements. All year I've seen Barbie ads on Youtube, and only a couple of D&D film ads just in the weeks leading up to the film.
When was the last time you saw a MtG ad? a DnDB ad besides direct email? What about G.I Joe <- seriously I almost forgot about them because they are so poorly marketed. Did you know they had a MLP D&D adventure? Honestly I wished they advertised that one. This has been a long term issue with Hasbro, they have the product recognition, they have the licenses, they could be much more profitable Mattle is up from 5 years ago, although their peek was May 2022. Hasbro has lost 75% of value over the last 5 years.
From macrotrends.net -
Mattel is doing 5.4 billion in revenue (2022), Hasbro is doing 5.8 billion in Revenue (2022)
Mattel annual/quarterly gross profit history and growth rate from 2010 to 2023. Gross profit can be defined as the profit a company makes after deducting the variable costs directly associated with making and selling its products or providing its services.
Mattel gross profit for the quarter ending September 30, 2023 was $0.978B, a 15.48% increase year-over-year.
Mattel gross profit for the twelve months ending September 30, 2023 was $2.396B, a 13.27% decline year-over-year.
Mattel annual gross profit for 2022 was $2.481B, a 5.53% decline from 2021.
Mattel annual gross profit for 2021 was $2.627B, a 17.1% increase from 2020.
Mattel annual gross profit for 2020 was $2.243B, a 13.44% increase from 2019.
Hasbro annual/quarterly gross profit history and growth rate from 2010 to 2023. Gross profit can be defined as the profit a company makes after deducting the variable costs directly associated with making and selling its products or providing its services.
Hasbro gross profit for the quarter ending September 30, 2023 was $1.009B, a 7.38% decline year-over-year.
Hasbro gross profit for the twelve months ending September 30, 2023 was $3.680B, a 11.9% decline year-over-year.
Hasbro annual gross profit for 2022 was $3.945B, a 12.2% decline from 2021.
Hasbro annual gross profit for 2021 was $4.493B, a 19.92% increase from 2020.
Hasbro annual gross profit for 2020 was $3.747B, a 28.64% increase from 2019.
Instead of making toys less expensive to the customer they are making more expensive limited collectable runs. Which is the dumbest plan ever, started by his predecessor, and not stopped by him.
Toys are drastically more expensive to produce than ever before due to increase production costs, increased raw material costs, and increased tariffs. You cannot simply cut prices to get out of that hole. If your profits decrease by 50%, you need to double your sales to offset the decrease in cost—the toy market is not in a place where decreased costs are going to so substantially increase sales as to make up for the lower prices....
those are excuses. I can go to the local market here in Los Angeles and buy toys made in the USA that cost $5, but if I go to a box brand store the same kind of toys by the big name companies will sell toys made in China for $25 ~ $50, as someone on a budget the $5 toy at vallarta is a better option. The problem here is Supply & Demand Toys have a constant demand, but the people who buy toys do not have disposable income. If you are in the business of making toys, you have to keep your costs and prices in the range the average consumer can afford. Mattel seems to do well at this. Balance. They have inexpensive options for all their big toys. Hasbro did the opposite and hopped for salvation from the collector market. That was a bad gamble and it will sink the company if this continues.
example: Walmart prices here: Barbie (Mattel) vs Star Wars (Hasbro)
Barbie Dreamtopia Royal Doll, Blonde with Pink Skirt, Shoes and Hair Accessory - $5.97
Star Wars The Rise of Skywalker Rey & Kylo Ren - $7.99 (btw this is not a new this year toy, but looks to be reduced price but not on sale)
if you want something current ie from this year:
Star Wars The Black Series: Ahsoka Tano Now $22.53 You save $4.75 was 27.28 You save $4.75
So you can see, Mattel has an inexpensive Barbie, made to be inexpensive, designed to be a cheap toy easy to buy for kids, while if you want the same from Hasbro you are buying a toy from years ago that hasn't sold, and if you want something new to this year it started out at $25+
For sake of fairness Film tie in Barbie:
(Barbie The Movie Collectible Doll, Margot Robbie as Barbie in Inline Skating Outfit $26.22 listed as a best seller) <- in demand, selling well at a high price, looks identical to the lower priced Shelf Stock Barbie which is also selling well, even if not a film tie-in. Ironically the Made for Film Margot Robbie doll which was not labeled as Mattel but some other company is at over $60 not selling, and has a single 1 star review.)
Which brings me to Hasbro's plan this year. They make toys, had a D&D film coming out, designed Dice that transforms into D&D monsters, they licensed it out to a company that makes toys for films, over charged for them, and they didn't even release in a timely way for the film. I personally cancelled my Order because of the OGL thing, and almost didn't go to the film because of the OGL. Glad it was solved just in time so I could see it, the film was good, and I wish more people went. But Hasbro ruined the release due to bad PR in the months leading up to it. Also This has been the Year for Hasbro to really show the world their worst side. If you are in business to make toys and games, never look like an evil greedy company, it will hurt your sales. BTW No Toy company is more evil or greedy than Mattel, but they allowed for their film to make the board look like evil greedy jerks until Barbie made them nice. they basically allowed self deprecating humor to be depicted in what was basically a 2 hour commercial that customers had to pay to watch.
Meanwhile Hasbro.... they need to really change their facing, they need to lower the cost on their staple products, so they retail price is easy for the greatest number of customers. They need to back off on Collectable for collectable sake, they need to allow for their loved products to grow as the market demands. They need to also advertise where people will see the advertisements. All year I've seen Barbie ads on Youtube, and only a couple of D&D film ads just in the weeks leading up to the film.
When was the last time you saw a MtG ad? a DnDB ad besides direct email? What about G.I Joe <- seriously I almost forgot about them because they are so poorly marketed. Did you know they had a MLP D&D adventure? Honestly I wished they advertised that one. This has been a long term issue with Hasbro, they have the product recognition, they have the licenses, they could be much more profitable Mattle is up from 5 years ago, although their peek was May 2022. Hasbro has lost 75% of value over the last 5 years.
From macrotrends.net -
Mattel is doing 5.4 billion in revenue (2022), Hasbro is doing 5.8 billion in Revenue (2022)
Mattel annual/quarterly gross profit history and growth rate from 2010 to 2023. Gross profit can be defined as the profit a company makes after deducting the variable costs directly associated with making and selling its products or providing its services.
Mattel gross profit for the quarter ending September 30, 2023 was $0.978B, a 15.48% increase year-over-year.
Mattel gross profit for the twelve months ending September 30, 2023 was $2.396B, a 13.27% decline year-over-year.
Mattel annual gross profit for 2022 was $2.481B, a 5.53% decline from 2021.
Mattel annual gross profit for 2021 was $2.627B, a 17.1% increase from 2020.
Mattel annual gross profit for 2020 was $2.243B, a 13.44% increase from 2019.
Hasbro annual/quarterly gross profit history and growth rate from 2010 to 2023. Gross profit can be defined as the profit a company makes after deducting the variable costs directly associated with making and selling its products or providing its services.
Hasbro gross profit for the quarter ending September 30, 2023 was $1.009B, a 7.38% decline year-over-year.
Hasbro gross profit for the twelve months ending September 30, 2023 was $3.680B, a 11.9% decline year-over-year.
Hasbro annual gross profit for 2022 was $3.945B, a 12.2% decline from 2021.
Hasbro annual gross profit for 2021 was $4.493B, a 19.92% increase from 2020.
Hasbro annual gross profit for 2020 was $3.747B, a 28.64% increase from 2019.
Almost every single point you made shows questionable analysis and knowledge of the subject matter.
Pointing out that Mattel has cheap products while saying Hasbro does not? A quick google search found me plenty of Hasbro products at the same price as the Mattel items you listed.
Comparing Barbie, a Mattel brand, to Star Wars, a brand Hasbro has to pay licensing fees to Disney on, thus increasing the price to Hasbro? The fact you chose drastically unequivalent items indicates you might not know what you are talking about.
Continuing to complain about premium products while failing to realise that premium products are not mutually exclusive with regular products? Not only does this show a bad understanding of how businesses operate—as I already said, business want to have a wide range of products to ensure the largest possible group of people might be interested—it is internally inconsistent with your own argument that Mattel is doing the right thing. Mattel has plenty of premium figures, including an entire line of “Pink Carpet Ready” Barbies priced in the $100.00+ range. Or there is the entire American Girl doll line Mattel owns—an entire range of more premium products and premium accessories.
Then you go onto advertising - something you clearly do not fundamentally understand. Advertising at a national scale expensive—far more expensive than you could possibly know. They are going to spend their money where it is most efficient - unless you spend all your time watching children’s shows, you’re probably not going to see many toy ads. As for Magic and D&D? Both brands continue to grow year-after-year without the need for expensive advertising. Word of mouth and being the go-to product for each of their industries is more than sufficient to fuel growth; no need to invest money on advertising when people are giving you plenty of free advertising.
I could go on, to the copying and pasting numbers without actually adding any analysis, to failing to realise the D&D movie and Barbie movie have very different appeals resulting in what always was going to be different effects on the market, to casually saying “Hasbro has great brands, they should beat Mattel easily!” while ignoring the existence of many of Mattel’s great brands like Hot Wheels, Fischer Price, American Girl, and Thomas.
All of that is to say, you posted a lot of internally inconsistent and factually wrong points of data… and failed to even respond to my post in any really substantive way. In fact, the only thing you managed to really do is prove me right - it is, in fact, possible to make both premium and non-premium lines simultaneously, and it is, in fact, the industry standard, not just a bad idea cooked up by Hasbro. After all, Mattel, who you seem to be championing, does the exact same thing.
One should be careful what you wish for--Cocks has issues, to be sure, but there is reason to want him over the unknown factor of his replacement. Devil you know and all that.
The reality is that Hasbro is a company aflame. Long before Cocks took over, they tried to expand too rapidly, believing the toy boom could continue for some time. But then Toys-R-Us, their biggest purchaser, imploded, closing in 2018. Then COVID shut down all the factories in China, disproportionately hurting the toy production line. Then they had inflation cutting into folks' wallets, making them less inclined to spend money on non-necessities, like toys and gaming. Now, things are improving some economically.... and their main competitor, Mattel, released an extremely well-regarded movie that gave a whole bunch of people Barbie-mania, causing many to spend their money earmarked for toys on Barbies rather than Hasbro products.
It has been hit after gut-punching hit, mostly due to factors outside of Hasbro's control drastically exacerbating their existing weaknesses from over-diversification in their own markets. Layoffs, closing unnecessary office buildings, and refocusing on your successful brands are natural and necessary components to survival.
Cocks took over as CEO after most of that--he inherited a dumpster fire of a company and always was going to have to make some decisions that would make him look like the bad guy.
Of course, he certainly made a number of his own blunders that exacerbated problems. Take, for instance, the whole OGL thing. Wizards had a pretty darn good reason for wanting to change their license--a racist stole Wizards' intellectual property and tried to publish a bigoted version of Star Frontiers. Wizards was able to stop that because they had IP law on their side... but it exposed a key weakness with D&D. Bigoted Star Frontiers got a lot of press--but was protected. If Ernie Gygax decided to make Bigoted D&D using OGL licensing... Wizards could only stand by and watch. But Cocks dropped the ball with the messaging, got behind the story once leaks happened, and ultimately Wizards, Hasbro's, and his decision paralysis let misinformation and trolls define the story. And that is only one of many of Cocks' PR blunders.
But, flawed though he is--he has one major advantage: He used to work for Wizards. He knows Wizards of the Coast, knows a lot about their brands, and, perhaps most importantly for our purposes here, he is an actual player of the games Wizards produces.
And let's look at D&D, for example. D&D as a brand is hardly decimated. The game has more players than it ever has before. The game has a new updated set of rulebooks which (a) are going to allow Wizards to fix some of the current 5e problems without causing the shock a new edition brings to the playerbase and (b) which contain new elements supported by 80%+ of the tens of thousands of players who vote in the UA polls (a formidable sample size which lends credibility to the polling data). The game also continues to grow in new ways--Beyond support for third party publishers is a big step that both supports non-Wizards content creators and provides new options for adventures beyond what Wizards publishes. There is the VTT which is in the works, which (while not personally my cup of tea), could be a great asset to a whole lot of players looking for an exciting online play experience.
Cocks has his issues, is terrible at PR, and certainly could be better. But the games are doing (mostly) fine and have continued to grow--and that is something that should be applauded.
Because the reality? Cocks could do a lot better, but he also could do a whole lot worse. And, if we removed him--removed the devil we know? When a company on fire looks for a new CEO, they often look for someone out-of-house who is going to make some hard financial decisions. That means, if you get your wish, you are very likely to end up with someone who never had experience working for Wizards. Might have never played D&D. Someone who holds no love for the game. Someone whose only experience, only interest in D&D is the numbers on the page.
So, think long and hard before you make your wish. Do you want the bumbling mediocrity that is Chris Cocks, who at least cares about the game itself? Or do you want the complete unknown of a corporate surgeon, knives sharpened to make some indiscriminate cuts?
Not to put too fine a point on it, but your "defense" of Cocks is, in and of itself, a damnation of his ineptitude. By the circumstances, events and ramifications you've outlined, the man deserves to go.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Come watch us save the multiverse in "The Lost Dragons of Phandelver" - a homebrew based on Lost Mines of Phandelver, Dragon of Icespire Peak, and They Tyranny of Dragons. https://www.twitch.tv/kdinla The Gatewalker Saga - Dragons Beware
Come watch us save the multiverse in "The Lost Dragons of Phandelver" - a homebrew based on Lost Mines of Phandelver, Dragon of Icespire Peak, and They Tyranny of Dragons. https://www.twitch.tv/kdinla The Gatewalker Saga - Dragons Beware
One should be careful what you wish for--Cocks has issues, to be sure, but there is reason to want him over the unknown factor of his replacement. Devil you know and all that.
The reality is that Hasbro is a company aflame. Long before Cocks took over, they tried to expand too rapidly, believing the toy boom could continue for some time. But then Toys-R-Us, their biggest purchaser, imploded, closing in 2018. Then COVID shut down all the factories in China, disproportionately hurting the toy production line. Then they had inflation cutting into folks' wallets, making them less inclined to spend money on non-necessities, like toys and gaming. Now, things are improving some economically.... and their main competitor, Mattel, released an extremely well-regarded movie that gave a whole bunch of people Barbie-mania, causing many to spend their money earmarked for toys on Barbies rather than Hasbro products.
It has been hit after gut-punching hit, mostly due to factors outside of Hasbro's control drastically exacerbating their existing weaknesses from over-diversification in their own markets. Layoffs, closing unnecessary office buildings, and refocusing on your successful brands are natural and necessary components to survival.
Cocks took over as CEO after most of that--he inherited a dumpster fire of a company and always was going to have to make some decisions that would make him look like the bad guy.
Of course, he certainly made a number of his own blunders that exacerbated problems. Take, for instance, the whole OGL thing. Wizards had a pretty darn good reason for wanting to change their license--a racist stole Wizards' intellectual property and tried to publish a bigoted version of Star Frontiers. Wizards was able to stop that because they had IP law on their side... but it exposed a key weakness with D&D. Bigoted Star Frontiers got a lot of press--but was protected. If Ernie Gygax decided to make Bigoted D&D using OGL licensing... Wizards could only stand by and watch. But Cocks dropped the ball with the messaging, got behind the story once leaks happened, and ultimately Wizards, Hasbro's, and his decision paralysis let misinformation and trolls define the story. And that is only one of many of Cocks' PR blunders.
But, flawed though he is--he has one major advantage: He used to work for Wizards. He knows Wizards of the Coast, knows a lot about their brands, and, perhaps most importantly for our purposes here, he is an actual player of the games Wizards produces.
And let's look at D&D, for example. D&D as a brand is hardly decimated. The game has more players than it ever has before. The game has a new updated set of rulebooks which (a) are going to allow Wizards to fix some of the current 5e problems without causing the shock a new edition brings to the playerbase and (b) which contain new elements supported by 80%+ of the tens of thousands of players who vote in the UA polls (a formidable sample size which lends credibility to the polling data). The game also continues to grow in new ways--Beyond support for third party publishers is a big step that both supports non-Wizards content creators and provides new options for adventures beyond what Wizards publishes. There is the VTT which is in the works, which (while not personally my cup of tea), could be a great asset to a whole lot of players looking for an exciting online play experience.
Cocks has his issues, is terrible at PR, and certainly could be better. But the games are doing (mostly) fine and have continued to grow--and that is something that should be applauded.
Because the reality? Cocks could do a lot better, but he also could do a whole lot worse. And, if we removed him--removed the devil we know? When a company on fire looks for a new CEO, they often look for someone out-of-house who is going to make some hard financial decisions. That means, if you get your wish, you are very likely to end up with someone who never had experience working for Wizards. Might have never played D&D. Someone who holds no love for the game. Someone whose only experience, only interest in D&D is the numbers on the page.
So, think long and hard before you make your wish. Do you want the bumbling mediocrity that is Chris Cocks, who at least cares about the game itself? Or do you want the complete unknown of a corporate surgeon, knives sharpened to make some indiscriminate cuts?
Not to put too fine a point on it, but your "defense" of Cocks is, in and of itself, a damnation of his ineptitude. By the circumstances, events and ramifications you've outlined, the man deserves to go.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but if you actually read the post, you would know why you missed the point completely. Your entire response seems to be telling me things I not only know… but that I explicitly said. One uses terms like “bumbling mediocrity” and “the devil you know” to describe someone you are damning for ineptitude; someone who you think is undeserving of their position.
But let me rephrase for your convenience the point you so clearly missed. Here in the real world, sometimes what people deserve is not what is the best course of action. Cocks has made a number of errors, but he does love D&D and Wizards. He knows Wizards fairly well, having worked there for some time, and he is a player of their games.
Cocks became CEO in a period of optimism. Wizards was growing rapidly, their supply chain in China looked like it might recover, and COVID seemed in the rear view mirror. That is the time a company can take a gamble on promoting someone who has an emotional attachment to the product, and that is likely a large reason they elevated Cocks from Wizards to CEO of the whole thing.
But Hasbro is not in a position of optimism anymore. Those hopes of supply chain issues ending and greater opening leading to more purchases? Crushed by inflation and other realities. Hasbro continued to suffer, with its stock at a decade-low. Things are bleak, and there likely is little optimism over in Hasbro’s C-suite.
They don’t hire people who are driven by the love of their brands for times like this—they hire pragmatic killers, trained to squeeze blood from the stone and turn things around.
So, yes, I absolutely am damning Cocks as inept, particularly when it comes to his public relations. But, you know what, given the choice between Cocks and the kind of person history indicates would replace Cocks? I’m going to choose the fool who loves D&D and sometimes does a bad job talking, over the near-certainty of an intelligent hitman, driven by the numbers rather than any emotional attachment to the game.
One should be careful what you wish for--Cocks has issues, to be sure, but there is reason to want him over the unknown factor of his replacement. Devil you know and all that.
The reality is that Hasbro is a company aflame. Long before Cocks took over, they tried to expand too rapidly, believing the toy boom could continue for some time. But then Toys-R-Us, their biggest purchaser, imploded, closing in 2018. Then COVID shut down all the factories in China, disproportionately hurting the toy production line. Then they had inflation cutting into folks' wallets, making them less inclined to spend money on non-necessities, like toys and gaming. Now, things are improving some economically.... and their main competitor, Mattel, released an extremely well-regarded movie that gave a whole bunch of people Barbie-mania, causing many to spend their money earmarked for toys on Barbies rather than Hasbro products.
It has been hit after gut-punching hit, mostly due to factors outside of Hasbro's control drastically exacerbating their existing weaknesses from over-diversification in their own markets. Layoffs, closing unnecessary office buildings, and refocusing on your successful brands are natural and necessary components to survival.
Cocks took over as CEO after most of that--he inherited a dumpster fire of a company and always was going to have to make some decisions that would make him look like the bad guy.
Of course, he certainly made a number of his own blunders that exacerbated problems. Take, for instance, the whole OGL thing. Wizards had a pretty darn good reason for wanting to change their license--a racist stole Wizards' intellectual property and tried to publish a bigoted version of Star Frontiers. Wizards was able to stop that because they had IP law on their side... but it exposed a key weakness with D&D. Bigoted Star Frontiers got a lot of press--but was protected. If Ernie Gygax decided to make Bigoted D&D using OGL licensing... Wizards could only stand by and watch. But Cocks dropped the ball with the messaging, got behind the story once leaks happened, and ultimately Wizards, Hasbro's, and his decision paralysis let misinformation and trolls define the story. And that is only one of many of Cocks' PR blunders.
But, flawed though he is--he has one major advantage: He used to work for Wizards. He knows Wizards of the Coast, knows a lot about their brands, and, perhaps most importantly for our purposes here, he is an actual player of the games Wizards produces.
And let's look at D&D, for example. D&D as a brand is hardly decimated. The game has more players than it ever has before. The game has a new updated set of rulebooks which (a) are going to allow Wizards to fix some of the current 5e problems without causing the shock a new edition brings to the playerbase and (b) which contain new elements supported by 80%+ of the tens of thousands of players who vote in the UA polls (a formidable sample size which lends credibility to the polling data). The game also continues to grow in new ways--Beyond support for third party publishers is a big step that both supports non-Wizards content creators and provides new options for adventures beyond what Wizards publishes. There is the VTT which is in the works, which (while not personally my cup of tea), could be a great asset to a whole lot of players looking for an exciting online play experience.
Cocks has his issues, is terrible at PR, and certainly could be better. But the games are doing (mostly) fine and have continued to grow--and that is something that should be applauded.
Because the reality? Cocks could do a lot better, but he also could do a whole lot worse. And, if we removed him--removed the devil we know? When a company on fire looks for a new CEO, they often look for someone out-of-house who is going to make some hard financial decisions. That means, if you get your wish, you are very likely to end up with someone who never had experience working for Wizards. Might have never played D&D. Someone who holds no love for the game. Someone whose only experience, only interest in D&D is the numbers on the page.
So, think long and hard before you make your wish. Do you want the bumbling mediocrity that is Chris Cocks, who at least cares about the game itself? Or do you want the complete unknown of a corporate surgeon, knives sharpened to make some indiscriminate cuts?
Not to put too fine a point on it, but your "defense" of Cocks is, in and of itself, a damnation of his ineptitude. By the circumstances, events and ramifications you've outlined, the man deserves to go.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but if you actually read the post, you would know why you missed the point completely. Your entire response seems to be telling me things I not only know… but that I explicitly said. One uses terms like “bumbling mediocrity” and “the devil you know” to describe someone you are damning for ineptitude; someone who you think is undeserving of their position.
"..."
So, yes, I absolutely am damning Cocks as inept, particularly when it comes to his public relations. But, you know what, given the choice between Cocks and the kind of person history indicates would replace Cocks? I’m going to choose the fool who loves D&D and sometimes does a bad job talking, over the near-certainty of an intelligent hitman, driven by the numbers rather than any emotional attachment to the game.
I didn't misinterpret your message. To boil it down to a simple statement I believe your characterization of Chris Cocks' "love for the game" or WotC is incorrect. He hasn't presented this in his decisions and his decisions (OGL, Pinkerton, etc.) are so damaging that his intentions, even if you are correct in his heart being in the right place, are grossly outweighed by his actions and the damage they've caused. Sorry if the crux of my counterpoint was lost in my prior message.
So while "the devil you know" is one stance, my argument is simply, given the evidence, "this devil must go".
Come watch us save the multiverse in "The Lost Dragons of Phandelver" - a homebrew based on Lost Mines of Phandelver, Dragon of Icespire Peak, and They Tyranny of Dragons. https://www.twitch.tv/kdinla The Gatewalker Saga - Dragons Beware
Neither of those are as bad as angry people on the internet want to make them out to be—and Cocks, who, again, made a bunch of mistakes with both, still probably did better by his players than the kind of person who is likely to replace him if he were to be fired.
The OGL issue was born from a good place. As I already mentioned, bigot Ernie Gygax (son of bigot Gary Gygax) tried to publish a bigoted version of Wizards’ intellectual property. Wizards was able to stop that. But if he published under OGL, Wizards couldn’t have stopped it, and “son of guy who helped make D&D makes racist D&D content; Wizards stands by and lets it happen” is a pretty darn bad look for Wizards and pretty darn bad for players who might think “neat, Gygax” then be forced to read “and the darker skin race cannot have as high an intelligence score as the lighter skin race” (actually a rule in what Gygax tried to publish) nonsense.
Now, was the response to the draft document handled well? Not really—the fact they took almost two weeks to do much of anything is why folks like you are still angry about it.
But, ultimately, what did Cocks and Wizards do? They both kept the old OGL and released content under a more expensive license.
Cocks started with good intentions, dropped the ball, but ultimately did something that was better for players than when the conversation started. That’s not the kind of behavior you get from a the kind of hatchet man who could replace him—a hatchet man might have doubled down on a new license designed to make Wizards money from third party publishers. Cocks is the fool in this story, but he is the fool who ultimately got the right outcome.
The Pinkertons thing is also not really Wizards’ fault. When a company loses property, the standard thing to do is hire a private investigator to find it—then you can figure out how it got lost, figure out if someone in your warehouse or supply chain stole it, and make sure the issue does not happen again.
The Pinkertons got a bad name a century ago for some pretty bad behavior. But they have rebranded a bunch since then and are presently the gold standard for nation-wide PI firms, and really one of the few games in town who can do the kind of “hey, can you find out what happened to my stuff” Wizards wanted.
Wizards did not mess up here. They hired a company for a job where that company is the only real game in town… and that company’s employees (not Wizards’ employees) acted like far too many PIs do (jerks who want to be cops, not don’t want to have the oversight of being a cop). Cocks and Wizards did not make a mistake in hiring them—that is pretty standard practice—but they did make a mistake in their PR after. They could have tried to make things right and could have said they would demand accountability—instead they did nothing.
If you are trying to convince anyone sensible that Cocks is a disaster, you are going to have to do a whole lot better than (a) thing that ended up better for players and (b) thing that was a completely different company’s screw up that Wizards didn’t say the right things about.
As a stockholder in Hasbro and a long-time player (Basic D&D 1979) and lover of the community, can we all agree that this guy needs to GET GONE NOW...? For Pete's sake! The guy pulls down over $9 Million (yes... you read that right) and has DECIMATED this brand.
Screw up after screw up and misfire after misfire. If any of us did at our jobs what this guy has done at Hasbro, we'd be checking Linkedin right about now...
https://www.dicebreaker.com/topics/layoffs/news/wizards-of-the-coast-owner-hasbro-lays-off-1100-staff-before-christmas
Come watch us save the multiverse in "The Lost Dragons of Phandelver" - a homebrew based on Lost Mines of Phandelver, Dragon of Icespire Peak, and They Tyranny of Dragons.
https://www.twitch.tv/kdinla
The Gatewalker Saga - Dragons Beware
He is untouchable, at the moment. Now, if the VTT is a bust (unlikely it will fail), then he and Williams had better look over their shoulders.
Is Cocks to blame for nobody wanting to buy Star Wars and Marvel toys based on characters that Disney has made completely unlikable?
But sure... go for it... call for his resignation if you're a stockholder. Being a D&D player doesn't have anything to do with it though.
I agree regarding recent screw ups and misfires as far as WotC is concerned, and perhaps his lack of previous experience in leading supply chains with this level of diversification didn't help. However, considering the current economic climate and the bloodbath that is the toy market, would it have really mattered who the CEO was?
Free Content: [Basic Rules],
[Phandelver],[Frozen Sick],[Acquisitions Inc.],[Vecna Dossier],[Radiant Citadel], [Spelljammer],[Dragonlance], [Prisoner 13],[Minecraft],[Star Forge], [Baldur’s Gate], [Lightning Keep], [Stormwreck Isle], [Pinebrook], [Caverns of Tsojcanth], [The Lost Horn], [Elemental Evil].Free Dice: [Frostmaiden],
[Flourishing], [Sanguine],[Themberchaud], [Baldur's Gate 3], [Lego].One should be careful what you wish for--Cocks has issues, to be sure, but there is reason to want him over the unknown factor of his replacement. Devil you know and all that.
The reality is that Hasbro is a company aflame. Long before Cocks took over, they tried to expand too rapidly, believing the toy boom could continue for some time. But then Toys-R-Us, their biggest purchaser, imploded, closing in 2018. Then COVID shut down all the factories in China, disproportionately hurting the toy production line. Then they had inflation cutting into folks' wallets, making them less inclined to spend money on non-necessities, like toys and gaming. Now, things are improving some economically.... and their main competitor, Mattel, released an extremely well-regarded movie that gave a whole bunch of people Barbie-mania, causing many to spend their money earmarked for toys on Barbies rather than Hasbro products.
It has been hit after gut-punching hit, mostly due to factors outside of Hasbro's control drastically exacerbating their existing weaknesses from over-diversification in their own markets. Layoffs, closing unnecessary office buildings, and refocusing on your successful brands are natural and necessary components to survival.
Cocks took over as CEO after most of that--he inherited a dumpster fire of a company and always was going to have to make some decisions that would make him look like the bad guy.
Of course, he certainly made a number of his own blunders that exacerbated problems. Take, for instance, the whole OGL thing. Wizards had a pretty darn good reason for wanting to change their license--a racist stole Wizards' intellectual property and tried to publish a bigoted version of Star Frontiers. Wizards was able to stop that because they had IP law on their side... but it exposed a key weakness with D&D. Bigoted Star Frontiers got a lot of press--but was protected. If Ernie Gygax decided to make Bigoted D&D using OGL licensing... Wizards could only stand by and watch. But Cocks dropped the ball with the messaging, got behind the story once leaks happened, and ultimately Wizards, Hasbro's, and his decision paralysis let misinformation and trolls define the story. And that is only one of many of Cocks' PR blunders.
But, flawed though he is--he has one major advantage: He used to work for Wizards. He knows Wizards of the Coast, knows a lot about their brands, and, perhaps most importantly for our purposes here, he is an actual player of the games Wizards produces.
And let's look at D&D, for example. D&D as a brand is hardly decimated. The game has more players than it ever has before. The game has a new updated set of rulebooks which (a) are going to allow Wizards to fix some of the current 5e problems without causing the shock a new edition brings to the playerbase and (b) which contain new elements supported by 80%+ of the tens of thousands of players who vote in the UA polls (a formidable sample size which lends credibility to the polling data). The game also continues to grow in new ways--Beyond support for third party publishers is a big step that both supports non-Wizards content creators and provides new options for adventures beyond what Wizards publishes. There is the VTT which is in the works, which (while not personally my cup of tea), could be a great asset to a whole lot of players looking for an exciting online play experience.
Cocks has his issues, is terrible at PR, and certainly could be better. But the games are doing (mostly) fine and have continued to grow--and that is something that should be applauded.
Because the reality? Cocks could do a lot better, but he also could do a whole lot worse. And, if we removed him--removed the devil we know? When a company on fire looks for a new CEO, they often look for someone out-of-house who is going to make some hard financial decisions. That means, if you get your wish, you are very likely to end up with someone who never had experience working for Wizards. Might have never played D&D. Someone who holds no love for the game. Someone whose only experience, only interest in D&D is the numbers on the page.
So, think long and hard before you make your wish. Do you want the bumbling mediocrity that is Chris Cocks, who at least cares about the game itself? Or do you want the complete unknown of a corporate surgeon, knives sharpened to make some indiscriminate cuts?
Technically you can call for anything you want, stockholder or not!
Yeah, the issue is getting anyone to take you seriously.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Particularly when I'd be surprised if they own even a single percentage point of the total stock.
He's been CEO since February, prior to that he was in Charge of WotC. He's the mastermind behind the VTT, the OGL 2 disaster, and is probably the guy who hired the Pinkertons for Magic The Gathering Loss prevention. The big 3 mistakes of 2023. Now as for toy sales being down, that is mostly due to Toy sales being universally down as we are in a (Checks terms ) "a Recession" even though we are at some of the historically lowest unemployment rates in history. The average citizen just doesn't have the same free income we did 5 years ago. (Low wages will do this) So hasbro not doing well is not unexpected, as they haven't really changed their models to accommodate how consumers are buying products, and what products people are willing to buy. Instead of making toys less expensive to the customer they are making more expensive limited collectable runs. Which is the dumbest plan ever, started by his predecessor, and not stopped by him.
Toys are drastically more expensive to produce than ever before due to increase production costs, increased raw material costs, and increased tariffs. You cannot simply cut prices to get out of that hole. If your profits decrease by 50%, you need to double your sales to offset the decrease in cost—the toy market is not in a place where decreased costs are going to so substantially increase sales as to make up for the lower prices.
Premium products are a pretty good idea in this particular environment, all things considered. They do not cost too much more to make than regular products (plus, you only have to pay import fees on a lower number of items), you don’t have to invest too much in a large print run, and you can sell them at extremely high mark-ups to a specific target audience likely to have disposable income. They are a safe, easy way to turn a profit, and a pretty good way to prop up a business.
They cannot be the only model, of course—a business, particularly a toy business, needs to have offerings available to a wide range of people. But saying they are a bad business idea kind of misses the point—a business needs to have offerings to a wide range of people, and “wide range” includes having offerings to those at the higher end of the economic spectrum.
Hasbro is in a bad way. Their legacy products are falling sharply in demand, with apparently no expected uptick. It debt load is problematic, but manageable at the moment. But if this grand plan to monetize D&D by at least one order of magnitude in revenue falters, Hasbro is in deep trouble. Frankly, it sounds like the VTT itself is a technical winner. I did not expect that, but the reviews from people I trust, well, they like it. But whether that technical success can be translated into a financial success, that is another matter. Given the leadership at hasbro and wotc, I don't have any faith in that happening. But we will know 12 months from now. The VTT has to be coded with the 6e rule set, so it will be tied to the 6e rollout.
those are excuses. I can go to the local market here in Los Angeles and buy toys made in the USA that cost $5, but if I go to a box brand store the same kind of toys by the big name companies will sell toys made in China for $25 ~ $50, as someone on a budget the $5 toy at vallarta is a better option. The problem here is Supply & Demand Toys have a constant demand, but the people who buy toys do not have disposable income. If you are in the business of making toys, you have to keep your costs and prices in the range the average consumer can afford. Mattel seems to do well at this. Balance. They have inexpensive options for all their big toys. Hasbro did the opposite and hopped for salvation from the collector market. That was a bad gamble and it will sink the company if this continues.
example: Walmart prices here: Barbie (Mattel) vs Star Wars (Hasbro)
if you want something current ie from this year:
Star Wars The Black Series: Ahsoka Tano Now $22.53 You save $4.75 was 27.28 You save $4.75
So you can see, Mattel has an inexpensive Barbie, made to be inexpensive, designed to be a cheap toy easy to buy for kids, while if you want the same from Hasbro you are buying a toy from years ago that hasn't sold, and if you want something new to this year it started out at $25+
For sake of fairness Film tie in Barbie:
(Barbie The Movie Collectible Doll, Margot Robbie as Barbie in Inline Skating Outfit $26.22 listed as a best seller) <- in demand, selling well at a high price, looks identical to the lower priced Shelf Stock Barbie which is also selling well, even if not a film tie-in. Ironically the Made for Film Margot Robbie doll which was not labeled as Mattel but some other company is at over $60 not selling, and has a single 1 star review.)
Which brings me to Hasbro's plan this year. They make toys, had a D&D film coming out, designed Dice that transforms into D&D monsters, they licensed it out to a company that makes toys for films, over charged for them, and they didn't even release in a timely way for the film. I personally cancelled my Order because of the OGL thing, and almost didn't go to the film because of the OGL. Glad it was solved just in time so I could see it, the film was good, and I wish more people went. But Hasbro ruined the release due to bad PR in the months leading up to it. Also This has been the Year for Hasbro to really show the world their worst side. If you are in business to make toys and games, never look like an evil greedy company, it will hurt your sales. BTW No Toy company is more evil or greedy than Mattel, but they allowed for their film to make the board look like evil greedy jerks until Barbie made them nice. they basically allowed self deprecating humor to be depicted in what was basically a 2 hour commercial that customers had to pay to watch.
Meanwhile Hasbro.... they need to really change their facing, they need to lower the cost on their staple products, so they retail price is easy for the greatest number of customers. They need to back off on Collectable for collectable sake, they need to allow for their loved products to grow as the market demands. They need to also advertise where people will see the advertisements. All year I've seen Barbie ads on Youtube, and only a couple of D&D film ads just in the weeks leading up to the film.
When was the last time you saw a MtG ad? a DnDB ad besides direct email? What about G.I Joe <- seriously I almost forgot about them because they are so poorly marketed. Did you know they had a MLP D&D adventure? Honestly I wished they advertised that one. This has been a long term issue with Hasbro, they have the product recognition, they have the licenses, they could be much more profitable Mattle is up from 5 years ago, although their peek was May 2022. Hasbro has lost 75% of value over the last 5 years.
From macrotrends.net -
Mattel is doing 5.4 billion in revenue (2022), Hasbro is doing 5.8 billion in Revenue (2022)
Mattel annual/quarterly gross profit history and growth rate from 2010 to 2023. Gross profit can be defined as the profit a company makes after deducting the variable costs directly associated with making and selling its products or providing its services.
Hasbro annual/quarterly gross profit history and growth rate from 2010 to 2023. Gross profit can be defined as the profit a company makes after deducting the variable costs directly associated with making and selling its products or providing its services.
Can you describe what kind of toys your local market is selling for $5 that you’re seeing in stores for $50?
Almost every single point you made shows questionable analysis and knowledge of the subject matter.
Pointing out that Mattel has cheap products while saying Hasbro does not? A quick google search found me plenty of Hasbro products at the same price as the Mattel items you listed.
Comparing Barbie, a Mattel brand, to Star Wars, a brand Hasbro has to pay licensing fees to Disney on, thus increasing the price to Hasbro? The fact you chose drastically unequivalent items indicates you might not know what you are talking about.
Continuing to complain about premium products while failing to realise that premium products are not mutually exclusive with regular products? Not only does this show a bad understanding of how businesses operate—as I already said, business want to have a wide range of products to ensure the largest possible group of people might be interested—it is internally inconsistent with your own argument that Mattel is doing the right thing. Mattel has plenty of premium figures, including an entire line of “Pink Carpet Ready” Barbies priced in the $100.00+ range. Or there is the entire American Girl doll line Mattel owns—an entire range of more premium products and premium accessories.
Then you go onto advertising - something you clearly do not fundamentally understand. Advertising at a national scale expensive—far more expensive than you could possibly know. They are going to spend their money where it is most efficient - unless you spend all your time watching children’s shows, you’re probably not going to see many toy ads. As for Magic and D&D? Both brands continue to grow year-after-year without the need for expensive advertising. Word of mouth and being the go-to product for each of their industries is more than sufficient to fuel growth; no need to invest money on advertising when people are giving you plenty of free advertising.
I could go on, to the copying and pasting numbers without actually adding any analysis, to failing to realise the D&D movie and Barbie movie have very different appeals resulting in what always was going to be different effects on the market, to casually saying “Hasbro has great brands, they should beat Mattel easily!” while ignoring the existence of many of Mattel’s great brands like Hot Wheels, Fischer Price, American Girl, and Thomas.
All of that is to say, you posted a lot of internally inconsistent and factually wrong points of data… and failed to even respond to my post in any really substantive way. In fact, the only thing you managed to really do is prove me right - it is, in fact, possible to make both premium and non-premium lines simultaneously, and it is, in fact, the industry standard, not just a bad idea cooked up by Hasbro. After all, Mattel, who you seem to be championing, does the exact same thing.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but your "defense" of Cocks is, in and of itself, a damnation of his ineptitude. By the circumstances, events and ramifications you've outlined, the man deserves to go.
Come watch us save the multiverse in "The Lost Dragons of Phandelver" - a homebrew based on Lost Mines of Phandelver, Dragon of Icespire Peak, and They Tyranny of Dragons.
https://www.twitch.tv/kdinla
The Gatewalker Saga - Dragons Beware
"Being a D&D player doesn't have anything to do with it though."
uh... the OGL scandal is all Chris. That turned so many people away from WotC and left everyone with a bad taste in their mouths.
Not sure you meant that to be an admonishment?
Come watch us save the multiverse in "The Lost Dragons of Phandelver" - a homebrew based on Lost Mines of Phandelver, Dragon of Icespire Peak, and They Tyranny of Dragons.
https://www.twitch.tv/kdinla
The Gatewalker Saga - Dragons Beware
Not to put too fine a point on it, but if you actually read the post, you would know why you missed the point completely. Your entire response seems to be telling me things I not only know… but that I explicitly said. One uses terms like “bumbling mediocrity” and “the devil you know” to describe someone you are damning for ineptitude; someone who you think is undeserving of their position.
But let me rephrase for your convenience the point you so clearly missed. Here in the real world, sometimes what people deserve is not what is the best course of action. Cocks has made a number of errors, but he does love D&D and Wizards. He knows Wizards fairly well, having worked there for some time, and he is a player of their games.
Cocks became CEO in a period of optimism. Wizards was growing rapidly, their supply chain in China looked like it might recover, and COVID seemed in the rear view mirror. That is the time a company can take a gamble on promoting someone who has an emotional attachment to the product, and that is likely a large reason they elevated Cocks from Wizards to CEO of the whole thing.
But Hasbro is not in a position of optimism anymore. Those hopes of supply chain issues ending and greater opening leading to more purchases? Crushed by inflation and other realities. Hasbro continued to suffer, with its stock at a decade-low. Things are bleak, and there likely is little optimism over in Hasbro’s C-suite.
They don’t hire people who are driven by the love of their brands for times like this—they hire pragmatic killers, trained to squeeze blood from the stone and turn things around.
So, yes, I absolutely am damning Cocks as inept, particularly when it comes to his public relations. But, you know what, given the choice between Cocks and the kind of person history indicates would replace Cocks? I’m going to choose the fool who loves D&D and sometimes does a bad job talking, over the near-certainty of an intelligent hitman, driven by the numbers rather than any emotional attachment to the game.
I didn't misinterpret your message. To boil it down to a simple statement I believe your characterization of Chris Cocks' "love for the game" or WotC is incorrect. He hasn't presented this in his decisions and his decisions (OGL, Pinkerton, etc.) are so damaging that his intentions, even if you are correct in his heart being in the right place, are grossly outweighed by his actions and the damage they've caused. Sorry if the crux of my counterpoint was lost in my prior message.
So while "the devil you know" is one stance, my argument is simply, given the evidence, "this devil must go".
Come watch us save the multiverse in "The Lost Dragons of Phandelver" - a homebrew based on Lost Mines of Phandelver, Dragon of Icespire Peak, and They Tyranny of Dragons.
https://www.twitch.tv/kdinla
The Gatewalker Saga - Dragons Beware
Neither of those are as bad as angry people on the internet want to make them out to be—and Cocks, who, again, made a bunch of mistakes with both, still probably did better by his players than the kind of person who is likely to replace him if he were to be fired.
The OGL issue was born from a good place. As I already mentioned, bigot Ernie Gygax (son of bigot Gary Gygax) tried to publish a bigoted version of Wizards’ intellectual property. Wizards was able to stop that. But if he published under OGL, Wizards couldn’t have stopped it, and “son of guy who helped make D&D makes racist D&D content; Wizards stands by and lets it happen” is a pretty darn bad look for Wizards and pretty darn bad for players who might think “neat, Gygax” then be forced to read “and the darker skin race cannot have as high an intelligence score as the lighter skin race” (actually a rule in what Gygax tried to publish) nonsense.
Now, was the response to the draft document handled well? Not really—the fact they took almost two weeks to do much of anything is why folks like you are still angry about it.
But, ultimately, what did Cocks and Wizards do? They both kept the old OGL and released content under a more expensive license.
Cocks started with good intentions, dropped the ball, but ultimately did something that was better for players than when the conversation started. That’s not the kind of behavior you get from a the kind of hatchet man who could replace him—a hatchet man might have doubled down on a new license designed to make Wizards money from third party publishers. Cocks is the fool in this story, but he is the fool who ultimately got the right outcome.
The Pinkertons thing is also not really Wizards’ fault. When a company loses property, the standard thing to do is hire a private investigator to find it—then you can figure out how it got lost, figure out if someone in your warehouse or supply chain stole it, and make sure the issue does not happen again.
The Pinkertons got a bad name a century ago for some pretty bad behavior. But they have rebranded a bunch since then and are presently the gold standard for nation-wide PI firms, and really one of the few games in town who can do the kind of “hey, can you find out what happened to my stuff” Wizards wanted.
Wizards did not mess up here. They hired a company for a job where that company is the only real game in town… and that company’s employees (not Wizards’ employees) acted like far too many PIs do (jerks who want to be cops, not don’t want to have the oversight of being a cop). Cocks and Wizards did not make a mistake in hiring them—that is pretty standard practice—but they did make a mistake in their PR after. They could have tried to make things right and could have said they would demand accountability—instead they did nothing.
If you are trying to convince anyone sensible that Cocks is a disaster, you are going to have to do a whole lot better than (a) thing that ended up better for players and (b) thing that was a completely different company’s screw up that Wizards didn’t say the right things about.