
How Pixar Bosses Saved Their Employees from Layoffs - rpledge
http://www.geekosystem.com/how-pixar-bosses-saved-their-employees-from-layoffs/
======
vl
I'm worried about future of Pixar, they always valued original and insightful
stories. All of their early and recent productions were delightful to watch.
Understandably, this approach left not so many space for sequels.

They recently committed to making of Monsters 2 and Cars 2. Story outline for
Cars 2 is just terrible. It seems that financial concerns under Disney
leadership are prevailing and bits of integrity are slipping away.

~~~
topherjaynes
The Story outline for cars might seem "terrible," but think about every Pixar
movie's outline before you actually saw it? A movie about Toys? A Movie
entirely about Rats--whose going to watch that? A Robot who doesn't talk, for
how long?

And yet, each and everyone of those movies were astounding, at least in my
opinion, but critics and box office receipts prove my point too.

Yes, sequels have a tendency to be purely money ploys, but luckily Pixar's
sequels almost exceed the originals (Toy Story 2 and 3). I'd give the future
films a chance before you even see a trailer for them.

~~~
JabavuAdams
For me, aside from some interesting landscape rendering, Cars isn't in the
same league as the other Pixar films. It felt like a pure kids movie +
merchandising extravaganza.

> and box office receipts prove my point too

This isn't saying much. The cost-structure of CGI and effects-heavy films is
such that you have to essentially make something that will appeal to kids
and/or teens, otherwise you're hosed financially.

I can think of many great stories that I'd love to see on screen that wouldn't
really appeal to kids + teens, and therefore wouldn't be feasible with the
current cost-structure.

~~~
axod
I liked Cars. I absolutely hated Up! and Wall-e with a passion.

Cars is obviously a reasonably simple storyline, but it's a good movie with
good characters. Kids like cars _shrug_ it's a movie about toy cars... what's
not to like?

Better than an obese highly irritating boy scout kid hitching a lift on a
house with an old guy :/

~~~
JabavuAdams
UP was strange. It was like two different movies that never quite came
together. I like slapstick, but man, slapstick and cancer doesn't work. It's
like there was a great and weird (good) movie in there but it got cheapened by
the clowny Disney mascot kid thing.

I couldn't stand the kid and the bizarre dog voice, but I haven't thought
enough about it to see a solution.

Wall-E had some nice moments -- mostly when it was trying to be Star Wars. The
Eco-story and human characters were ludicrous.

I want to see what Brad Bird makes next. Incredibles and Ratatouille are by
far my favourite Pixar movies.

~~~
vl
Ratatouille just doesn't cut it for me, I don't care if it's a rat cooking
food or not, the entire story just leaves me thinking "whateva".

Incredibles on other hand is perfect in every way. BTW, given the premise of
this movie it's possible to make good sequel for it without resorting to
"international spies in the world of racing cars".

------
haasted
Remarkably similar to the story of how the jews of Zakynthos were saved during
WWII.

[http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/online/greece/nonflash/e...](http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/online/greece/nonflash/eng/zakyntho.htm)

------
MarkMc
In 2008, Pixar's creative director John Lasseter explained the secret of their
success: "The people who work here are doing what they've wanted to do their
whole lives." [1]

This is great advice that can be applied to any type of work, particularly
entrepreneurial start-up activity. If you're in it just for the money and
don't enjoy what you do, chances are your little start-up venture will not
succeed.

It also didn't hurt that Ed and Alvy could stand up to their bosses. In my
experience, one feature that separates good manages from bad is the
willingness to shield their team from the crap thrown by upper management.

[1]
[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1813964,00....](http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1813964,00.html)

------
Stormbringer
It's funny how the mind plays tricks on us. I had thought that Steve Jobs had
made much more off the sale than that - when I looked at their numbers 7.4
billion return on 5 million invested over 20 years? Pffft. Then I ran the
numbers...

... it translates to a 44% compounding annual increase over 20 years ...

Oh that I should do so well for anyone that would invest in me!!

~~~
MWarneford
There's a beautiful coffee table book "The Pixar Story" that talks about the
cash Jobs put into Pixar.

The book claims Jobs purchased Pixar for $5M and immediately invested another
$5M. When he purchased the company he was also running NeXT. Pixar, like NeXT,
was a computer company selling computer hardware. Both companies we're
struggling and taking up a lot of Job's cash.

The story goes that Pixar started to produce more 3D animated shorts, these
impressed Katzenberg at Disney who agreed to part fund Toy Story. Only to even
get to that point, 6 years after Jobs purchased the company, he'd had to
invest a total of $60M into Pixar. He was investing close to $1M a month.

Between Pixar and NeXT jobs was nearly broke. Although I suspect his "nearly
broke" is a much bigger bank account thank my "nearly broke".

Not sure how true the story is. But that's how "The Pixar Story" tells it.

~~~
yardie
I watched the Pixar Story DVD and when they mentioned that Jobs was writing a
million dollar personal check every month to keep the company afloat my
opinion on his running the company changed instantly. Most opinions of his
role as CEO are really dismissive of him and give all the credit to Lasseter
(who does deserve a lot of credit). But Lasseter, beyond working in the
company, has no real skin in the game. He doesn't have to justify to himself
that this investment may not work out, and continue giving it money...for 10
years. And if Pixar failed its not his bank account that would look like a
crater.

So when someone opines that Steve didn't really influence Pixar, I casually
mention that $100 million over 10 years gets you a lot of influence. And then
ask them to read the pixar story.

------
radioactive21
Great story. Of course if you over analysis it's nothing great, under neath it
could simply be that the executives know that the layoffs was just a start.
First round of layoffs leads to low morale, which leads to a decline in
quality which eventually leads to them being removed.

A lot of leaderships like coaches are usually on short lifespans. The
executives knew that by forcing the company to think about losing two top
execs it was serious and maybe reconsider. In this case it was a good gamble.

Their intentions is what makes the story great, though. Honestly I would have
given a list of people to layoff, but that's why I am not a great leader or a
leader of anything for that matter, of any sorts LOL

------
sdh
don't worry! disney execs will finally figure out a way to get those layoffs
to happen.

------
jedsmith
I watched "ILM - Creating the Impossible" on Encore on Demand the other night,
and it was well worth the watch. There is quite a bit devoted to the
relationship between ILM and Pixar, and a number of historical anecdotes like
this article that are very interesting.

If you haven't seen it, check it out before they drop it. Of course, The Pixar
Story is worth watching as well (same people, I think).

~~~
ruff
The Pixar Story has some issues with it--largely cuts out Alvy Ray Smith and
gives a lot more credit to Steve Jobs than deserved. I'd recommend reading The
Pixar Touch for a balanced portrayal of the company.

For what it's worth, I got to know Alvy by running into him at various Seattle
breakfast spots over the years (he's in Berkeley now). If you ever get to hear
him speak, be sure to go up and talk with him. He's nothing but a welcoming,
smart, and humble guy.

------
Splines
If you haven't yet, go and watch the Pixar Shorts Films Collection[1]. It
includes a fairly long extra with interviews with early Pixar employees, and
the challenges they faced with the limited technology at the time.

[1] [http://www.amazon.com/Pixar-Short-Films-
Collection-1/dp/B000...](http://www.amazon.com/Pixar-Short-Films-
Collection-1/dp/B000V1Y44G)

------
lukefabish
It's great to see that level of commitment to a team, but it was also a smart
move - those guys knew that the intellectual capital sitting in those
employees heads was one of Pixar's biggest assets. Get rid of them so they can
go work for a competitor? Nuts.

~~~
wtracy
Which then makes me wonder: If they _had_ gotten laid off, how many of those
employees would have followed them to the next job?

If your employees are valuable enough, and loyal enough, you might actually
win either way in that situation.

------
javanix
If anyone is interested, The Pixar Touch by David Price is a pretty fantastic
look at the early history (both from a business standpoint and from a
technological standpoint) of the company.

[http://www.amazon.com/Pixar-Touch-Vintage-David-
Price/dp/030...](http://www.amazon.com/Pixar-Touch-Vintage-David-
Price/dp/0307278298/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1294850011&sr=1-2)

------
hkarthik
Great story. But look how times have changed. I can't imagine many company
leaders today choosing to stand their ground and put their own heads on the
chopping block. I'm not sure when it happened, but this kind of servant
leadership doesn't seem to exist today. Anyone have recent examples of stories
like this?

~~~
scott_s
Times have not changed. This level of commitment of managers to their
employees is rare now, and always has been.

~~~
dustingetz
i try not to be a cynic, but if they had even an inkling of their potential,
their commitment was economically rational.

~~~
sliverstorm
How many people move to take a bullet because it is the economically rational
thing to do? Even body guards don't generally _elect_ to take a bullet unless
they really like the person they are protecting.

------
julian37
According to this article, Pixar doesn't treat its employees as nicely these
days: [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lee-stranahan/lucasfilm-and-
pi...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lee-stranahan/lucasfilm-and-pixar-
consp_b_801432.html)

~~~
far33d
Actually, Pixar is probably one of the best places on the planet to work.

The no-cold-call policy did not mean that employees were off limits
completely. We hired lots of people from ILM, Lucasfilm, Dreamworks, etc, but
they came to us.

The "evil" of this particular case is pretty overstated. I was there at the
time, and basically understood it was happening, and it didn't bother me in
the slightest. All those other VFX houses treated their employees like cattle.

~~~
jonhendry
I can kinda see a practical rationale to a no-cold-call policy: It's pretty
well-known when a movie is in production, so one company could throw a monkey
wrench into a competitor's film by poaching a key person at a bad time just by
throwing a bunch of money.

I suppose that's mostly the case anywhere, but film releases are, I think, on
somewhat tight schedules to hit release windows. Cause a three month delay in
the release of a Pixar movie and you might remove a potentially huge summer
competitor from the field.

As long as unhappy employees are able to look elsewhere on their own
initiative, it doesn't seem _that_ bad.

------
deepGem
Had read about this in HBR long back, Thanks for the refresher. The entire
Pixar story is very very inspiring.

