
Aardman Animation Is Giving the Company to Their Employees - Tomte
https://www.themarysue.com/aardman-shares-employees/
======
neves
I've already loved these guys, now my admiration just increased. Reading HN we
start to think that life is to get bigger and richer. These guys spend their
time spreading intelligence, art, and fun.

~~~
C1sc0cat
That is the point of a worker coop just that the rewards are distributed
equitably :-) an d yes that does mean the cleaner / office admin get as much
as the CTO

~~~
scandox
Can you elaborate on "gets as much as". Do you mean they get as many shares?
Earn the same salary? I'm a bit unclear on that.

~~~
alehul
I don't believe salary will be equal-- the company will still pay out
salaries; owning equity and receiving dividends from that equity is a
different matter. Here's a source with much more info on the structuring:
[https://www.theguardian.com/film/2018/nov/10/wallace-
gromit-...](https://www.theguardian.com/film/2018/nov/10/wallace-gromit-
producers-hand-stake-in-business-to-staff)

------
nightski
Sorry for the naive question, but how does this work? So let's say the
employees now are part of this trust which owns 75% of the shares. What is the
benefit? The trust owns the shares legally correct? Is it some sort of profit
sharing scheme? I assume you don't hold on to the shares when you leave the
company (as they are with the trust)? Does every new hire dilute the
ownership?

How does this actually impact the day to day employee if at all? My wife is
part of an "employee" owned company and all it really means is more
responsibility without any real benefit other than a paltry profit sharing
payout of a few hundred bucks each year. So I am a little skeptical.

~~~
SimonPStevens
In this case I think the primary reason is to protect the company.

Aardman is probably a fairly hot company right now. Probably prime for a
purchase by one of the big studios. But then it would most likely just get
broken up and turned into a mill for churning out look-a-like content. Or
possibly even just a logo stamped on contracted out content. I believe the
founders have been fairly clear in the past about not being interested in
selling.

While the founders still own it they can just turn down these offers and stay
independent, but soon they are going to retire and will have to give up
ownership to someone. And that someone might just decide to take the big
payout and sell. So this is their way of ensuring that the company continues
to run as it is for the good of the employees. It can now only be sold if the
majority of employees vote to accept the sale, and if they do at least they'll
also be the ones to get any associated payout not just some profit driven
owner.

~~~
relix
Either it's hard to create the content, or it is not.

If it's not hard, the studios don't need to buy Aardman. The IP they have is
negligible, and no one watches a movie because it's made by Aardman (99% of
the people would not know who they are anyway).

If it is hard, the studios would need to keep the employees who manage to do
this hard thing, and it would be in the purchaser's best interest to manage it
as if it were a butterfly.

~~~
RobertKerans
> and no one watches a movie because it's made by Aardman

From a UK perspective I think you're pretty wrong here. Aardman cant be
separated from the style they've built over the last 30 years, and it's
incredibly popular. Even if someone didn't recognise the name, you could show
most people a even a single frame from one film and they'd recognise what it
was immediately.

~~~
benj111
I think you might be mis interpreting the parent. They are presenting 2
options (either its hard or not), without a preferred option.

But yes I think you're right Aardman are instantly recognisable and not easily
copyable.

------
mycall
I hope to see more of this in the future, although from a different angle. As
more and more business owners are retiring, it is a great time to give their
business to their employees -- especially in the form of a worker cooperative.

~~~
TimTheTinker
I hope Jack Dangermond considers doing something like this with Esri[0] at
some point.

[0] [https://www.esri.com/](https://www.esri.com/)

------
thelasthuman
If only all companies did this, maybe we could influence our government the
same way malicious special interests do right now. There would finally be
representation.

------
KLVTZ
This reminds me of Bob's Red Mill and their Employee Stock Ownership Program
(ESOP):

[https://www.bobsredmill.com/bobs-way-
meet#ESOP](https://www.bobsredmill.com/bobs-way-meet#ESOP)

~~~
teslabox
I just recently learned about ESOPs: a few weeks ago I visited Graybar's [0]
website, and learned that this large electric/etc distributor has been
employee-owned since the 1920's.

Louis Kelso was "the inventor and pioneer of the employee stock ownership plan
(ESOP)" [1]. Kelso wrote *The Capitalist Manifesto" [2] about employee-
ownership in 1958.

I think most businesses would run better if their employees were more invested
in their success.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graybar](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graybar)

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_O._Kelso](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_O._Kelso)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Capitalist_Manifesto](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Capitalist_Manifesto)

[3] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Employee-
owned_compan...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Employee-
owned_companies_of_the_United_States)

(now I can close those tabs: HN comments are much better for me to keep track
of things I've read than bookmarks.)

~~~
fabianhjr
Since about 12% of world-wide population is part of a coop[1] there are a lot
of statistics. Of interest around stability[2]:

\- The economic activity of the 30,000 cooperatives in the U.S. contributes an
estimated $154 billion to the nation’s total income. The co-ops have helped to
create over 2.1 million jobs, with an impact on wages and salaries of almost
$75 billion (Deller et al 2009).

\- Cooperative businesses have lower failure rates than traditional
corporations/small businesses: after the first year (10% failure versus
60-80%) and after 5 years in business (90% still operating versus 3-5% of
traditional businesses) (World Council of Credit Unions study in Williams
2007). Evidence also shows that cooperatives both successfully address the
effects of crises and survive crises better (Borzaga and Calera 2012).

\- Since most cooperatives are owned and controlled by local residents, it is
more likely to promote community growth than an investor-oriented firm. Since
cooperative business objectives are needs oriented, cooperatives are more
likely to stay in the community (Zeuli, Freshwater et al 2003).

\- Cooperative businesses stabilize communities because they are community-
based business anchors; and distribute, recycle, and multiply local expertise
and capital within a community. They enable their owners to generate income,
and jobs; accumulate assets; provide affordable, quality goods and services;
develop human & social capital (Gordon Nembhard 2002, 2004b, 2008a; Fairbairn
et al 1991; Logue and Yates 2005).

\- Cooperative start-up costs can be low because: are eligible to apply for
loans and grants from a number of federal and state agencies designed to
support co-op development; are often provided relatively low cost loans from
non-governmental financial institutions like cooperative banks because they
are chartered or established to do so (Zeuli, Freshwater et al 2003).

\- WAGES in Oakland CA finds that after owning the house cleaning co-op the
worker-owners’ median income increased to over $40,000 (before the co-op the
Latina owners had a median income of $24,000). Ownership in the co-op has put
their income higher than the national average of $38,000 for Latinos/as
([http://www.wagescooperatives.org/economic-
empowerment](http://www.wagescooperatives.org/economic-empowerment))

\- Food co-ops spend more revenues locally, buy more products locally, buy
more organic produce, recycle more plastic, and create more jobs than
conventional grocers. For every $1,000 spent at a food co-op, $1,606 goes to
the local economy; for every $1 million in sales, 9.3 jobs are created (Yes!
Magazine 2013).

[1]: [https://www.ica.coop/en/global-co-operative-
statistics](https://www.ica.coop/en/global-co-operative-statistics)

[2]: [http://www.geo.coop/story/fact-sheet](http://www.geo.coop/story/fact-
sheet)

------
refurb
Not to be a cynic, but the owner can get a lot of benefits (including tax
benefits) from selling to their employees versus an outright acquisition by an
outside party.

Basically, the owner sells their shares to a trust, which then pays the owner
and the employees gain ownership over a period of time as the financing is
paid back.

~~~
starbeast
I rather suspect that someone like Pixar or Dreamworks would have offered more
money than Nick Park is able to get from his employees.

~~~
jillesvangurp
You mean Disney & NBCUniversal. Both have been acquired and lost most of what
made them famous (creativity) in the process. I think that's what Nick Park is
trying to avoid. I'm assuming he'd get more satisfaction out of seeing Aardman
thrive independently while he rides out his retirement.

------
snailletters
Previous discussion at
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18422105](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18422105).

------
bleuarff
Off topic, but the cookie consent popin wants me to allow a total of more than
2500 different cookies? Only a few are actually created, but come on, do they
really partner with thousands of 3rd parties for my precious data?

------
samstave
Ohhh... thats just lovely, isn't Gromet?

\---

I love this company. It was sad when they lost props in a fire.

------
tjpnz
For a studio that often injects messages on capitalism and class struggle into
their work none of this comes as much of a surprise.

------
profalseidol
Share the means of production! We need less centralized planning in companies.
And the only truly way to achieve that is to share the ownership. Partners not
the Master-Slave trickery that we call Employment.

------
CraneWorm
Aardman Animation, the stop-motion studio behind the Oscar-winning Wallace &
Gromit shorts and Chicken Run, has brokered a new deal that puts ownership of
the studio in the hands of its devoted team of employees. Founders Peter Lord
and David Sproxton, who started the company in 1972, has ordered 75% of shares
[1] placed into a trust, where they will be held for Aardman’s workers.

Lord and Sproxton have no plans for retiring anytime soon, but they wanted to
shift their priorities at the company. Lord said, “We’ve spent so much time
building this company up and being so profoundly attached to it. It’s not a
business to us, it’s everything, it’s our statement to the world. Having done
that for so many years, the last thing we wanted to do was to just flog it off
to someone.”

Sproxton added, “And we wanted to make sure they are all engaged in this
employee ownership as well,” assuring their team that they won’t be in danger
of a big studio buyout. Both men are committed to keeping Aardman’s uniquely
close-knit culture. “There’s no real concern about the culture of the people,
it’s just an asset that can be sold on in years to come,” he said of a
corporate acquisition.

The studio is located in Bristol, U.K., where a team of 130 staffers run the
beloved stop-motion animation company. During production, that number can
swell to nearly three times that size for a feature-length film. Aardman is
currently in production on <em>Farmageddon: A Shaun the Sheep Movie, which
will be followed by the long-awaited Chicken Run 2.

Sproxton and Lord will join director Nick Park on Aardman’s new executive
board of directors. Park, who has been with the company since its early days,
directed the Oscar winning Wallace &amp; Gromit shorts, which include The
Wrong Trousers, A Close Shave and the film The Curse of The Were-Rabbit, which
won Best Animated Feature in 2005. Park and Lord co-directed 2000’s Chicken
Run, which remains the highest-grossing stop motion animated film of all time.

Lord said of his and Sproxton’s future with the company, “We’re not quitting
yet, we are doing this because we love the company and because we love it we
think this will be the best things for it. This is not about David and I
leaving. It is a continuity deal. We always believed that independence was our
strong suit. We didn’t have to dance to anybody else’s tune and could make our
own decisions.”

This move towards continued independence and self reliance follows Aardman’s
carefully hand-made approach their projects. Their films are beloved for their
handcrafted aesthetic and their commitment to British humor and culture. Their
latest move to share ownership ensures that Aardman will remain as charming
and unique as they always have been.

[1] href="[https://www.theguardian.com/film/2018/nov/10/wallace-
gromit-...](https://www.theguardian.com/film/2018/nov/10/wallace-gromit-
producers-hand-stake-in-business-to-staff)

------
lexxed
I watched Wallace and Gromit like a 100 times

------
blazespin
Employee ownership is a very old concept. All studies have shown that they are
risk averse and have poor growth. I’d love for this to work, but you can’t
fantasize your way to results.

~~~
cazum
Both of those things sound very good. Corporate growth for the sake of growth
is what got us to an atmospheric carbon dioxide level of 400PPM.

If your idea of a company's success is how much profit it accrues, maybe it's
time to question why it is you think that's a good thing.

~~~
beerlord
Market failure got us to 400PPM. The externalities of carbon and methane
pollution have not been properly priced in. That can be resolved with a market
mechanism - a carbon tax.

The free market has also brought us widespread electric cars, solar panels,
gas power plants. The very things with which we will combat climate change.

Socialism has brought us expanding populations globally, by offering free food
to people who are not productive enough to buy it. The biggest threat to the
planet now are the expanding populations of countries who still have their
fertility rate above replacement rate.

~~~
cazum
If we're just going to attribute anything that happened during capitalism as a
result of the "free market" then I get to say that communism invented
satellites, discovered stem cells, and cured maternally transmitted HIV.

Electric cars and solar panels won't save us. You're not fooling anyone with
that. Solar panels are not nearly efficient enough to replace anything major
any time soon, and electric passenger cars will certainly help, but they are
not hitting the pavement fast enough to have any kind of impact in the
timelines we need to see to avoid apocalyptic catastrophe.

Also how will gas power plants help climate change? Unless this is a different
use of the word 'gas' than i'm used to, I think you're referring to natural
gas, aka: one of the largest contributor to carbon emissions.

And damn, I've heard a lot of dumb anti-socialist arguments before, but
"people who are not able to provide labor to a market economy should starve to
death" is a new one.

~~~
Plastikdusche
Do you have a source that natural gas is the largest carbon emissionss
contributer? Genuinely curious, because over here in Germany gas companies
(Gazprom.. ;)) market themselves as the opposite and the same argument is used
for cars running on natural gas. I know that's just PR, but I thought it
produces less emissions because it burns more efficiently than other fossil
fuels.

~~~
Symbiote
CO2 emissions are essentially the same, but other pollutants are much lower.
There are less contaminants in natural gas, so burning it in a cheap and
inefficient engine like a bus in a city is better than using petrol.

