Slashdot Mirror
Pixar For Sale?
blamanj writes "The on-again off-again relationship between Pixar and Disney is currently on-again, and in a big way according to this story. Pixar originally signed a distribution deal which gave Disney a percentage of the profits and a distribution fee of 10%-15% of revenues. With Pixar revenues well over two billion dollars on their films, Jobs was looking for a better deal and dropped negotiations with the mouse. But now, according to CNN, he might be willing to sell the company outright. I can't believe that Pixar employees would be happy."
Company acquisitions are typically godsends for many talented employees. It gives them a chance, whether through direct layoffs or just the ability to use the move as an excuse, to find new employment elsewhere. Many go on to found their own companies and become successful beyond what they could ever hope as a simple employee.
It's probably not so bright a future for those employees who have no talent or vision, but since this is Pixar we are talking about, I don't think that's going to be the case in the vast majority of cases.
Jesus saved me from my past. He can save you as well.
Makes a lil sense, I mean this isn't like Apple for Jobs, this is a company he bought and helped raise up and stuff it's not the company he helped create like Apple. Though honestly I can't see why he wouldn't want to hold on to it. It's not as if he needs the cash. Unless he's planning on out right buying a really large chunk of Apple or something.
Disney has been in a creative slump for a number of years. They did not catch on to the technological changes very quickly, and their stories have been lacking, feeling like new cookie-cutter versions of tropes that ceased to be fresh a long time ago.
I seriously doubt bringing Pixar (or any other animation group) in-house would help, though. There is a very real risk that an already demoralised animation division gives up altogether, while the outside company's group dynamic gets destroyed by the change in corporate culture, the hostility and despair from the in-house people and the inevitable loss of people that do not wish to continue after a merger.
For such a move to work, I believe Disney needs to put its own house in order first, so there is a thriving, positive culture to merge with. If not, you'll just destroy two groups, not rescue one as the plan may be.
But then, what do I know...
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
Since when should employee happiness be the basis of whether or not to sell a company?
In the end it's the owners who decide whether to hold on to it, or divest it. However, it does seem a little unwise for Jobs to sell off what seems to be a profitable outfit.
Welley Corporation - SLM Scammers
Way to go jackass Do you have a job, and if so, are you a manager? Sorry for being rude, but an important part of any company is something we call "worker satisfaction." This is probably even more important in a creative company like Pixar, as opposed to some faceless banking company where you sit around and prep millions of lines of code for y2k. (Office Space reference if you didn't get it) Low worker satisfaction means a higher turnover rate which generally means less productivity. People need to remember that in most industries, the employees are the company. Not to sound like a Soviet Russian, but happy workers are efficient workers.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Regardless of the success of Chicken Little, buying Pixar would be buying exactly what Disney needs - a company full of talented, creative overachievers who care as much about their art and storytelling as profits and dollar signs (which they have no problem making plenty of).
The best idea would be to buy Pixar and leave it the hell alone - a Hong Kong for Disney's People's Republic.
Light a fire for a man and he'll be warm for a day. Light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!
Can you imagine the lively, engaging style of Pixar stuggling to survive the diktats for formulaic plot heaped upon it by Disney execs? Think "The Emperor's New Groove" but done with shiny new CG. Ugh.
Sean Ellis
Follow OfQuack's antics on Twitter.
I just hope reclaimed Pixar would work on other project besides Star Wars films.
Considering the vast amounts of money that Pixar movies rake in, they would have to be insane to do that.
I think it probably does. From what I've heard he's usually been pretty hands off and allowed them to make their films the way they wanted without a lot of meddling. I doubt they'll get that kind of freedom from Disney, a company that has consistently blamed their medium (2D animation) for their falling revenues, seemingly without a clue that it is their lackluster storytelling that has doom their pictures as it is with most films that fail when their producers have the resources to make them hits.
This could be a win-win situation. If Disney buys Pixar, I'll be quizzing my friends there on how it's going management-wise. If it looks like a repeat of the Apple/NeXT merger, I'll buy a pile of Disney shares, and watch them double in value in three to four years.
When Apple acquired NeXT, their top three levels of management were pretty much replaced with NeXT employees. The result: a revitalized Apple, which has grown from a nadir of about $2B in market capitalization, to todays $47 billion company.
If Disney acquires Pixar, and puts John Lasseter in charge of animation, it could be a great thing for both companies. The Pixar employees (most of them are shareholders) get a nice bundle of Disney shares for their Pixar equity, and those Disney shares then take off when the effect of Pixar's influence on the Disney organization starts to become obvious to Wall Street.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
I see no reason for Pixar, mutual funds, or individual stockholders to sell Pixar stock at this point.
The NYT probably just phoned Michael Eisner and asked for a good story to print.
Everybody is moaning and complaining that the sale would be no good for the purchasing company, as all the good employees will leave. Well, from the seller's point of view, that's the problem of the new owner. The buyer, if they wish to keep the creative talent and continue making gobs of money with their new acquisition, needs to make sure the "new" employees stay happy hwere they are. If that means a variation in corporate policy for the Pixar division...well, that's what it takes. If you're going to cut benefits, you'd better be willing to pony up more cash in salaries.
While we bemoan the plight of the employees in the purchase, the simple fact is that they don't own the company, and are always subject to a sale when the owner(s) feel the price is right or that the value has peaked. That is business. If you don't like it, go make your own business. Then you can decide your own fate.
How can I make such harsh remarks from my cushy slashdot-posting-all-day-long job? I got tired of somebody else calling the shots three years ago, so I opened my own firm. Last summer I was contacted by a medium sized, regional company to sell my small practice to them and become the head of a new department, and built it from scratch. It took me about an hour to realize that, as much as I despise day to day business, I really like being the owner. I call the shots. I'm not making as much salary as I would for them, and insead of a wad of cash for my business, I've got a bunch of depreciating equipment, an office upfit loan, and a 4 year lease I've got to pay on every month. But I set my hours, determine which projects I take and which I don't want, and I set my own deadlines. Someday I plan on selling out. It may be to my employees, or it may be in a merger with another firm. It's just business, but in this case it's my business. The employees will have to deal with that.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
OTOH, if they still believe that hiding behind that multiply-protected-by-acts-of-Congress cute mouse of Disney's is... more cute mice, then I'm sure they'd be ecstatic.
Well, since the employees at Pixar enjoy salary bonuses based largely on the performance of the company's copyrighted and sold products, most of them will probably be pleased to work (or continue to work) for a company that does indeed want to see (and defend) revenue from their expensively made products. It does Pixar no good if some family that wants to amuse their kids with a hundred sedative TV-playings of Finding Nemo after they've seen it in the theater don't have to pay for that in-house entertainment. The sale of DVDs is a big part of how Pixar can afford the top-flight talent that flocks to work there.
Pixar also sells software - something a lot of people don't know. Expensive software. Without protecting their rights on that front, a lot of the in-house development that they do wouldn't happen.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Being in the animation industry, I keep a close watch on the big hitters. Disney all but slashed the throats of hundreds of artists a few years ago. They have let almost their entire 2d department go, and have now shut down two of their 3d studios (Secret Lab anyone?). This is nothing but a ploy by Disney to get someone else to make their movies because they tend to screw it up themselves. Chicken Little may be good, but we will see if those artists have jobs in two years.
Ah, but notice it was the _Creative People_ at Disney that helped, those who for a while managed to produce great animated movies (i.e. Aladdin, Lion King, Mulan...).
The ones that messed things up are the ones that eventually messed Disney animation up: the middle management that knows better.
Jobs is possibly interested in maybe possibly selling Pixar to Disney or perhaps to someone else maybe, possibly. Disney is trying hard to show Jobs and the rest of the world that their animation arm isn't completely dead. Jobs is angling for content deals that will help Apple. Much is possible; nothing is known.
Wake me up when there's more than a rumor.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ