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.
Michael Eisner
Well...Am I the only one who's worried about future movies? I mean...What will we occupy our kids with? Computers?! I mean...COME ON! It's not as if I'm going to pay for their WoW subscriptions!
So Jobs cut's a deal with his mates at Disney for TV over iTunes then once he has what he wants, tells Disney to bugger off with distribution of the Pixar flicks. I love it.
Join the Digital TV discussion @ http://forums.dvbowners.com
I wouldn't be suprised if Lucasfilm bought back Pixar from Jobs since Lucasfilm sold Pixar in 1986. I just hope reclaimed Pixar would work on other project besides Star Wars films.
The current deal with Disney, as I understand it:
1: All proceeds are returned to Disney until distribution costs are covered. That works out to 10-15% of all proceeds.
2: The remaining proceeds are split 50-50 between Disney and Pixar. Ultimately, that works out, in conjunction with the distribution costs, to a 60-40 or 65-35 split with Disney raking in the higher end of the money for each film Pixar created in its entirety.
3: Disney owns the rights to ALL characters appearing in Pixar movies. Pixar owns the right of refusal on sequels. ie: if Pixar opts against making a sequel to a given movie, Disney can and probably will make it with no input from Pixar. Witness Toy Story 3.
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
Here's the nytimes article they refer to
Jobs ready to sell Pixar: Report
Newspaper says animated studio head open to the right deal; receptive to offer from partner Disney.
October 31, 2005: 9:08 AM EST
The success of the Walt Disney Co. film "Chicken Little" could determine whether Disney or partner Pixar has the greater leverage in upcoming talks.
Pixar has had nothing but hits since it started making films in 1995.
NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Steve Jobs, the chairman and CEO of Pixar Animation Studios, would be open to a sale of the company at the right price, according to a published report.
The New York Times reports Jobs, who owns about 50 percent of Pixar (Research), would want a strong premium to its current $5.9 billion market capitalization to consider a sale, but he would be open to an offer from its long-time partner, Walt Disney Co. (Research) The paper attributed Jobs' willingness to consider a sale to "two people with knowledge of the talks" now taking place between Disney and Pixar about possibly extending their partnership.
But the paper reports that in talks about a new version of their partnership, Disney CEO Robert Iger has yet to make an offer to acquire Pixar. The paper reports that Disney is hoping that its new animated feature, "Chicken Little," due in theaters this weekend, will give it greater leverage in talks with Pixar.
"Chicken Little" is the first offering from Disney's animation studio since it was revamped to produce computer-generated features that have a three-dimension look, rather than the traditional hand-drawn two-dimensional cartoons.
Pixar has produced only CG features and nothing but blockbusters since it started producing movies in 1995, while many of the Disney-generated animated movies during the period were considered box office flops.
The Times reports that if "Chicken Little" is a hit, it would show Wall Street and Jobs that Disney need not depend on Pixar for creation of new animated movie characters that could be adapted for theme park rides, consumer products and television.
The movie has gotten generally favorable early word, but if it is not well received by critics or moviegoers, the paper reports that Jobs will gain leverage in his talks with Disney because the media conglomerate would be seen as relying on Pixar to add new stories to its creative arsenal.
If the movie performs poorly, Bernstein & Co. media analyst Michael Nathanson told the paper, "investors might want to see a Pixar deal right behind it." Still, he added, "it's all about numbers, and both sides - Disney and Pixar - are looking for leverage."
Pixar has strong cash reserves and no longer needs Disney's to help finance films, so it is looking for a distribution agreement for a far larger percent of the box office than the 50 percent it receives under the current deal with Disney.
But while there are likely to be other studios willing to distribute Pixar films, analysts see Disney as best positioned to promote future Pixar films and its characters due to theme parks and strong merchandise sales channels.
Jobs would evaluate any Pixar partnership based on where he could get the best deal for the studio, the paper reports, not on his developing friendship with Iger. Jobs often sparred with Iger's predecessor, Michael Eisner. The Disney Channel and ABC, other units of Disney, recently signed a deal to distribute shows on the new video version of the Apple Computer (Research) iPod. Jobs is also Chairman and CEO of Apple.
The Times reports that detailed negotiations between Disney and Pixar are likely to begin in mid-November and could be wrapped up by late December or early January, said one of the paper's sources. The studios have several issues to grapple with, according to the paper, including who would have creative oversight over new Pixar characters at Disney theme parks and how revenue from rides and other attractions would be split.
In summary: This is a news article about another news article
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Although the moon is smaller than the earth, it is farther away.
Shareholders own and manage the company, not employees. If employees dont like it they can leave.
For companies that have much of their value in the talents of their employees, them not liking things and leaving can quickly become a very big problem for the company and its owners, to the point that it may inhibit a sale (or other management move) altogether.
A quibble: Shareholders own the company. Executives manage it. Shareholders can only influence the executives through voting for the board, who in turn oversee the executives. Unless you are a large enough shareholder to be able to put "your" people on the board you don't have much power at all.
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
will the headline be
Pixar Employees Lose Their Jobs?
Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
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.
What is it with Jobs and resisting mouse-related progress?
;)
Add your own, presumably better, mouse-related gags if you wish.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Although I'd never buy a Mac, I give Jobs and his employees credit for:
1. Showing the hacks who run Disney that not all movies have to suck. It is possible to make an animated movie that's actually watchable and somewhat entertaining. Just think about the crappy cartoons that existed before Pixar movies, in case you don't agree.
2. Showing that Disney totally sucks. Empereror has no clothes. They can crank out schlocky sequels, but that's about it. A bit like the video game business -- indies do it better. The big publishers are filled with money-grubbing power seekers. With Jobs, I think that money is just for keeping score -- his main goal is to make superb stuff.
3. Pixar has run cirles around Eisner, Katzenberg, Spielberg and Geffen. The media bosses suck. Jobs has more talent than those greedy, grasping, imitative, uncreative hacks.
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_
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.
"Pixar recently claimed that it is cunctipotent."
You just can't argue with a word like cunctipotent.
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.
Depends on where they are on the geek scale. Disney being the analog of Satan in the computer/copyright world, no I can't imagine they'd be very happy.
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.
The question I want to know is why Jobs would sell Pixar? The clearest answer I can see has something to do with Jobs's little iPod video thingy and Disney's little "we own your whole damn childhood" movie archive...
Direct away from face when opening.
Just a random thought: Considering what Jobs can do with Apple, Jobs would need to buy out some minority partners to have more board control in Apple (Valued at about $50bn http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=aapl) -- and for that he would need good cash. That cash can come out of Pixar.
Apple would sure do better with Jobs in better control (of the board) and with Microsoft blundering big-time, MAC could be the next windows. Better control would also decrease the probability of a Sculley-like 1985 takeover Deja-vu.
On a side note, the fact that Google's founders have a unique 3:1 voting power in the board (you can google to find more about it) reflects on the way they focus and innovate tirelessly. Also, the stories of Billy B Gates and Larry "I am God" Ellison and numerous other Successful Owner-CEOs would tell you that when it comes to running (and being in control of) your own damn public limited company, your ownership (shares) is very critical, no matter how good (or bad) a CEO are you.
And, as a reminder, we must never forget how HP (the HP way) got screwed by board politics.
Let pixar be Disney's, but I'll bet you'll want Apple to be Jobs. If Pixar's sale can help him do that, so be it.
Cheers!
(Followed by Sculley "I'm the CTO" Jokes...)
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
The Pixar/Disney story is very interesting, if only for showing the kind of attitude that Pixar has (compared with the normal Hollywood flacks): when push came to shove, Pixar made the move "their way", walking away from the Disney bosses and their "Geld". Shortly thereafter the Disney media bosses decided it really was the best thing ever, and got back on board. And they proceeded to take as much credit for the outcome as they could, of course. If you've ever worked with the publisher/media boss types, you know what they are like, and greatly appreciate the backbone that Jobs and company showed.
... Disney, which was bankrolling the project, peppered the young animators with notes and suggestions. The story was too juvenile, the higher-ups said, and the characters had to be edgier. Afraid to trust themselves, Lasseter and his crew tried to follow all the directions.
Here's the source of this quote:
It was, nearly everyone agrees, a train wreck. Disney hated the movie and the idea -- and shut it down.
"Yeah that was fun,'' jokes Pete Docter, who was nominated for Oscars for "Toy Story'' and "Monsters, Inc.'' "And it happened right around Christmas, too.''
Lasseter recalls that he "begged'' for two weeks to fix things. The animators went back, took out all of Disney's suggestions and made the movie they wanted to make in the first place.
And, naturally, when they screened the new version, Disney execs loved it...
Thanks media bosses!
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_
*puts pinky finger on corner of mouth* ...ONE HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS!
Circumcision is child abuse.
Somehow I can't see Disney getting into software...
Ever see the old cartoon with Fogghorn Legghorn where he tries to marry the rich widdower, but has to ipress her 'genius' son?
The genuis son character looks alot like the main char in chicken little.
Mycroft
https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
Unless Disney give them serious personal investment in the company, they'll just up and leave to form a new competing studio. That's pretty much par for the course.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
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."
Then perhaps the employees should own the company. Being a janitor equals owning 1 share, secretary 3 shares, CEO 10 000 shares... And, of course, instead of paying wages, pay a monthly dividend. That would solve the whole problem, and likely give the employees better work ethics too, since the better job they do, the more valuable the company (and therefore their share of it) comes. Kicking someone from the company means that the company has to buy his share, so layoffs wouldn't happen quite so often; hiring new people is the most problematic part in this model - should they pay for the shares ?
Then again, the workers collectively owning the means of production they use in their job is, well, communism, and we can't have that, now can we ?
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
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.
Yes if Disney bought Pixar they would receive a company full of talented, driven artists but that is only half of the reason why Pixar movies do so well. The other half is that management and producers protects the production. The classic story about Toy Story is that Disney fronted the money and was unhappy about the "juvenile" nature of the story and wanted to make it "modern", edgy, or whatever kids call being "cool" these day, they proceeded to hack it up. The result was crappy, no one liked it, everyone was unhappy, and Disney was moments from pulling the plug. It wasn't until Lasseter stepped in and said 'enough is enough' and fixed it by going back to their way that the project showed promise. The rest is history. Award winning history no less.
So unless Disney takes a hands off approach if they buy up Pixar (I still doubt this would happen...would Job's ego allow it?) it will go the way of their ill fated Disney Orlando Animation Studio (which made Lilo). It isn't that Pixar has talented people (go figure...Disney has them too). It is the fact that the rank and file management all the way up to Lasseter understands they need to "protect the baby". Reguardless of whether or the story is stellar, interferrence will definately rob it any chances it had of being so.
Apple = Steve Jobs
Pixar = Steve Jobs
Why not Video iPod and downloadable "Pixar" films. Especially as it seems when you look at the list of travel movies a family brings with them for the kids - Pixar films tend to top the list.
So the ability to download Toy Story, A Bug's Life, Toy Story 2, Monster's Inc, Finding Nemo, The Incredibles could be a boon for iTunes AND add additional sales for those movies.
(In truth, I think Steve Jobs is better off waiting a few more movies and buying Disney. *lol*)
Pixar for sale?
I want to buy some! Can it be bought online or do you need to visit your local dealer? And is there a money-back guarantee?
Pixar employees won't be happy
They will be when they find out that they are google employees.
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
Last time I checked, Steve Jobs was not one of the bigger shareholders, so he would get little out of the deal, except to cede control of the one place which he can guarantee will allow Apple to sell movies via iTMS.
Steve Jobs personally owns more than 50% of Pixar (See the Annual Report) I'm not exactly sure why Jobs is not listed among Pixar's insider roster. I'm guessing it has something to do with the fact that Steve's shares have never actually been traded. Or maybe he's got a very good accountant and a healthy fear of the IRS. Who knows.
Anyway, as far as motivation goes, I'd wager "Billions and billions of dollars" would explain it.