6 ms·

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 fant

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.

cbayram 8y ago
Solid model as long as one profits
gisely 8y ago
Is that necessarily a bad thing? Aardman has a well established artistic niche. Perhaps good governance for them emphasizes stability over risky growth opportunities.
TylerE 8y ago
Why does everything have to be growth, growth, growth, growth? What's wrong with being stable and providing a decent livelihood?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- marcinzm 8y ago
  The world is not stable, technology is not stable, your competitors are not stable and your customers' desires are not stable. If you don't try to grow then eventually you'll start to shrink.
  - bloak 8y ago
    A company shrinking is only a problem for a certain kind of shareholder. Employees may be perfectly happy to retire or move on to new jobs as the company gradually reduces its workforce while remaining true to its core business, for which there is a gradually decreasing demand. As an example, I believe there are some car manufacturers who have stated that rather than diversify into electric cars they intend to stick with internal combustion engines for as long as there is demand, then close down. It seems like a reasonable plan to me. Some investors will be happy with the larger short-term profits that derive from not having to invest in a struggle to go electric, which they'd probably fail at anyway. Other investors can sell their shares and reinvest elsewhere.
starbeast 8y ago
On the other hand, Aardman is in the business of making cartoons for children out of clay. And actually has a business doing this. They are experts in successfully fantasizing their way to results. As far as being risk averse or having poor growth, their employees are animators. It is not a trade you take up if you tend to be risk averse. Growth will be judged a frame at a time, but growth is only vitally important to investors and is not that sane a metric of success.
- ascar 8y ago
  Growth at the inflation rate is at least important for employees in terms of pay-raises to actually maintain a stable standard of living.
- blazespin 8y ago
  That's true. it might work in this instance. My guess though is a competitor will see this as an opportunity to copy and have a more efficient studio.
  - laumars 8y ago
    Aardman didn’t invent stop motion nor claymation. So plenty of companies have been in the business of creating stories using those techniques. However I’m pretty sure Aardman could have grounds for legal action if another company copied their iconic character designs (which will be copyrighted).
cazum 8y ago
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 8y ago
  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 8y ago
    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 8y ago
      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.
vanderZwan 8y ago
And how long-lasting are these companies? Do they fail at providing a steady income for their employees?
- michaelchisari 8y ago
  Mondragon Cooperative is 62 years old, employs ~75k people and has revenues in the billions.
  - geezerjay 8y ago
    Mondragon collapsed a few yeas ago, though, with a very capitalist series of cascading bankruptcies across subsidiaries https://www.economist.com/business/2013/11/09/trouble-in-workers-paradise https://www.economist.com/business/2013/11/09/trouble-in-wor...
thrillgore 8y ago
Hacker News is an effective parody of itself.
laumars 8y ago
There’s nothing wrong with a company existing to specialise in its own field. Not every business has to be an Amazon nor Google. not everyone wants to work in such a company and a great many business owners equally don’t really care that much either just so long as their business sustains them a comfortable life. We live in the bubble in the technology sector because growth is easy (data can be redistributed cheaply and we can work on an international scale right from the off). But for an animation studio that would mean having to write more scripts and thus potentially diluting their brand with inferior stores. When You think about where Aardman began (stop motion animation that could take years just to produce one half hour TV movie), you can really see that the company is built around the love of animation rather than being a mass producer of family content.
SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
> All studies have shown that they are risk averse and have poor growth. You say this like it's a bad thing?
C1sc0cat 8y ago
Not really coops go back to 19th century Uk and Italy - oh and part of KFC is a producer coop.

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.

cbayram 8y ago

Solid model as long as one profits

gisely 8y ago

Is that necessarily a bad thing? Aardman has a well established artistic niche. Perhaps good governance for them emphasizes stability over risky growth opportunities.

TylerE 8y ago

Why does everything have to be growth, growth, growth, growth? What's wrong with being stable and providing a decent livelihood?

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
marcinzm 8y ago
The world is not stable, technology is not stable, your competitors are not stable and your customers' desires are not stable. If you don't try to grow then eventually you'll start to shrink.
- bloak 8y ago
  A company shrinking is only a problem for a certain kind of shareholder. Employees may be perfectly happy to retire or move on to new jobs as the company gradually reduces its workforce while remaining true to its core business, for which there is a gradually decreasing demand. As an example, I believe there are some car manufacturers who have stated that rather than diversify into electric cars they intend to stick with internal combustion engines for as long as there is demand, then close down. It seems like a reasonable plan to me. Some investors will be happy with the larger short-term profits that derive from not having to invest in a struggle to go electric, which they'd probably fail at anyway. Other investors can sell their shares and reinvest elsewhere.

starbeast 8y ago

On the other hand, Aardman is in the business of making cartoons for children out of clay. And actually has a business doing this. They are experts in successfully fantasizing their way to results. As far as being risk averse or having poor growth, their employees are animators. It is not a trade you take up if you tend to be risk averse. Growth will be judged a frame at a time, but growth is only vitally important to investors and is not that sane a metric of success.

ascar 8y ago
Growth at the inflation rate is at least important for employees in terms of pay-raises to actually maintain a stable standard of living.
blazespin 8y ago
That's true. it might work in this instance. My guess though is a competitor will see this as an opportunity to copy and have a more efficient studio.
- laumars 8y ago
  Aardman didn’t invent stop motion nor claymation. So plenty of companies have been in the business of creating stories using those techniques. However I’m pretty sure Aardman could have grounds for legal action if another company copied their iconic character designs (which will be copyrighted).

cazum 8y ago

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 8y ago
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 8y ago
  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 8y ago
    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.

vanderZwan 8y ago

And how long-lasting are these companies? Do they fail at providing a steady income for their employees?

michaelchisari 8y ago
Mondragon Cooperative is 62 years old, employs ~75k people and has revenues in the billions.
- geezerjay 8y ago
  Mondragon collapsed a few yeas ago, though, with a very capitalist series of cascading bankruptcies across subsidiaries https://www.economist.com/business/2013/11/09/trouble-in-workers-paradise https://www.economist.com/business/2013/11/09/trouble-in-wor...

thrillgore 8y ago

Hacker News is an effective parody of itself.

laumars 8y ago

There’s nothing wrong with a company existing to specialise in its own field. Not every business has to be an Amazon nor Google. not everyone wants to work in such a company and a great many business owners equally don’t really care that much either just so long as their business sustains them a comfortable life. We live in the bubble in the technology sector because growth is easy (data can be redistributed cheaply and we can work on an international scale right from the off). But for an animation studio that would mean having to write more scripts and thus potentially diluting their brand with inferior stores. When You think about where Aardman began (stop motion animation that could take years just to produce one half hour TV movie), you can really see that the company is built around the love of animation rather than being a mass producer of family content.

SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago

> All studies have shown that they are risk averse and have poor growth. You say this like it's a bad thing?

C1sc0cat 8y ago

Not really coops go back to 19th century Uk and Italy - oh and part of KFC is a producer coop.