Aardman Animation Is Giving the Company to Their Employees
1–10 of 128 posts
Re: Aardman Animation Is Giving the Company to Their Employees
#2[deleted]
Re: Aardman Animation Is Giving the Company to Their Employees
#3I'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.
Re: Aardman Animation Is Giving the Company to Their Employees
#4I 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.
Re: Aardman Animation Is Giving the Company to Their Employees
#5I 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.
I hope Jack Dangermond considers doing something like this with Esri[0] at some point.
Re: Aardman Animation Is Giving the Company to Their Employees
#6Sorry 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.
Re: Aardman Animation Is Giving the Company to Their Employees
#7Sorry 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 da…
It maybe about more than money. About taking control of the direction of the company?
Re: Aardman Animation Is Giving the Company to Their Employees
#8Sorry 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 da…
Off top of my head:
- voting rights
- profit sharing (dividend)
- on leaving you would sell your shares back to the trust
- on hiring you would be granted shares (w/ cliff and vesting)
Re: Aardman Animation Is Giving the Company to Their Employees
#9Previous discussion at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18422105.
Re: Aardman Animation Is Giving the Company to Their Employees
#10Sorry 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 da…
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.