I try and stay out of these sorts of discussions…but I have to agree here.
With Bob Chapek, he got dealt some bad cards for his run and he wasn’t able to handle them sufficiently. But he clearly seemed to have a passion for the company and I think he wasn’t the worst option. He was clearly in some of the “succession” plans which probably would have progressed fine…barring COVID and its ramifications.
Cocks? Unlike Brian Goldner he didn’t have a long term experience with traditional toys (which still makes up a major portion of Hasbro’s business). Chris Cocks comes from electronic gaming, a VASTLY different beasts than Hasbro’s fundamental pillars. And it’s pretty clear that there wasn’t a clear “plan” for succession. I think Goldner’s death was more abrupt than expected, and his “grand plans” weren’t communicated, and if they were, didn’t seem acted upon.
I find it shocking that Hasbro’s board allowed their new CEO to spend the last couple years, largely, dismantling the “media engine” Goldner had spent years building. While I had my criticisms about that direction, at least there seemed to be an “end goal”. Under Cocks, it feels like he doesn’t have a firm understanding of the traditional toy and game business, possibly lacked the imagination to see what the eOne assets provided, and seems to be following the same game plan video game companies are taking: shedding employees to satisfy short term shareholder goals.
Opting to announce lay offs a WEEK before Christmas does NOTHING to improve the general opinion many have of him and his management.
