How much money are studios making off those licensed products? 2 2

[Bosco685]

The Mouse grows!

License Global announces the 2019 Top 150 Global Licensors

Quote

License Global magazine has announced the findings of its annual Top 150 Global Licensors report,which ranks the retail sales of licensed merchandise from the world’s most powerful brands, spanning all consumer product segments. The full report is available here.

The world’s most influential licensor, The Walt Disney Company, continues to lead the charge in retail sales of licensed merchandise with a $1.7b increase over 2017. WarnerMedia – a combined unit this year encompassing Cartoon Network, Warner Bros. and HBO – ranks 4th with $11b. Hasbro ranks 7th with $7.1, tied with Universal Brand Development, and coming in at 9 is Viacom Nickelodeon Consumer Products with sales of $5.5b.

 

Further down the list, The Pokémon Company International ranks 23rd ($2.98b), Entertainment One 27th ($2.5b), Mattel 32nd ($2b), Spin Master 35th ($1.8b (E)), MGA Entertainment 45th ($1.2b (E)), WWE 52nd ($1b), The LEGO Group 58th ($800m (E)), Moose Toys 63rd ($610m) and Alpha Group 68th ($520m).

 

Pocket.watch, the company that figured out how to bring together traditional storytelling with modern digital media to monetise the kidfluencer with Ryan’s World, makes the list for the first time with sales of $46.3m, ranking it 149th.

 

The Top 10 Global Licensors, according to the 2019 Top 150 Report:

1. The Walt Disney Company – $54.7b

2. Meredith Corporation – $25.1b

3. PVH Corp. – $18b (E)

4. WarnerMedia – $11b

5. Authentic Brands Group – $9b

6. Hasbro – $7.1b

7. Universal Brand Development – $7.1b

8. Iconix Brand Group – $7b (E)

9. Viacom Nickelodeon Consumer Products – $5.5b

10. Major League Baseball – $5.5b (E)

 

[Bosco685]

That's a fresh way of making new revenue off legacy films.

Quote

It looks like we might be living in an even more science-fiction feeling world pretty soon. According to a new report, a new technology is being developed by a company called Mirriad that will actually allow major Hollywood studios to insert digital product placement ads into classic films and TV shows. Apparently it’s even already in use in China and it can also be seen in use on the ABC sitcom Modern Family.

 

The company’s chief executive Stephan Beringer opened up about the technology with The BBC:

 

“We started out working in movies. Our chief scientist Philip McLauchlan, with his team, came up with the technology that won an Academy Award for the film Black Swan.”

 

He further explained how the technology can scan and “read” images:

 

“The technology can ‘read’ an image, it understands the depth, the motion, the fabric, anything. So you can introduce new images that basically the human eye does not realise has been done after the fact, after the production,” he explained.

 

What’s more, Jonty Bloom at The BBC even explained that the same technology can be applied to music videos as well. This will allow musical groups to use the technology as a way to boost their revenue even with older – including decades old – music videos.

 

He claims “older musical groups could make new money from videos that might be decades old. And current artists who proudly sport the latest trainers, phones or bags, could have them changed a year later to the newest designs, without them having to actually put them on, or re-record a video.”

 

James Sandom, the managing director of Red Light Management further added:

 

“The opportunity to carve open a new revenue stream is rare, and the ability to retrospectively use existing content and build new content with it in mind is exciting.”

 

It seems that the technology can also be applied in near real-time, allowing for usage in live events such as sports games and concerts. This would make the advertisements available “in real time, or milliseconds after.”

 

“So a penalty or VAR decision in football could see a new advert pop behind the referee.”

 

They’ve also stated that the technology wouldn’t simply insert random advertisements. In fact, these digital product placement ads could be personalized depending on who is watching.

[D84]

This is why I love my movies on disc.

[chezmtghut]

On 4/23/2021 at 1:05 PM, Bosco685 said:

That's a fresh way of making new revenue off legacy films.

WB started using ads in Black Lightning, when they showed characters drinking Mountain Dew. They will want all the supplemental income they can get, especially with all of their new movies streaming on HBO Max. If they can pay for production costs with ad placements, they won't be losing money & can justify larger budget films. I can't imagine Wonder Woman drinking a Coke, but maybe some extra or vending machine in the background to subliminalize the audience with.

[Bosco685]

Cool series on how the movie merchandising process works. Including who has the financial burden if film products do not sell well, depending on the stage of the film release.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND AND DEFINITIONS THE MERCHANDISING PROCESS CASE STUDY: SPIDER-MAN

Quote

THE MERCHANDISING PROCESS
Film producers and distributors rarely manufacture film-related products themselves, but license the right to sell these products to other companies (called licensees). In most instances there is no risk to the producer or distributor (the licensor) because the licensee incurs all manufacturing and distribution expenses. The producer/distributor typically receives an advance payment for each product, as well as royalty payments, often between 5 and 10 percent of gross revenues from sales to retailers (in other words, the wholesale price). If the movie does not succeed and the products do not sell, the manufacturer is responsible for the loss (Cones, 1992).

 

The owners of licensable film properties are most often the major film studios. Special licensing divisions often are organized to handle the company's own copyrighted properties, and sometimes those owned by others as well, for example, Warner's Licensing Corporation of America (LCA) and Disney's Consumer Products division. But even smaller successful film producers sometimes become involved in licensing, as represented by Lucasfilm Licensing. Studios' revenues from merchandise vary greatly depending on the films released in any one year. However, these companies have serious interests in merchandising and consumer goods, as indicated by the $2.5 billion revenues reported by Disney's Consumer Products division in 2004, and the 3,700 active licensees handled by Warner Bros. Consumer Products division.

 

The major studios realize that not only can the sale of movie-related products generate substantial revenue, but the presales of merchandising rights can sometimes contribute to a film's production budget, as in the case of Lord of the Rings, when 10 percent of the budget for the trilogy was apparently raised by selling rights to video games, toys, and merchandise companies. In addition, these products can be useful in promoting films and thus movie-based merchandise is often part of the massive, coordinated promotional campaigns often started months before a film's release. Typically, 40 percent of movie merchandise is sold before a film is released.

 

Although movie-related merchandise often is common, products based on films are sometimes considered risky for merchandisers, as they ultimately may not be successful and often have short life-spans. Licensees may have to take further risks initially by sinking money into a film that is not completed (or sometimes not even started). On the other hand, a studio may need to change a release date, especially to coincide with the lucrative Christmas season or to avoid other competing films.

 

In addition, studios and licensees have been cautious after some significant losses in the past. For instance, most agree that the huge number of products associated with Star Wars: Episode I—The Phantom Menace (1999) was ultimately unproductive. One problem is that Hollywood-related merchandise has a relatively short time to prove itself on retail shelves before the next big property arrives. As Andrea Hein, Viacom's president of consumer products, explains: "Licensing is all about wanting a piece of something. You've got to have the time and place for that property to be nurtured" (Goldsmith, 2000). Evidently, the success of the merchandise is tied directly to the success of the film. A representative of LIMA states that, "… marketing and merchandising is [sic] never the major driving force behind a film. If a film's no good, no one will buy the product" (Monahan).

 

It might be noted as well, that many, if not most, movies do not translate well into merchandise and thus have limited merchandising potential. While the Star Wars and Harry Potter films produce additional revenues from a seemingly endless stream of merchandise, films like Saving Private Ryan (1998) and Life is Beautiful (1997) have much less merchandising potential. Musicals such as Saturday Night Fever (1977), Grease (1978), and Dirty Dancing (1987) can earn substantial revenues from soundtrack recordings. Moreover, a hit song can promote a film. In fact, music videos have become important marketing tools. The ideals, of course, are film franchises such as Star Wars, Harry Potter, and other similar films that continue to inspire additional commodities, and thus, additional profits.

 

Thus, for many films, licensing represents a potential source of income to film companies and merchandisers. The potential merchandising bonanza represents sizable profits as sales of merchandise licensed from movies continue to grow. While the first Batman in 1989 grossed $250 million at the box-office and earned $50 million in licensing fees, subsequent films have generated even more products and produced even more revenues. Recently, the Lord of the Rings trilogy is said to have attracted over $1.2 billion thus far in merchandising revenues.

 

[Bosco685]

Spider-Man Is The Most Profitable Super Hero Ever, And It's Not Even Close

Quote

Your friendly neighbourhood Spider-Man is the most lucrative superhero on the block, raking in more than $1.3 billion in global retail sales for Marvel.

 

On paper, it's a bit odd that a guy who's been bitten by a radioactive spider gaining a "spider-sense" along with the ability to crawl up walls and shoot webs to swing across the city of New York resonated with people from all over the world. However, since his introduction in 1962, the character has gone from strength to strength on the silver screen, in video games, in art and even portrayed in a musical.

 

[Bosco685]

Top 20 Global Licensors as of 2023

[Bosco685]

[EastEnd1]

On 12/15/2023 at 11:20 AM, Bosco685 said:

Top 20 Global Licensors as of 2023

 

Interesting data... The Mouse definitely roars.  Am I correct that this chart represents the estimated retail sales of Disney's licensees (as opposed to Disney itself)?  Disney reported TOTAL revenue of $88.9 billion for fiscal 2023 and that retail figure seems way high for it to be Disney's number (though I'm not sure how they're defining "Retail Sales").

 

   

[VintageComics]

On 12/15/2023 at 11:05 AM, Bosco685 said:

Spider-Man Is The Most Profitable Super Hero Ever, And It's Not Even Close

Great. This post will be responsible for a new AF #15 boom. 

On 12/15/2023 at 11:05 AM, Bosco685 said:

Quote

Your friendly neighbourhood Spider-Man is the most lucrative superhero on the block, raking in more than $1.3 billion in global retail sales for Marvel.

 

On paper, it's a bit odd that a guy who's been bitten by a radioactive spider gaining a "spider-sense" along with the ability to crawl up walls and shoot webs to swing across the city of New York resonated with people from all over the world. However, since his introduction in 1962, the character has gone from strength to strength on the silver screen, in video games, in art and even portrayed in a musical.

 

It's not really odd because I believe the strong representation of primary colors in the costume, especially the contrast between red and blue is really what makes him a very popular character visually. Whether it's a woman's dress or a sports car, reds just attract attention in a way no other color does.

Combine that with the fact that much of Parker's life is relatable to regular people and has an incredible rogue's gallery of enemies and it's a great formula for success. 

 

Historically, red / blue characters (and some with yellow) have always been among the most popular characters or costumes - Spider-man, Superman, Captain Marvel / Shazam, the new X-men and of course, Wolverine. You name it and the majority of hot characters were generally associated or revolved around primary colors. 

Another interesting factor is that in China, Reds and Yellows (or gold) are extremely popular and lucky colors making these colors, and therefore MERCHANDISE much more marketable in the most populated country in the world (tied with India, but you get what I mean).

It would be interesting to see the differences in popularity in China, actually. I would assume merchandise with reds and yellows would sell really well. I got this notion from when I worked at Porsche, when I found out that the 944 didn't sell well in North America because 4 was considered an 'unluckly' number and the Chinese North Americans avoided the car until they changed the model designation to 968 - a purely marketing idea for the Chinese markets because 9, 6 and 8 were all more lucky numbers than 4.

 

I believe this is one reason why Batman has trouble appealing a as much visually as the blue / grey (or black) is just not as universally appealing, even if the costume lines are, which is likely why he had to have at least a yellow belt, which if you think about it is a bad decision from a practical point of view (the yellow would pop at night) but they needed to add something to break up the visuals so that he wasn't just a black silhouette, which would make it very boring artistically. 

[Bosco685]

On 12/15/2023 at 12:10 PM, EastEnd1 said:

 

Interesting data... The Mouse definitely roars.  Am I correct that this chart represents the estimated retail sales of Disney's licensees (as opposed to Disney itself)?  Disney reported TOTAL revenue of $88.9 billion for fiscal 2023 and that retail figure seems way high for it to be Disney's number (though I'm not sure how they're defining "Retail Sales").   

Great question. Exactly what you noted - just licensed products. Which is incredible when you see that size of that figure.

[VintageComics]

On 12/15/2023 at 1:11 PM, Bosco685 said:

Great question. Exactly what you noted - just licensed products. Which is incredible when you see that size of that figure.

Very few merchandise companies have their own private theme parks throughout the world, which probably explains why they dwarf all other merchandise companies for sales. 

[Bosco685]

On 12/15/2023 at 1:25 PM, VintageComics said:

Very few merchandise companies have their own private theme parks throughout the world, which probably explains why they dwarf all other merchandise companies for sales. 

It's incredible. And you can see why Disney goes into overdrive to protect its merchandising. Disney Consumer Products, Games and Publishing is a financial monster in itself.

[VintageComics]

On 12/15/2023 at 1:28 PM, Bosco685 said:

On 12/15/2023 at 1:25 PM, VintageComics said:

Very few merchandise companies have their own private theme parks throughout the world, which probably explains why they dwarf all other merchandise companies for sales. 

It's incredible. And you can see why Disney goes into overdrive to protect its merchandising. Disney Consumer Products, Games and Publishing is a financial monster in itself.

I've read on here for YEARS about how Disney vehemently protects it's characters, but never really looking into it in depth. This all makes it look more clear. 

On 12/15/2023 at 12:10 PM, EastEnd1 said:

The Mouse definitely roars.

I think it's time to update that to "The Mouse has teeth and claws."