It's starting....

[DancingBear]

Originally posted by Another Voice In the coming weeks you will see a nice semi-organized (because Disney can't really get their act together) campaign to prove to Wall Street that "Disney doesn't need Pixar".

...and just what do you think the story was that started this thread, with all those Jobs quotes?

Considering Disney's fabled brand name hasn't been able to sell a Disney movie for a looong time (notice the wonders The Brand did for Piglet – it made less than the uber-bomb Sinbad let along TP et al)....

Yeah, it's hard for me to cast my memory all the way back to Lilo and Stitch. And are you really comparing Piglet and Sinbad?

 

[Another Voice]

Becasue if people rush out to the theater based on the brand name - they should have flocked out for Piglet and Jungle Book 2 and Lizzie McGuire* and all the flicks just becasuse they're Disney.

Right - I mean the power of brand is supposed to work on all the products.

So where are the crowds? Where is the benefit that Disney® can bring to Pixar - where are all those happy people waiting in line for their popcorn? Shouldn't Piglet have been just as big as Nemo - if not bigger? The Winnie the Pooh characters are recognized as Disney, and Disney marketed Piglet and Disney's stickers were all over the movie - so how come people didn't go to see that Disney movie.

If Disney can't get people to go see Disney pictures - isn't the whole "Pixar needs Disney's marketing" line just another pile of snow globes?

Perhaps people actually go because they movie is something they want to see - not because of the brand sticker. Maybe people aren't stupid enough to beleive that just becasue something is being sold by a certain retailer (Disney) that's it's any good, in just the same way that a movie "starring" the voice of Brad Pitt has any value either.

If there is any brand power that's so grand that Pixar should give up 50% of its profits shouldn't work a little bit better than what Disney's been able to pull off.

Or maybe the important thing is to make good movies that people tell their friends to go see. I never heard a single person say "Go see Nemo because it's Disney". But I did hear a lot of people say "Go see Nemo because I had a great time". And maybe the same thing happeded with Lilo - people liked the movie.

So if things really boil down to "make good movie people want to see" - then Disney is worthless.



* - before you scream "Lizzie's a hit", remember the movie made less money than Agent Cody Banks. Again - we're is the brand power?

 

[airlarry!]

Peter, I think this is a nobrainer. Dis-mart has benefited greatly from its relationship with Pixar. Great movies, great profits, great tie-ins.

Ei$ner think$ he need$ a $queeze the turnip deal from Pixar.

He doesn't.

What he needs right now is to cut a deal that keeps Pixar in the fold. The 10% he will get from Pixar is better than negative returns he will get if Pixar signs with anyone else. Remember, if they do, then that company will license the characters created, yada yada yada.

At this point, Dis-mart should recognize that there is value in keeping Pixar and Dis-mart together, not the other way around. Pixar's the one that has to be convinced to stay with Disney. Dis-mart is the one that needs to recognize they need Pixar more than Pixar needs them.

Let's make a prediction here. Some of our friends have painted some of us as gloomy, doomsayers, who don't recognize the bold moves Ei$ner has made over the last five years for the brilliance that they have.

I will predict that if Pixar leaves the fold, two things will happen:

A. More people around here will recognize Ei$ner for being (and I"m being kind here) the aging ballplayer way past his prime who needs to retire. They gnash their teeth and worry about the future of the company, just like many of us here worry about the future of WDW.

B. Some people will argue that Pixar leaving is a good thing. I haven't figured out what the spin will be yet, but mark my words, it will be there.

 

[airlarry!]

Mr. Scoop:

Yes, I was being facetious. Maybe nobody here has said Ei$ner's moves the last five years have been brilliant. (Aloud).

But, in a way, you are actually avoiding the point of the post.

The point was that many people here are saying that Ei$ner's moves at least in regard to Pixar (not counting other moves) were sound strategic moves.

My point is that if Pixar bolts, will those same people react the same way? Even if you type out the words "no one thinks Ei$ner's doing a great job" today on these boards, that doesn't make it true. In fact, we ought to do a poll. How many people give Eisner a C or better on his performance as leader of the company in relation to WDW or WDFA?

 

[DancingBear]

Originally posted by airlarry!
The point was that many people here are saying that Ei$ner's moves at least in regard to Pixar (not counting other moves) were sound strategic moves.

My point is that if Pixar bolts, will those same people react the same way?

If Pixar bolts just because Job$ thinks Eisner is a big meany who wasn't nice to him, then Eisner should have been nicer to him. If Pixar bolts because Eisner, out of pride and arrogance, refuses to cut a deal with them that would make sense to Disney, then Eisner will have screwed up. If Pixar bolts because somebody else makes them a super-sweet deal, then Eisner would be better off taking his money elsewhere---maybe to invest in developing the in-house capabilities.

 

[DancingBear]

Originally posted by Another Voice If there is any brand power that's so grand that Pixar should give up 50% of its profits shouldn't work a little bit better than what Disney's been able to pull off.

As for the new deal, who's saying that Pixar should give up 50% of its profits? As for the current deal, Pixar doesn't give up 50% of its profits just for Disney distribution and branding, but because Disney is sharing the risk by paying 50% of the production costs.

* - before you scream "Lizzie's a hit", remember the movie made less money than Agent Cody Banks. Again - we're is the brand power?

According to Mojo, Cody Banks' marketing budget was almost 50% higher than Lizzie ($25 million vs. $17 million). Sounds like Disney brand power to me. [Lizzie also cost $11 million less to make, so although Cody Bank took in $5 million more at the box office, Disney beat MGM on these pictures by $14 million.]

 

[crusader]

Part of the confusion may be that by attributing disney with anything with respect to Pixar it becomes misconstrued as being the equivalent of a private label.

This is not the correct assumption.

Acknowledging Disney's resources with respect to the promotion and distribution of products in the animation industry does not rise and set on the branding plateau.

What Pixar needed went well beyond producing the absolute best quality animated feature every year or so - they lacked the scope needed to secure market positioning.

Disney not only neutralized themselves by remaining on the sidelines during a release, but provided the full utilization of the largest proven resource to launch these products.

To not recognize the dynamic of the joint venture in its' entirety is a failure to identify the strengths on both sides of the equation here. Pixar was given a forum to prove itself but needed a much larger vehicle to reach their targeted audience. This has not really shifted much, which is why they continue to need a partner. One flop and the company suffers a fatal wound.

They know they have to deliver which is a critical reason to embark on such a painstaking process in order to guarantee the quality of the product. But they need a more sustaining revenue stream beyond the theatre and lack the necessary distribution network to maximize future financial growth utilizing an existing product line. That’s the problem with being too small a fish in shark infested waters.