MGM finally going bye' bye'?

[mitros]

Jim Hill reports that the agreement between Disney and MGM/UA will finally expire on June 27th of this year. Looks like Disney will finally lose all the MGM logos around the park as well as signage in and around the Orlando area. He says that the Disney company is still hoping that Sony can be persuaded to let them continue to use the MGM name before June 27th.

 

[Chuck S]

What would Sony gain by denying a renewal of this agreement? Basically nothing...in fact a renewal would mean more exposure for the MGM brand. Sony/MGM no longer has their own park to market in Vegas, so there is no chance of confusing the two.

 

[CarnotaurDad]

Chuck S,

That's something I don't understand from everything I've read. Even Jim Hill's article didn't make a good argument against it.

Why would Sony/MGM care if Disney uses it's name? It's free publicity for MGM plus Disney would have to pay something to use their name. I don't really understand the loss for Sony/MGM if Disney uses it. It's not like the park is hurting their name.

 

[DancingBear]

Hill said despite the failure of their Las Vegas park, MGM still thinks it can build theme parks under that name, particularly in Asia.

But, since they apparently don't have any specific projects in the works right now, it does seem like they could give Disney an extension, for some price.

I'm not sure about Hill's cost estimates. Disney has left the MGM name out of their vacation videos for a while; you'd think that, as they new this date was coming out, they would have been phasing it out over time in signage and such. And I'm not sure that Disney has any responsibility for getting signage on I-4 changed right away.

 

[dpic]

Honestly, I've never understood the tie-in with MGM. Disney has plenty of movie properties it could promote at MGM. They could use it as more of their live action park where MK leans more toward their animation properties. Why use their limited funds for buying rights when they have their own studios to promote?

 

[raidermatt]

I agree that if MGM never tries to build their own parks again (or enter into a full blown partnership), then they don't have much to lose by letting Disney use the name, provided of course that Disney maintains quality that MGM is happy with.

That said, I don't think they gain that much though either. Disney is pretty much the only major movie studio name that has anything close to a distinctive brand identity. Sure, everybody has heard of Paramount, Universal, MGM, 20th Century Fox, etc, but do people really differentiate between them when it comes to new product? If the general public hears "Its a Universal movie", or "Its a Paramount movie", does it make a difference? I don't think so, so they don't gain that much by just having their name attached to a Disney park. A few more people might think of MGM more often, but it doesn't make them any more likely to go see an MGM film.

Now, if they were to really work the tie-ins for classic MGM films, to the exclusion of other studios' films, then maybe. (But I'm not saying that's what Disney should be doing)

So I can see MGM not really caring about it one way or the other, unless they decide to build their own parks, or if Disney really ponies up some real cash.

 

[paulh]

think it will just be rebranded as Disney studios shue they been using that name for a wille
Paulh