Subject:
|
Re: Well, this isn't good (especially for the Disney board here)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.disney
|
Date:
|
Mon, 22 Nov 2004 22:50:10 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
4966 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.disney, Kelly McKiernan wrote:
> I wonder just what type of licenses Disney insists on that lets them switch
> vendor companies like that?
I think it was Lego that bailed on the continued contract. From what I've heard,
Lego basically said "We've been hit hard by licensing, we're not going to do any
more licensed products."
- Star Wars was great, but also flopped (Lucas got a too-high percentage, I
think, plus Episode I & II toys didn't move hardly at all)
- Harry Potter was fantastic the first year, but HP2 sets just sat on the
shelves and ate stock space, getting discount after discount.
- Jurassic Park III was certainly a flop of a movie, dunno about the toys. Don't
think it made a killing.
- Spider man, I dunno. That might be working ok for them-- was a good movie and
the toys haven't gone to deep discount yet.
- Disney, also dunno. Probably didn't get them much big business, but probably
didn't hurt them much either, would be my guess.
Lego's policy of non-violence and family-friendliness may be hurting them, too.
IIRC they rejected LOTR because it was too violent. I wouldn't be suprised if
Power Rangers was the same (though Star Wars and Jurassic Park are admittedly
pretty violent).
But MB meanwhile is on the up and up. Lego's claiming that it's losing money due
to major losses in the toy industry, but if so it doesn't seem to be hurting
MegaBloks any. MB are cheaper, make cooler products, have less turnaround time
for product release, and make a mix of "violent" and non-violent toys.
DaveE
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
5 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
