Movies And Merchandise: A Match Made In Hell
Published July 10, 2006
Alfred Khan, the man who gave the world the Cabbage Patch dolls in the eighties, justifies this process by pointing out that television is almost completely deficit-financed and not able to make money without licensed products. "If we don't design the shows to take advantage of the ancillary rights, we're going to end up putting shows on that have absolutely very little commercial value,” said Kahn. “We won't be able to monetize that investment."
Once you translate that into English you realize that he is saying that television costs so much that even with advertising revenue, shows will lose money unless they have another source of income. Obviously the movie industry is feeling the same sort of pressure to increase the return on the dollar.
Budgets have ballooned into the stratosphere with some "stars" being paid more for appearances then movies used to even cost to make. Even with CGI technology (Computer Generated Imaging) the escalation in demand for bigger, louder, and more lurid special effects has also caused costs to spiral out of control.
When this is combined with the fact that there are more and more alternatives that keep people in the house and out of the cinema causing a decline in box office receipts, it's becoming harder and harder for a movie to break even, let alone make money. Licensing products from a movie seems to be the only answer that the studios are able to come up with that will increase their chances of making any of their stake back.
It seems that the movie industry hasn't bothered to take a course in basic economics. Instead of looking at ways in which they can increase revenues, perhaps they should be looking at ways they can decrease costs? We're talking movies here, nothing that is vitally important to the infrastructure of a society, so cutting costs shouldn't be a big deal.
Or how about being more creative with the way in which they pay people? If a box office star like Tom Cruise demands his usual millions for appearing in a movie based on the premise that he will make a fortune at the box office, why not pay him a percentage of the take after the fact instead of a huge chunk up front. Let him prove his worth and earn his keep instead of losing your shirt when the movie tanks and him walking away laughing to the bank.
- Movies And Merchandise: A Match Made In Hell
- Published: July 10, 2006
- Type: Opinion
- Section: Video
- Filed Under: Video: News, Video: Film and TV Business, Culture: Business and Economics, Culture: Advertising and Marketing
- Writer: Richard Marcus
- Richard Marcus's BC Writer page
- Richard Marcus's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments
Aside from that I resent being the targeting of merchandising at all, it's truly criminal that most of the merchandising is targeted directly at those least able to defend themselves against it, namely kids. No one should be allowed to market anything anywhere any time for any reason to kids. In addition to which, most of the stuff marketed is, frankly, crap: cheaply, poorly made trash. I admit I made my share of mistakes early on with SWARS. It took only a few tacky, trashy character dolls to wise me up to the fact that I was getting ripped off royally.
Having groused that, I agree, Hollywood needs to re-examine their modus operandi as far as business ops cost controls go. Fewer & fewer people can be bothered to go to the theatres any more. Like myself, "enjoying" the movie with 200 or so strangers is not an enticement for me to go anywhere, and getting to watch something on a great big screen is also not a draw.
Good article. I'd be interested in your take on video game tie-ins. Huge money.


Richard Marcus is a long-haired Canadian iconoclast who writes reviews and opines on the world as he sees it at 








Uhmmm....I kinda liked The Mummy and The Mummy II. Pardon me while I crawl away in abject shame...