I stopped by McDonald's on the way to work this morning. I had to look over some financial documents before I hit the office and didn't want to be disturbed. As I approached the front door to 'America's Cafeteria', I saw a large poster for the latest "Shrek" film
Once upon a time, back in the 40s and 50s, films were produced and distributed in this country on their own merit. They were an art form, with the various studios seeing who could make the better picture. It was a form of artistic competition that was very expensive and produced some of the greatest films in history. Think of films like 'Ben Hur', 'Gone with the Wind', 2001: A Space Odyssey' and you get my drift. These were blockbusters that didn't need a lot of advertising.
But the entertainment industry has changed quite a lot since then. Now, even the most meager 'mega-film-wannabe' has to have tie-ins. Every large budget film (especially if it ties into a demographic under the age of 30) has to have toys, clothing, music, video games and fast food franchise tie ins. The concept being that market saturation increases profits from the licensing of the film title.
Once little Timmy sees the latest Pixar film, it is assumed he will want the 'Nemo' pajamas, the 'Woody' doll, the 'UP' video game and the 'Cars' Happy Meal. And Pixar gets a percentage of every one of those items. Hey, I suppose it costs a lot to pay those CGI animators to create those cute little creatures on the big screen.
So this got me thinking a few months ago. This all has to be planned out at a very high level in order to bring everything to market at the time of the films release.
I am sure that there are factories in Taiwan and China that are turning out thousands of little plastic caricatures of the next big budget kiddy film to be released in August. They will be loaded onto container ships, sail to L.A. and be trucked to various fast food outlets within the next 3 months so that they can be on hand when the hoards of little rug rats exit the theater and start clamoring for a 'Nemo' or 'Woody' of their very own. The samples and orders had to be placed for these toy figures no later than late 2009.
So I have to assume that there are high level meetings going on right now, to see what toy companies and burger chains want to 'bid' for the rights to the next big budget Hollywood film. So I am going to make some predictions here and see if I can guess which fast food chains are willing to shell out the big bucks in order to be tied in with the next potential blockbuster. Lets see if I am right:
June 2010 - "The 'A' Team" - Burger King
November 2010 = "HarryPotter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 1" - McDonalds
December 2010 = "The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader" = McDonalds (again)
December 2010 = "Tron Legacy" - Burger King (again)
January 2011 = "The Green Hornet" - Taco Bell
Advertising and licensing isn't as new as you think. In 1939, MGM spent a quarter of a million on advertising and licensing deals for The Wizard of Oz. That's around 10% of the budget for the film and it was a real expensive film to make. But I hear ya. It's the world we live in now.
ReplyDeleteI played softball in Nacogodoches TX one year with a guy - great, salt of the earth guy - who was trying to market a Star Wars Cake Pan. (I never saw any of the prototypes, so I don't know what exactly that means) But the only thing standing between him and millions of dollars (in his mind anyway) was 'those bastards in Hollywood' who wouldn't let him license it.
ReplyDeleteHe played a pretty good third base, so we put up with his endless carping about 'those bastards in hollywood' and everyone agreed that 'of course we'd buy one' if it ever made it to the stores.
I guess the lesson is, if you're going to pitch George Lucas, you'd best do it without a Nacogdoches post mark or return address.
I think it also has to do with the way children are treated. Back in the 40's and 50's we used imagination as out toys. Lucky to a gift on our birthday and something wonderful, built to last a lifetime, for Christmas.
ReplyDeleteWhen children entered the market place, things changed. I remember saving boxtops from cereal and sending off for the decoder ring. Breakfast food quickly jumped to the childrens market.
I think a lot of things have followed. If you can make the children want it... it sells.
I, myself, am guilty of this with my own spoiled children... all the while telling them how my toys consisted of a shovel, sticks and a piece of string.
But did you get your Happy Meal? That's the most pressing question of the moment.
ReplyDeleteI am more of a #,2 Sausage McMuffin and breakfast burrito sort of guy. No Happy Meal for me.
ReplyDeleteits just a new, additional market for revenue. If they can net 100 million from the film, and then make another 50 million on toys, go for it as far as im concerned..
ReplyDeleteI suppose my real question here, is that these other vendors have to 'bid' on the right to tie into the film. That has to be a hefty chunk of change....and therefore, what happens if the film is a flop? Do they write it off as a bad marketing decision? What sort of research and upper level Board Room debate goes on? Something like: "Hey Cheif, Pixar's coming out with another animated move in 2014....do we want to get into the running for the tie-in? Preliminary estimates are that the bids will start at $250 million. We could tie it in with our new Fish Taco Sandwich set to launch the same year...whattya think?"
ReplyDeleteSlyde took the words right out of my mouth.
ReplyDeleteSince the film Ben-Hur is not geared towards children McDonalds never would have promoted Ben-Hur, but let's just say they did: Hmm, I'm wondering what type of toys they would have marketed?
I'm looking forward in seeing The A-Team. I caught the trailer on TV the other day, looks pretty good!
P.S.
You don't have to purchase the Happy Meal in order to get the toy.
I have a rant for you I'll post just as soon as I'm on a decent computer... I've got a lot to say about Disney.
ReplyDeleteOh BTW those who say "if it makes money go for it..." the problem is, only the big corporations who already have tons of money will make money. Talented artists and filmmakers who can't make the bid are effectively pushed out. There's more... but for later...
ReplyDelete