3 ms·

Here's a good example of the problem. Marvel vs DC. Both of these companies have significant (ie decades) of original material to draw upon. For the last 20 ye

by jmyeet 4y ago

Here's a good example of the problem. Marvel vs DC. Both of these companies have significant (ie decades) of original material to draw upon. For the last 20 years, superhero movies have absolutely dominated the theaters. But no one would look at this situation and draw any conclusion other than Marvel has trounced DC. Is the Marvel source material just that much better? IMHO it isn't to a significant enough degree. What is different is execution. Marvel IP has just been better managed and they've had and built a better organization around it. It's drawn on Disney's extensive pedigree in this business. Producing original content is difficult. It requires a culture of putting up with the 10 flops for that 1 breakout hit. There is no formula for that 1 breakout hit. A million factors go into why that hit became a hit and it's not a formula that can be copied and reproduced as the VC funding model demands.

filmgirlcw 4y ago
And Marvel went bankrupt in the 1990s, which to your point, is all about IP management. Disney I would argue has absolutely done VC-enviable returns on its Marvel acquisition. It spent $4 billion on the company in 2009. They’ve easily made $100b off of the films, TV shows, comics, merchandise, theme park rides, etc. I wholly agree with your point re: content that it has the culture of 10 flops for every hit. But that studio model, which has always existed in Hollywood, is the same model and a VC fund. Instead of going public, you get sequels or branch into other IP. Are the returns the same? Generally no. But a good acquisition, like Marvel and Star Wars for Disney and Harry Potter (and to a lesser but historically significant degree, DC Comics) for Warner Bros, can pay dividends the exact same way as investing in a future tech titan.

3 ms·

Here's a good example of the problem. Marvel vs DC. Both of these companies have significant (ie decades) of original material to draw upon. For the last 20 ye

by jmyeet 4y ago

filmgirlcw 4y ago
And Marvel went bankrupt in the 1990s, which to your point, is all about IP management. Disney I would argue has absolutely done VC-enviable returns on its Marvel acquisition. It spent $4 billion on the company in 2009. They’ve easily made $100b off of the films, TV shows, comics, merchandise, theme park rides, etc. I wholly agree with your point re: content that it has the culture of 10 flops for every hit. But that studio model, which has always existed in Hollywood, is the same model and a VC fund. Instead of going public, you get sequels or branch into other IP. Are the returns the same? Generally no. But a good acquisition, like Marvel and Star Wars for Disney and Harry Potter (and to a lesser but historically significant degree, DC Comics) for Warner Bros, can pay dividends the exact same way as investing in a future tech titan.