Read on Twitter
1/ Yesterday, I tweeted about a current Pixar film that has been running daily in my home… https://twitter.com/EntStrategyGuy/status/1274801275654168578
2/ This is a variation on a type of tweet I see a lot. Usually wondering why a studio or network doesn’t make more of a given type of content. (The #save campaigns are a good example.)
3/ Yet I pride myself on being the entertainment strategy guy! Surely I, of all people, have a fairly good idea why a given piece of content does or doesn’t feature more prominently in a big studio’s plans. Or why TV series get cancelled.
4/ The simplest explanation is the most rational and cold-hearted:
A given studio has a limited set of resources.
At its core, the job of a CEO or business unit leader is deciding how to allocate those resources.
A given studio has a limited set of resources.
At its core, the job of a CEO or business unit leader is deciding how to allocate those resources.
5/ / I don’t just mean capital, though we focus a lot on that and for an entertainment company that’s a huge factor. But everything from the time of the employees to the amount of shows a studios can market are “resources” to allocate carefully.
6/ As it relates to Inside Out, really the question is whether or not #Disney could see a higher return on capital for #InsideOut than other competing films and TV series. $DIS
7/ So let’s provide a little bit of background on Disney, then provide the quick pros and cons, and then make a judgement. At the end, I’ll provide a twist on this idea.
8/ For background, it’s useful knowing that Disney takes building franchises very seriously. When they decide to go all in on a franchise, it isn’t a decision taken lightly. These are allocation decisions including hundreds of folks from every part of the empire.
9/ And often they are decided at the highest levels.
Should Disney spend its efforts on Spider-Man, Star Wars or Avengers? Or building out Guardians of the Galaxy? Where will the generate the best return, ergo money, for the time/capital?
Should Disney spend its efforts on Spider-Man, Star Wars or Avengers? Or building out Guardians of the Galaxy? Where will the generate the best return, ergo money, for the time/capital?
10/ #Disney runs the numbers for all these franchises, combines that with customer surveys and makes hard calls. The fact that Guardians of the Galaxy is getting another movie, for example, means it probably did well in this analysis.
11/ My ongoing series on #StarWars is a version of this exercise they run for every franchise/aspiring franchise/benched franchise they own. https://entertainmentstrategyguy.com/2020/02/06/the-2019-star-wars-business-report-the-economics-of-star-wars-films/
12/ With that context, let's look at Inside Out.
Right off the bat, I can tell you the biggest knock on it: It isn’t “toyetic”.
Right off the bat, I can tell you the biggest knock on it: It isn’t “toyetic”.
13/ Toyetic is a word I’ve used before, but it is industry lingo for something that sells toys.
If you want a perfect example, look at Paw Patrol. https://entertainmentstrategyguy.com/2020/05/04/the-2019-star-wars-business-report-toys/
If you want a perfect example, look at Paw Patrol. https://entertainmentstrategyguy.com/2020/05/04/the-2019-star-wars-business-report-toys/
14/ / It has multiple vehicles, all different colors that are designed to be “collected”. So it’s no surprise that show was developed by Spin Master, a toy company! (Arguably the third place toy company behind Hasbro and Mattel.)
http://www.spinmaster.com/brand.php?brand=cat_pawpatrol&gender=&age=&pageSize=0&pageNo=1
http://www.spinmaster.com/brand.php?brand=cat_pawpatrol&gender=&age=&pageSize=0&pageNo=1
15/ / My other examples of very toyetic properties are Lego Ninjago, My Little Pony and Transformers.
16/ Inside Out doesn’t have that. While you could see some play sets, its unclear how kids would play with them. You’d have to get very creative with learning toys.
17/ But the licensing industry sort of hates creativity. It’s harder to market, which means more expensive. So Disney would have a slog there.
18/ What about "experiences"? To coin another word, I don’t think Inside Out is “theme-park-able” either. The only ride I believe is a basic carnival twirl ride right now.
https://disneyland.disney.go.com/attractions/disney-california-adventure/emotional-whirlwind/
https://disneyland.disney.go.com/attractions/disney-california-adventure/emotional-whirlwind/
19/ So for two of Disney’s main revenue streams—theme parks and merchandise—Inside Out has an uphill slog.
20/ As for performance, Inside Out did better than I remember—$356M domestic/$501 inter—but still a few other recent releases have done better globally. (Toy Story 3/4 and Incredibles 2).
21/ The worry would be that Inside Out’s sequel is more like Monster’s University than Incredibles 2.
Add it all up, and I can understand why Disney isn’t making more Inside Out. When you stack up just the other Pixar properties, they have more franchise potential.
Add it all up, and I can understand why Disney isn’t making more Inside Out. When you stack up just the other Pixar properties, they have more franchise potential.
22/ This isn’t to say Pixar shouldn’t make terrific one offs like Inside Out, Coco or Soul [TBD, but looks good]. Those one offs help reinforce the brand of quality.
But not every good film is a franchise builder.
But not every good film is a franchise builder.
23/ I did say I have a caveat, and it’s where streaming comes in. Disney+ should enable Disney to experiment more with all their animated properties. Previously, when your programming schedule was limited and you had to fill space—in a Disney Channel linear world—this was harder.
24/ Disney+ has advantages in that it's a potentially huge catalogue not limited by time. With higher revenue upside (maybe) then old fashioned cable.
In my mind, all the Pixar properties should be explored for one-offs a la “Forky Asks a Question”.
In my mind, all the Pixar properties should be explored for one-offs a la “Forky Asks a Question”.
25/ For a non-Pixar example, I’d love to see an “Olaf Tells Disney Stories” short based on his Frozen 2 summaries.
(This won't happen because Disney has strict rules against characters breaking character and seeing other universes.)
(This won't happen because Disney has strict rules against characters breaking character and seeing other universes.)
26/ Something could work for Inside Out too. The hopping in between brains is a great conceit.
Not to mention, the film explains emotional intelligence really well. When my daughter’s gotten upset recently, I asked her if sadness pressed her button, and she thought about it.
Not to mention, the film explains emotional intelligence really well. When my daughter’s gotten upset recently, I asked her if sadness pressed her button, and she thought about it.
27/ It feels like there is something there. And Disney+ provides the platform to explore it.
28/ For Disney, having the appeal to parents as an educational tool is always important, even in subtle ways.
Given the cesspool that is Youtube and generally lower quality Netflix stuff, winning the war with parents is still a priority. Inside Out could help with that.
Given the cesspool that is Youtube and generally lower quality Netflix stuff, winning the war with parents is still a priority. Inside Out could help with that.
29/ So do I expect more Inside Out? Not really. Too many other things are too much higher profile/return. (Cars, mainly.)
