Fri, November 14, 1997

Recent attention to upcoming attempts to challenge the Walt Disney Company's stronghold on the field of feature length animated films has focused public curiosity on just how Disney has managed to keep so much of the market for so long. Disney's aggressive corporate tactics and overwhelming conglomerateurism have long been the topic of heated debate, but in reality it's all just business. Disney is a machine, and they're good at what they do. The goal of the company is 20% growth per annum, forever. And they don't fall behind. It's not easy, and not everyone is going to love them, but it works. Recently their conglomerative strategies have been responsible for pain as well as profits. The Southern Baptists' boycott was based on the evils of Ellen, a television program produced by Touchstone Television, owned by Disney, and aired by ABC, owned by Disney. However, it is becoming more difficult every day to boycott all of the Walt Disney Company. They're just in too many places at once.

Experience and success have brought Disney to a position where they can afford to be aggressive. 1997's summer release Hercules brought with it over 7,000 licensed products. Many cite the record-breaking merchandising campaign as one factor in Hercules's sluggish (by Disney standards) box office receipts, and I would concur. Disney is aware of its reputation with regards to its merchandising blitzes (Hercules takes plenty of opportunities to poke fun at this reputation), but fails to realize that the reputation can very well hurt them. Some consumers view it as an insult to their intelligence that Disney assumes that they will pay to see the movie if they can't escape figurines, T-shirts, and thermoses. Some consumers believe that McDonald's is owned by Disney because of their exclusive (through 2007) Happy Meal agreement. When Disney becomes too assured of their infallibility at the game of summer movie merchandising, they may come to find that the effect has worn off. Certainly, the waning box office power of Hercules, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, and the dreadful Pocahontas is partly responsible for Disney's swift and fierce response to Fox's Anastasia, the first serious contender against them in recent years and the mark of the beginning of a long battle ahead. Fox, Warner Brothers, and DreamWorks are all constructing animation divisions with permanent facilities to rival Disney's and with ticket sales dropping, Disney can't afford for Anastasia to open unchallenged. Its success will give extra confidence to Warners and DreamWorks, which already has Jeffrey Katzenberg, heralded for bringing Disney's animation division back and engineering the record-breaking successes of The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, and The Lion King, before audience turn-ups turned south. Anastasia's failure means a great deal more to Disney than merely the box office returns from The Little Mermaid's special 17-day rerelease.

Anastasia has a great deal going for it. It has brought the magic back into the musical and is packed to the gills with well-known voice talents. Many complained of the unrealistic style of Hercules's "twisty ears" and funny kneecaps, and Anastasia portrays its characters in a much more realistic artistic style. But without the enormous merchandising power only Disney can afford, can the film succeed? Disney has seen the threat on the horizon, and is responding: they are releasing a direct-to-video sequel of Beauty and the Beast two weeks earlier and rereleasing The Little Mermaid on the week before to try to tire America of feature-length animation before Anastasia has a chance. Many find this unreasonable, but Hollywood is a business and Disney has to protect its market. Critics point to the fact that ABC has refused to air Anastasia commercials or any commercials for tie-ins that bear Anastasia footage during Sunday night's "Wonderful World of Disney" broadcast. ABC and Disney defend that decision, stating that it is merely an attempt to protect the Disney brand. Again, this makes perfect sense. ABC has willingly aired Anastasia spots elsewhere in the lineup, but it is important to differentiate between Disney and Anastasia, and viewers seeing the two together could easily assume it's a Disney film. It's business. They have to protect their brand.

I am hoping very much for Anastasia to succeed. Firstly, it looks like a great film, and beyond that, I believe that more competition increases the product quality for everyone. Disney has been the arrogant hare, taking a breather while the tortoise ambles along. In recent years, the quality of their summer event extravaganzas has fallen. Hopefully, with more players in the game, they'll return to the magic they once had, and other studios will add to the fun. I eagerly anticipate The Prince of Egypt, coming next year from DreamWorks. I think more animation will expand the horizons of the medium, and that can only be good. But, I can't blame Disney for trying to remain on top. It's the business-savvy thing to do. Their animation is the only thing that is uniquely Disney, and they have defended it without abandon. Mickey Mouse recently missed a chance to be on a postage stamp, because Disney refused to drop the "©Disney" from the picture. So, Bugs graces a new 32-cent and Mickey remains protected. We'll have to see how the strategy works, but we must give them credit for keeping the integrity of their brand first and foremost.

THE LATEST FROM POOP READING:

© onebee · all rights reserved