-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
What can Nintendo learn from Disney in terms of marketing and branding?
- Thread starter ScOULaris
- Start date
Yeah. As much as I'd love to see a Nintendo theme park, the only way it could feasibly happen is by licensing with Disney to have a Nintendo section in Disney World. And there isn't much in that deal for Disney.
People underestimate how MASSIVE an undertaking launching a theme park is.
GuitarAtomik
Member
Yeah, it really shouldn't be with Disney and doesn't make sense for Disney since it's not their brand. I mentioned it before, but becoming a part of Islands of Adventure or Universal Studios makes a lot more sense. Islands of Adventure in particular (though they're both Universal parks) is made up of multiple brands (Marvel ironically, Harry Potter, Dr Seuss, old Newspaper comics like Popeye) and it would give Universal an alternative for Disney's theme park demo.
HolyBaikal
Banned
This is a wonderful topic. I agree with ScOULaris.
I think that they need a lot more advertisement and merchandise.
Nintendo does have a lot of merchandise, but they could make more. Disney has more toys and merchandise than Nintendo. And that's done well.
And Disney advertises more than Nintendo does. I think that helps.
I also think they should make big CG movies. And have a theme park. And have more princess things.
I think that they need a lot more advertisement and merchandise.
Nintendo does have a lot of merchandise, but they could make more. Disney has more toys and merchandise than Nintendo. And that's done well.
And Disney advertises more than Nintendo does. I think that helps.
I also think they should make big CG movies. And have a theme park. And have more princess things.
Quadraphonic
Member
For those not understanding what it takes to create a theme park, a good read would be a recent article on the new owners of Santa's Village.
http://themeparkadventure.com/santas-village-opening-delayed-least-summer-2015/
TPA goes through and explains the undertakings to make a theme park.
Granted, the 'big' part is grabbing off-the-shelf rides and theming them. So a wild mouse coaster, make about 20 fiber-glass shells of Yoshi and some paint and call it a day.
But that manufacturing needs upkeep. It needs designers. It needs to pass safety inspections. It needs training manuals and a whole team of employees behind it.
And that's just a single ride that doesn't involve a huge amount of creativity.
Expand that to 20 attractions, and add in the time for fabrication, cost of materials, not even including the amount of computer designwork and guest studies to figure out what works and what doesn't.
Then you have land purchasing, figuring out the cost and working with the city to establish zoning codes, new roads, parking lots, estimated crowd sizes, room for future expansion.
Then of course there's PR, advertising, marketing, management, custodial, and a whole host of other departments.
The one leg up Nintendo has is a BIT of merchandising experience. Because people want to buy things. So that means designing shopping bags, stores, exclusive merchandise, and everything that comes with designing at least a DOZEN different gift shops.
Then people want food. So you need to handle restaurants. And bathrooms. Designing menus. Ordering food.
Then there's shows, performers, choreographers, costume design.
And that's WITHOUT hotels.
Once you expand to a resort? HAHAHA. Good luck.
http://themeparkadventure.com/santas-village-opening-delayed-least-summer-2015/
TPA goes through and explains the undertakings to make a theme park.
Granted, the 'big' part is grabbing off-the-shelf rides and theming them. So a wild mouse coaster, make about 20 fiber-glass shells of Yoshi and some paint and call it a day.
But that manufacturing needs upkeep. It needs designers. It needs to pass safety inspections. It needs training manuals and a whole team of employees behind it.
And that's just a single ride that doesn't involve a huge amount of creativity.
Expand that to 20 attractions, and add in the time for fabrication, cost of materials, not even including the amount of computer designwork and guest studies to figure out what works and what doesn't.
Then you have land purchasing, figuring out the cost and working with the city to establish zoning codes, new roads, parking lots, estimated crowd sizes, room for future expansion.
Then of course there's PR, advertising, marketing, management, custodial, and a whole host of other departments.
The one leg up Nintendo has is a BIT of merchandising experience. Because people want to buy things. So that means designing shopping bags, stores, exclusive merchandise, and everything that comes with designing at least a DOZEN different gift shops.
Then people want food. So you need to handle restaurants. And bathrooms. Designing menus. Ordering food.
Then there's shows, performers, choreographers, costume design.
And that's WITHOUT hotels.
Once you expand to a resort? HAHAHA. Good luck.
Nintendo partnering with someone other than Disney is not a bad idea. There are still a couple of caveats though. The first is that Universal, or whoever the partner is, will want a decent amount of control of the Nintendo property in the park itself, and this is a sticking point that I don't think Nintendo is willing to concede. The second is that this still won't do much to pull in a new audience; all it does is further monetize Nintendo's fanbase.
If Nintendo tries this, they're setting themselves up directly against the Disney juggernaut. And this isn't a battle that Nintendo has a hope of winning - in particular, Nintendo princesses are overwhelmingly overmatched. This doesn't look like a very fruitful strategy.
GuitarAtomik
Member
I imagine Universal is pretty flexible. More so than Disney would be at least. I could be wrong though.
The cool thing about Islands of Adventure is since it is a mish mash of properties, it can draw in new audiences. Some will go to the park just to see the Harry Potter section, or the Marvel section, but they will get their money's worth exploring the whole park. Especially if there's a cool new ride or attraction.
MeachTheMonster
Banned
Lie about the scope of your game. Put commercials on every ten seconds.
Why would Disney want Nintendo? If it were anyone else, they might be interested in Nintendo IPs, but Disney doesn't have any need for those.
I think that Universal would would still want sureties regarding any licensed IPs. Still, an arrangement like this seems pretty workable. However, Nintendo has been entertaining the idea of a theme attraction for some time now, so there has to be a reason they haven't worked something out with Universal. Maybe they want to be more ambitious and feel that Universal isn't high profile enough in Japan.
Hey, man. Whatever it takes to put Metroid back in the spotlight for a while.
Besides your negativity, you are onto something. Push your Karaoke games harder Nintendo.
They don't had a captive young boy audience and video games is one of the most profitable businesses around. Plus "the only place you can find Star Wars, Marvel, and Nintendo" is one hell of a draw.
plantedunicorn
Member
The thing is Disney has proven time and time again they don't give a shit about video games at all.
Except Epic Mickey where they traded a human being for the rights to a character to be used in a video game. And let's not pretend Disney Infinity doesn't exist. Plus they tried to make spectrobes a thing too (shoulda tried harder but w/e). Don't mistake incompetence with apathy.
They have Spider-Man, Pooh, Toy Story and Cars/Planes; I'd say that Disney has that segment pretty well covered. Nintendo doesn't hold a candle to that kind of power.
http://variety.com/2013/biz/news/disney-star-wars-princesses-licensing-1200498040/
For Disney, video games are just an offshoot of their overall merchandising ventures. It's a less reliable market for them, so they probably prize it far less than their traditional revenue streams.
Storm Kyleis
Member
ScatheZombie
Member
2003
Pixar - Finding Nemo ($937m)
Disney - Brother Bear ($250m)
2004
Pixar - The Incredibles ($631m)
Disney - Home on the Range ($104m)
2005/2006
Pixar - Cars ($462m)
Disney - Chicken Little ($314m)
2007
Pixar - Ratatoullie ($624m)
Disney - Meet the Robinsons ($169m)
2008
Pixar - Wall-E ($521m)
Disney - Bolt ($310m)
2009
Pixar - Up ($731m)
Disney - Princess and the Frog ($267m)
2010
Pixar - Toy Story 3 ($1,063m)
Disney - Tangled ($592m)
2011
Pixar - Cars 2 ($560m)
Disney - Winnie the Pooh ($44m)
2012
Pixar - Brave ($539m)
Disney - Wreck-It Ralph ($471m)
2013
Pixar - Monsters University ($743m)
Disney - Frozen ($1,274m)
With the exception of Frozen, as I said, every single Pixar movie has been more profitable, year after year, than Disney in-house ... including Wreck-It Ralph and Tangled.
Quadraphonic
Member
Universal Studios Hollywood opened up just over 50 years ago, and the company itself is 100 years old. (With the tram tour just a bit younger) They have a lot of guest experience.
Even then, developing WWoHP was a pain in the ass because JK Rowling wanted total control, ignoring things like guest flow, ride capacity and technical feasibility. She originally went to Disney and Disney shut her down after she insisted on insane design decisions that would have made it a disaster to navigate. And we all know how controlling Nintendo can be.
All that said, Nintendo would be best off getting some good consultants or partnerships to build the land. Universal has been looking to build a third gate in Orlando and a second gate in Osaka.
If you have been to Universal Studios Japan, you'd be in a bit of shock compared to the segmentation of licenses at IOA. The park utilizes their licensed characters to the extreme. They have three main licenses; Elmo, Hello Kitty and Snoopy. Those characters infect the park's structure so thoroughly and completely that many guests assume they actually created Snoopy and own Sesame Street. No joke.
On top of that, USJ already has experience working with video game properties.
For a few years they've done a really cool haunted maze with Biohazard/Resident Evil that is an instant sell-out every morning. And this summer they're expanding it into an escape room.
http://www.usj.co.jp/universal-cool-japan2015/
So they do know how to treat game properties properly.
Oh, and Monster Hunter...
So really, if they were to 'learn' from anybody, it'd be Universal.
Those mostly aren't hitting the demo I'm talking about and the ones that do aren't captive. Skylanders and Sonic and the like are cutting into their market. Nothing like the way Marvel owns superhero movies or everything is about Frozen.
Baron von Loathsome
Member
You said "do well," not "do better than the same year's Pixar movie." Aside from Winnie the Pooh, Disney Animation Studios has been bringing in good money since 2010.
magnumpy
Member
woah, Pixar is killing it. maybe they could make a CGI film in the Mushroom Kingdom? would be a great promotion for Nintendos (somewhat hypothetical, but we all know they're being developed) new systems.
Dice
Pokémon Parentage Conspiracy Theorist
That's a damn shame. IMO quality is reverse for all of them except Ratatoullie.
There is no way Nintendo should make a theme park. That's probably the quickest way for them to burn through piles of cash and put them in a financially scary position.
Even Disney is losing money with Euro Disney, and that's the biggest vacation destination in Europe. Think about that for a second, the biggest destination in an entire continent loses money every year, and has done so for several years.
Those types of investments need a really high level of traffic just to stay in the black, and Nintendo has exactly zero expertise in any of the pieces going into that other than having some beloved characters. It might make sense to have World of Nintendo at Universal Studios, but let's be honest, if Nintendo did this, they would probably end up partnering with like, Busch Gardens, and it would be glorified tea cup rides for kids <5 and totally suck :-/.
I think Nintendo really needs to recognize what Disney has done with diversifying the age range of its properties. Nintendo needs to develop some properties that appeal more to older kids too. Bayonetta is a step in the right direction, but is honestly too niche to ever be a huge franchise.
Metroid is right there, but they need to develop more. Retro studios has done a great job with this on the Metroid Prime series, and I think there's a lot of other smaller developers that would love to have firmer financial footing and the opportunity to work with some of gaming's greatest developers and directors.
I also would like to see Nintendo work on some licensed properties. I think they could do some very cool things in a space where the games usually are terrible. If done really well, this could firm up Nintendo's position as the best console for kids and families.
As a dad, I like the family-friendly part of Nintendo, and think they should double down on it, but need to have more games for older kids that are "too cool" to be seen playing Mario, but aren't really ready for adult games. Right now, there are not a lot of games like that out there.
Even Disney is losing money with Euro Disney, and that's the biggest vacation destination in Europe. Think about that for a second, the biggest destination in an entire continent loses money every year, and has done so for several years.
Those types of investments need a really high level of traffic just to stay in the black, and Nintendo has exactly zero expertise in any of the pieces going into that other than having some beloved characters. It might make sense to have World of Nintendo at Universal Studios, but let's be honest, if Nintendo did this, they would probably end up partnering with like, Busch Gardens, and it would be glorified tea cup rides for kids <5 and totally suck :-/.
I think Nintendo really needs to recognize what Disney has done with diversifying the age range of its properties. Nintendo needs to develop some properties that appeal more to older kids too. Bayonetta is a step in the right direction, but is honestly too niche to ever be a huge franchise.
Metroid is right there, but they need to develop more. Retro studios has done a great job with this on the Metroid Prime series, and I think there's a lot of other smaller developers that would love to have firmer financial footing and the opportunity to work with some of gaming's greatest developers and directors.
I also would like to see Nintendo work on some licensed properties. I think they could do some very cool things in a space where the games usually are terrible. If done really well, this could firm up Nintendo's position as the best console for kids and families.
As a dad, I like the family-friendly part of Nintendo, and think they should double down on it, but need to have more games for older kids that are "too cool" to be seen playing Mario, but aren't really ready for adult games. Right now, there are not a lot of games like that out there.
The franchises I listed hit everything from toddlers to early teens. What market are you thinking of? If it's late teens to young adults, that's what the Marvel and Star Wars franchises are for.
WDAS would probably be a better fit for a Nintendo animated film than Pixar, but what would Nintendo offer for it? A standard WDAS film can generate anywhere up to $2B in boxoffice and merchandising revenue, and something like Frozen is probably in the $10B neighborhood. Is Nintendo willing to sell their firstborn for a piece of that?
The biggest lesson Nintendo could learn is IP churn. Even if you just look at the list provided, you can see the difference. All this new IP was given top billing by Disney. While Nintendo has also produced a tremendous amount of new IP in the same time frame, almost none of it was given this level of importance and marketing. If Disney invented Mario in the 80s, these days you would only get to look forward to it's 30th Anniversay DVD/Blu-Ray combo set. There's a huge difference in philosophy between the two companies.
James Scott
Banned
Rosalina Universe, yo
I absolutely agree. Disney is extremely aggressive at promoting unproven franchises in the hopes that some of them may catch fire. They will treat their newest franchise as well, or even better than their old standbys. This is the diametrically opposite approach from how Nintendo does things. Look at the suggestions in this very thread: there's lots of ideas about exploiting Nintendo's tried and true franchises, but very little about using Disney's current strategies.
HolyBaikal
Banned
... um.. in what way.. um.. exactly?
The princess? Or the merchandise? Or... the theme parks?
I don't think that Nintendo has enough well known princesses yet, but they could. There are all sorts of princesses in the Nintendo world. Like Lip from Panel de Pon. They could make more games about characters like her.
I bet Lip could be just as popular as characters like Strawberry Shortcake or Sofia the First. And lots of characters in Disney are really well known. Mario is a lot more well known than Ralph from Wreck-It-Ralph.
They could even work with Hasbro to make shows for them like My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic. A Panel de Pon show made by Lauren Faust... now that would be a dream come true.
Actually, maybe since Disney might be too big to work with Nintendo or too different or something. Maybe Nintendo could pair up with Hasbro. I think that a Disney and Nintendo pairing would be nicer. But Nintendo and Hasbro working together would be nice, too.
Ohhh, and that would make room for there to be My Little Pony x Panel de Pon spinoffs. Ponies visit the fairy world. Oh... that would be such a dream come true. Rainbow Dash and Twilight Sparkle in Smash Bros...
Um.. but I guess I'm digressing.
As for merchandise, aren't lots of companies going against Disney in that way? I guess Nintendo are already kind of... I mean.. they do make a lot of merchandise, just not as much as Disney. But maybe Disney does. And Sanrio definitely makes as much merchandise as Disney.
I don't see why some some Nintendo characters couldn't be as popular as Hello Kitty or Disney characters.
And... maybe Nintendo couldn't afford to make a theme park as big as Disney World. But... there are lots of small theme parks that get bigger, like Magic Springs and Crystal falls.
SporeCrawler
Member
more aggressive M&As. Since Nintendo cannot get thirdparty support they should buy other studios. Disney did it with Marvel and Lucas.
Glass Rebel
Member
Marvel Studios and the MCU is probably one of the most surprising success stories in the last few years. For something that didn't have two of its most popular franchises (Spider Man & X-Men) to lean on, they did incredibly well in pushing a brand that can even carry stuff like Guardians of the Galaxy. I know people like to be cynic about everything MCU these days but fact is that people like them and that they're making money hand over fist. I don't know which lesson(s) to take from it that could be applied to Nintendo's business tho.
TheMagician
Member
Nintendo's merchandising could be as big as their games but it kinda feels like an after thought.
block tower
Member
i would say:
-a cohesive Nintendo film universe that has films that draw from Nintendo's expansive portfolio of characters and other property.
-make a budget console that is very focused at delivering great Nintendo software but designed as a second console for gamers.
-create a cohesive and shared marketplace/online/community between their handheld and console platforms.
-allow talented anime writers and artists to try and film or tv show based on one of Nintendos more mature properties such as Fire Emblem, Xenoblade Chronicles, Metroid or Sin and Punishment. or if possible team up with an independent publisher like Image or Vertigo Comics and do adaptations of those same or similar properties.
-lastly i think its important for Nintendo to have both a focus on children and adults, and much how disney has made distinct marketing efforts based on which demographic they were after, i think Nintendo should do the same rather than always lumping everyone in the same group.
-a cohesive Nintendo film universe that has films that draw from Nintendo's expansive portfolio of characters and other property.
-make a budget console that is very focused at delivering great Nintendo software but designed as a second console for gamers.
-create a cohesive and shared marketplace/online/community between their handheld and console platforms.
-allow talented anime writers and artists to try and film or tv show based on one of Nintendos more mature properties such as Fire Emblem, Xenoblade Chronicles, Metroid or Sin and Punishment. or if possible team up with an independent publisher like Image or Vertigo Comics and do adaptations of those same or similar properties.
-lastly i think its important for Nintendo to have both a focus on children and adults, and much how disney has made distinct marketing efforts based on which demographic they were after, i think Nintendo should do the same rather than always lumping everyone in the same group.
Astral Dog
Member
They work on enterily different industries, so it should not be an easy comprasion, Disney has its heavy mistakes on the videogame market too.
That said, things like the Wreck it Ralph cameo are good, what about Nintendo making a partnership with Disney for some animated shorts? show them before the Disney movies, or at least on TV if thats too much.
Its true about the girl fanbase, but to be fair Nintendo is not ignoring them, they know they have a female fanbase and try to keep them.
More things could be done on this aspect. more licensing, games, merchantise, etc.
Edit: Nintendo films are too risky for now, keep in mind that most Nintendo games, like Mario or Zelda, consist of very, very simple characters and plot.
That said, things like the Wreck it Ralph cameo are good, what about Nintendo making a partnership with Disney for some animated shorts? show them before the Disney movies, or at least on TV if thats too much.
Its true about the girl fanbase, but to be fair Nintendo is not ignoring them, they know they have a female fanbase and try to keep them.
More things could be done on this aspect. more licensing, games, merchantise, etc.
Edit: Nintendo films are too risky for now, keep in mind that most Nintendo games, like Mario or Zelda, consist of very, very simple characters and plot.
Only $44m for Winnie the Pooh? Jesus.
All of your ideas would require Nintendo invest a lot of money into industries where they have no experience. They're not going to be competing against Sophia the First or Wreck-It-Ralph. Lip would be up against Disney princesses like Cinderella and, god forbid, Elsa. And Mario would be up against the likes of Mickey Mouse.
Sanrio had FY2013 revenues of around $900M. By themselves, the Disney Princesses are around $3B - not counting Frozen. All in all, Disney controls six out of the top ten franchises in the entire world with nobody else even close. Barbie used to be the queen, but she's been dethroned by Elsa.
If Nintendo were smart, they'd be talking to Hasbro and Mattel to see how they can take their IPs and turn them into merchandise that kids want. They're not though, so they're getting most of their toys distributed by Bandai. One of the big problems here is that, because Nintendo hasn't been trying to target children, they're not all that high in kids' wishlists any more.
Frozen is even better at moving merchandise than Marvel. It's a franchise that's only a year old, so it's ideas can certainly be emulated. I don't think that Nintendo is in position to do so though.Marvel Studios and the MCU is probably one of the most surprising success stories in the last few years. For something that didn't have two of its most popular franchises (Spider Man & X-Men) to lean on, they did incredibly well in pushing a brand that can even carry stuff like Guardians of the Galaxy. I know people like to be cynic about everything MCU these days but fact is that people like them and that they're making money hand over fist. I don't know which lesson(s) to take from it that could be applied to Nintendo's business tho.
Disney will only use their animation studios to produce material for their own franchises. Nintendo is free to partner up with Hasbro or Mattel though.
Nintendo would need expertise in industries where they have little experience, but it should be doable. However, Nintendo fans probably wouldn't like the results.
What Disney has, for better or for worse, is nearly lifetime grip on a person's concepts of entertainment. A kid could start off with Mickey, then move to the princess line, then to the live action Kidcoms, then the designer fashion brands based around the characters and have it start all over again with their child through the smattered release of the company's films. Then when the kids have left, there's the kitschy collectables aimed at the elder market. A "Circle Of Life" in a sense. (This isn't even taking into account acquisitions like Muppets, ESPN, Marvel, Lucasfilms/arts)
Nintendo does not have this. There are barely any properties designated for the teen market (And the ones that are, are because of outside influences (Tournaments, TPP, memes)). There are barely any properties designated for the Young Adult/Adult markets either, let alone properties that Nintendo would like to advertise. (And not just runoff from nostalgia or those previously stated outside forces) Like it or not, that sector consists of a massive part of the market. There is a vast amount of time between your tweens and the age you have kids.
This is where Nintendo fails the most. A lack of variety in the sense of demographics. Sony has Little Big Planet and God of War under the same roof. Microsoft has Minecraft and Gears of War under the same umbrella. Disney has Mickey and America's largest sports network under their command. Clear lines in the sand in terms of what's being marketed to whom. It doesn't mean that one can't intersect into another, but it does mean that there's less chance of public perception influencing their purchase decision, which means a lot to a surprising amount of folks.
Nintendo does not have this. There are barely any properties designated for the teen market (And the ones that are, are because of outside influences (Tournaments, TPP, memes)). There are barely any properties designated for the Young Adult/Adult markets either, let alone properties that Nintendo would like to advertise. (And not just runoff from nostalgia or those previously stated outside forces) Like it or not, that sector consists of a massive part of the market. There is a vast amount of time between your tweens and the age you have kids.
This is where Nintendo fails the most. A lack of variety in the sense of demographics. Sony has Little Big Planet and God of War under the same roof. Microsoft has Minecraft and Gears of War under the same umbrella. Disney has Mickey and America's largest sports network under their command. Clear lines in the sand in terms of what's being marketed to whom. It doesn't mean that one can't intersect into another, but it does mean that there's less chance of public perception influencing their purchase decision, which means a lot to a surprising amount of folks.
SpacePirate Ridley
Member
It can happen by giving them the theme park rights to disney. It has been done already with Harry Potter at Universal and with Star Wars, Indy (before Lucas buyout) and Twilight Zone at Disney.
At the end of the day is not a buyout and each company is still its own but both companies are helping each other winning more money if the theme park or park zone is a success at the end.
If that agreement also has some movie rights Nintendo could give even niche series (like Pikmin, Metroid, Fzero...) a big boost in sales, while making things like Mario and Zelda games sell as well as Pokemon.
And Rosalina is exactly the same trope as Elsa, so it wouldn't be surprising girls going crazy for her, she already has a huge fanbase with gaming fans.
Are you still in the 90's? lol
In all seriousness the problem with that is that its still losing money because of tall he debts created by the Euro Disney company (not the same company as Disney) at the start. They could be profitable now in the position they are, but it's actually impossible because of the old burden. It was stupid building the park in France in the first place, that's for sure.
But you are right, Nintendo can't build a theme park by themeselves, that is burning money. Now licensing, is another story.
You're comparing Rosalina to the star of a movie that made more than a billion dollars worldwide. It would very much be surprising to see her having the same appeal.
Disney's princess line is in another league.
SpacePirate Ridley
Member
Star? Nope, the star in not her. The main character from the movie is Anna, and no girl gives a shit about her.
Elsa's character triumphed where Anna couldn't because the trope that she is build is a magnet for girls (it also helps how she is presented in the movie and the catchy song she sings).
Funnily without trying to do much, Rosalina caters to the same kind of audience. She is not famous because is not Disney the one who market her heavily, or the one who got was in famous animated movie, that even when trash this movies usally have an army of kids watching them, with merchandising selling like hotcakes.
And thats why Disney and Nintendo are in totally different positions right now.
I was not talking about her being famous (thats stupid, of course Elsa and the disney princess line is in another level), I was talking about the appeal she would have if she was a character in a famous animated movie.
Anna wanted to be the star of Frozen but Elsa took that spot from her. I feel that being the main character and star of a film are two different things here.
Perhaps when Nintendo had the Wii audience they could have put out a princess line but those days are long gone.
Also, girls do give a shit about Anna. She just has to be be on the product next to Elsa.
BodiesWithoutOrgans
Member
I'd love a mario Pixar movie
Similar threads
- Poll