When in fact what Hasbro is actually buying is Entertainment One (EO) which is a massive media conglomerate . (1)
EO acquires stakes and licensing rights in dozens of properties, including the studio behind Peppa that they paid ~$210m for in 2015 (2)
For Hasbro this acquisition lines them up with a licensing rich catalog to push out their wares and open new worldwide markets.
Beyond that EO is a:
- 50 year old company
- Generates >$1b in revenue / annually
- Thousands of employees
- Hundreds of entertainment properties with more than 80,000 hours of film and television content and approximately 40,000 music tracks.
- Mini-disney model of robust acquisition and then licensing / merchandising
The dialogs are repetitive enough to be gentle practice for recognizing words through speech, and the characters' struggles in learning new concepts also lead to some helpful descriptions that can supplant a dictionary.
But Peppa big is probably watched by as many children in my target language as any native programming, so in a sense it is as native as anything else.
Something like Mickey Mouse is probably past the end of its lifetime now, but Star Wars franchising is going strong and was probably a good buy for Disney. Things like He-Man were barely blips.
> The character is owned by Entertainment One, which makes and distributes TV and films including Grey’s Anatomy, Spotlight and The Hunger Games. The company said Peppa pulled in more than $1.1bn in retail sales, adding that it struck 500 new or renewed deals with TV and product licensing partners in the year to the end of March.
As an aside, people are awfully enamored with "Star Wars" and other big tent pole series. However, if the costs of writing and filmmaking were low or non-existent, I believe the market would be flooded with new creativity. There would be tons of new stories in the sci-fi and fantasy genres, and the value of any single brand or series would plummet.
All of that to say, I don't feel like people are necessarily attached to "brands" or "licenses" like "Mickey" or "Star Wars", it's just that there aren't enough choices available. It's too expensive to create new entries. Copyright enshrines these brands, companies seldom want to invest in creating new ones, and the barriers to entry make it hard for competition to arise. Experiments are risky.
Imagine a world with substantially lower cost to produce. In the limit, there would be so many stories that we'd be hearing about new experiences in content from our friends on a daily basis. We couldn't explore the entire graph. Discovery would be ephemeral and happenstance, and very few things would ever rise to the cultural prominence of Marvel, simply because there would be worthwhile novelty everywhere you look.
Imagine when our computers can dream up stories to tell us. That excites me.
Is that true? I only know a few toddlers but they love Mickey
Anecdotally, that's not true in my house. My daughter loves Mickey Mouse Clubhouse.
Solo was a film that no one was really asking for, and that also failed on its own merits.
Hopefully that's not too off-topic. Maybe not everyone knows peppa pig.