Analysis – Page 10 – The Animation Anomaly

The Pitfalls Of Amazon Studios’ Animation Strategy

Amazon-Studios

Amazon Studios is the retailer’s original content division that has been covered before here on the blog because it appears to have some merit to it even if it’s far from perfect. Announced just recently is the news that they have officially sanctioned five new animated shows to move forward with the production of pilot episodes. The notable thing about them is that they are all aimed at pre-schoolers; none will appeal to a kid who can appreciate the summer holidays. So what kind of pitfalls can the Amazon Studios animated series’ present for the would-be hit maker? Let’s take a look.

Only One Episode Of Each Is Being Made: The Pilot

It’s tempting to think that Amazon Studios has announced five different series, but they’ve actually only announced five different pilots. That’s a big difference and one that’s clearly aimed at keeping costs down. The downside is that they’re only producing one episode that may not be very good at all. Pilot’s are test beds, proofs of concept and a chance for executives to see how a show might play out for real. Pilots serve a valuable purpose, but here, it’s hard to see why they are treated so heroically.

No details are given as to whether these pilots will even see the light of day as far as the public is concerned. One would hope that they will be given trial runs with mainstream audiences to see how well they resonate with them, but you can never be sure. Plenty of pilots have been buried never to see the light of day. while conversely, they can also be jaw-droppingly awesome and yet still fail to get picked up.

They Picked the Toughest Market Segment

Yup, pre-school is the hottest market segment as far as animated shows go. Everyone is in on the act from monstrous conglomerates like Disney and Viacom to independent studios run by husbands and wives. Of all the ages of people to create for, why did Amazon choose this one to focus on?

Would it not be easier to aim for older kids or teenagers instead? One would think so, and yet the company has so far only announced one pilot for that audience. Were there really fewer ideas submitted? Hardly.

It’s Not Quite As Lucrative As You Would Expect

That’s not to say that Amazon Studios won’t make a lot of money through pre-school shows (it will), the problem is that pre-school shows have pre-school audiences. Once they reach a certain age, they leave and never return. Related merchandise sales also stop, and it becomes necessary to constantly market to new entrants.

This can become problematic when you realise that pre-school shows themselves have a terrifyingly short lifespan. Sure Sesame Street and Dora the Explorer have been around for ages, but the vast majority of pre-school animated shows don’t tend to bridge generations very well. Part of the reason is that child psychology and parent’s demands are continuously changing. For example, in my day, there was much more of an emphasis on entertainment whereas today, it’s seriously difficult to get a pre-school show made and out there if it does not contain a significant amount of educational content.

So with such a limited audience, won’t that limit Amazon’s potential to make money from the series? The answer is yes, because unlike Disney, Viacom et al, Amazon does not also have animate shows aimed at older kids. The result is that once they “graduate” from their pre-school shows, there is nothing for them to transition to. Now bear in mind that at this point, such circumstances are circumstantial; Amazon can afford to wait before it announces shows for older kids, yet the fact remains that it is foregoing those audiences now.

Netflix is Still The One Amazon Studios Has To Beat

Although Amazon is focusing on creating original content, pseudo-competitor Netflix already has a large headstart. Sure they lack the original programming, but they have a massive library to draw upon. More so than that, they have become synonymous with the words “online streaming” and have a commanding lead over Amazon in the public’s mind. Netflix is also available on more platforms, already has a dedicated kid-friendly service (so Mummy and Daddy don’t have to play the progamming for the child) and has all the programming for the young audience once they get older.

Conclusion

I’ve lauded Amazon’s initiatives before and they’re logic remains solid for the most part. (I won’t go into the differences between their ‘pilot’ strategy and Netflix’s ‘all-in’ approach.) Their decision to aim for pre-school audiences remains a mysterious one. No doubt they will be drawing upon their vast amount of data on sales of toys to help them finesse their approach.

Would you rather see Amazon make an animated series for older viewers? Let us know with a comment!

The Pitfalls Of Amazon Studios’ Animation Strategy Read More »

How David OReilly Engages His Fans

1 Comment / Analysis / Charles Kenny

David OReilly is infamous for the unique style of animation in his personal films and the particular brand of comedy that inhabits them. As an independent animator, David is a master at understanding how they become a brand onto themselves and he uses it to his benefit. Such a move is often the result of necessity but rarely is it pulled off with the pastiche that OReilly manages. With his latest venture, David illustrates yet again, how independent animators can engage with fans and earn a living at the same time.

The Fans

OReilly has acquired an audience (or devoted mass if you prefer) through his short films and commercial works. These include the films Please Say Something, The External World and his initial foray, Octocat. Videos for the likes of U2 have heightened his public profile among non-animation fans too.

These fans not only provide an audience for every new thing that he creates, they also function as his makeshift publicity department. The advantage to this is that word of mouth is by far the most reliable and effective form of advertising even if it may take a while to reach large numbers of people.

Acquiring fans is one thing, but OReilly also manages to keep them, chiefly through continually honing, improving and experimenting with his craft. His reasons for not repeating himself bear remembering in this regard and his ever increasing profile within the animation industry is proof of that. They will culminate later this year when his episode of Adventure Time hits the airwaves.

The Content

Although fans are important to any independent animator, it is necessary to interact with them and continually present them with new and exciting material. The risk is that if you do not, they will move on to somebody else who does.

OReilly is only one Irishman however, and animation being the slow process that it is, it would be impossible for him to create new animated films constantly and within short time frames. Instead, he opts to create new animation when it is possible, and in between, keeps his fans happy and engaged through other, non-animated creations.

OReilly’s twitter and instagram feeds exemplify his unique sense of humour and provide the primary channels of engagement. They are a practically free way of maintaining his profile without any additional cost to himself.

David is also the master at engaging his fans in conversation through them. A clear example was his recent pondering of why critically acclaimed content garners tiny viewership on YouTube and yet videos of cats can garner millions. His response was as much genius as it was entertaining: he posted a video of puppies and then decried it as a despicable act for which he was truly sorry.

The result?Nearly 12,000 views but a ton of interactivity with fans as they eagerly entertained the notion that the video was ‘disgusting’ even though it clearly was not (click to enlarge):

The upshot is that OReilly kept his fans engaged and interested in him without having to revert to creating new animation.

The T-Shirts That Combine Fans And Content

The latest idea (and the one that prompted this post) was the recent announcement that David had designed 40 T-shirts. “OK, so what” I hear you say, “that’s not a big deal”. Well, no, it probably isn’t, but since he has decided to also sell them, it sort of is.

Why? Well quite simply, these T-shirts bring fans and content together in a way that allows OReilly to make money. Firstly, the T-shirts are a way of proving that he values his fans and secondly, they adhere to David’s unique style without the need to create new animation. The result is that you have happy fans, with a David OReilly creation and all without the need to create expensive, time-consuming animation!

Of course the true genius of these T-shirts is that they exhibit not only OReilly’s unique sense of humour (and his desire to lead a Comic Sans revival), but also his interest in animation too. Observe:

Via: (a href="http://skreened.com/dumbstuff/cartoon-character"> Skreened.com — ‘Cartoon Character’

Needless to say, the use of these copyrighted characters would fall under the parody rule of fair use.

The Payoff

(no pun intended)

What is there to be gleaned from all of this? Well, a few things:

OReilly creates animation that garners fans of his work
He engages with his fans on a constant basis
He creates non-animated content as a way to satisfy fans until new animation can be created
The content he creates is exciting and of equal quality to his animation.

The result is that David OReilly succeeds at things where plenty of others fail. Yes, anybody can create a T-shirt and sell it online without much overhead, but simply offering T-shirts is not enough. Neither can you rely upon merchandise sales alone to bring in money or keep your fans engaged. Again, simply offering it is not enough. David demonstrates that you must keep fans ‘primed’ for new content and when you deliver, it must be exciting enough for them to want to purchase it.

In addition, the T-shirts themselves are broad enough in appeal so that non-fans and people who may have never heard of him before will get to know him; i.e. they will grow his fanbase. Imagine that, growing the potential audience for your animated properties without creating any new animation. Genius!

Although by no means a model that can translate to any and all independent animators, what David OReilly conducts is a high-wire act that constantly entertains his fans, keeps them engaged and interested in what he’s doing. the result is that he can create merchandise that not only sells, but increases his profile further. He is a model for others to follow.

How David OReilly Engages His Fans Read More »

Reading the Fine Print in the Nickelodeon Animated Shorts Release

4 Comments / Analysis / Charles Kenny

Ah, the fine print. Almost nobody actually reads it, but when they do, surprises abound. Today, we’re taking a look at the recently announced Nickelodeon Animated Shorts Program; basically Nick’s effort to find new animated programming because whatever system they’ve used since giving Random! Cartoons the boot clearly isn’t working. However, we’re not interested in what kind of content they’re looking for, or even the reason why they’re doing it at all. Nope, we’re interested in the fine print, because the devil really is in the details.

What it Does Say

You acknowledge that there does not now exist, nor has there ever existed, nor will there exist, a fiduciary relationship between you and VMN. You requested this opportunity to submit your Material to VMN and you make this submission voluntarily and on an unsolicited basis. You and VMN have not yet reached an agreement concerning the use of the Material and you realize that no obligation of any kind is assumed by, or may be implied against, VMN unless and until a formal written contract has been entered into between you and VMN (if ever), and then the obligation shall be only as is expressed in the formal written contract.

Basically, we don’t have to pay you a cent until we sign a proper contract. A fair enough arrangement and pretty standard for this kind of thing.

You warrant that you are the sole and exclusive creator, author and owner of the Material, and that to your knowledge no one else has any right to the Material. You further warrant that no rights in the Material have previously been granted to anyone nor has the Material otherwise been exploited in any way. You believe your Material and its features to be unique and novel.

In other words, you are the only person who created what you submit, and you didn’t include material belonging to someone else. Again, that’s a standard thing. There’s a TON of fanfiction out there that networks won’t touch with a 10 foot pole simply because there are too many licensing issues to deal with.

The biggie (any emphasis mine):

However, you cannot and will not assume or infer from the fact that VMN will accept your offer to submit your Material to VMN, that VMN regards your Material, or any part thereof, as novel, valuable or usable. You recognize that other persons including VMN employees may have submitted to VMN or to others or made public, or may hereafter originate and submit or make public, similar or identical material which VMN shall have the right to use, and you understand that you will not be entitled to any compensation because of VMN’s use of such other similar or identical material. Subject to the foregoing provisions, VMN will not make any use of any legally protectable portion of your Material unless you and VMN have agreed in a writing signed by both parties concerning your compensation for such use, which compensation shall in no event be greater than the compensation normally paid by VMN for similar Material from comparable sources.

With this, Viacom are essentially attempting to preclude themselves from any compensation claims that arise from using an idea that is very similar to a submission. This is common for studios who might well get 50 submissions about a cat chasing a mouse. The kicker is the use of the term “legally protectable”. That is something that has to be hashed out in a court with a judge (usually) and doing that is certainly not a cheap thing to undertake. Although they mention compensation, do note that studios love to bend the rules about as far as they will go with creations and you can be sure that if you have a great idea, they will alter it just enough so that they don’t have to pay anything.

The really important clause:

You are executing this Release voluntarily, without coercion or undue influence from any source, and do so with complete understanding of all of its terms and effects, and every portion thereof. By signing this Release, you acknowledge that you have either consulted an attorney or have waived your right to do so.

Read that again because you may have missed it the first time around.

You are executing this Release voluntarily, without coercion or undue influence from any source, and do so with complete understanding of all of its terms and effects, and every portion thereof. By signing this Release, you acknowledge that you have either consulted an attorney or have waived your right to do so.

Did you get that? They’re basically telling you that if you haven’t consulted an attorney about this then you cannot do so further down the road. What that means is that if you find something about the release that you find objectionable, then Viacom (Nickelodeon) can say that you should have known better, leaving you up the creek without a paddle.

What it Does NOT Say

What the release does not say, and what is particularly troubling, is that they do not have any kind of time limit set out. In other words, nothing in the release precludes them from holding onto your idea indefinitely. They can use your idea ten years from now and it’s contained within the release that if they do “inadvertently” use your material, you have only 6 months to make a case.

That is troubling enough, but the release also fails to disclose how you can handle your creation outside of the program. Can you pitch it to anyone else in the meantime? What do you suppose happens if another studio decides to pick it up while Nick is still considering it? These are all questions you should be asking yourself before deciding to commit.

Conclusion

At the end of the day, these kinds of solicitations smack of a mix of ineptitude and desperation. Nickelodeon has easy access to many fine creators whom they can solicit from any time. Why the need to go to the general public for new ideas? I can’t help bu smell the reek of sleaziness that comes with filling people’s eyes full of stars (or dollar signs). If Nickelodeon were serious about soliciting ideas, they would be weeding the garden before looking to plant any flowers.

Reading the Fine Print in the Nickelodeon Animated Shorts Release Read More »

Someone Will Hack Into An Animation Studio And Steal This

1 Comment / Analysis / Charles Kenny

Orlando Sentinal Disney Vault — Unfortunately the Disney Vault is not the kind of security this post is about.

It’s not really something we tend to think about until a story pops up in the news, but IT security is a big issue nowadays with every kind of company exposed to differing levels of risk. Animation studios are no different; they are businesses after all. So what will happen when someone decides to hack into an animation studio and what exactly will they decide to steal? Here’s an idea.

The Reasons for Stealing

First off, it’s necessary to accurately describe what is being discussed. Contemporary hacking varies quite a lot depending on the nature of it as well as what the target is. The kind of large-scale, mass break-ins popularised by Hollywood and The Matrix are few and far between. Variants of the “smash and grab” as well as defacing attacks are more common but relatively harmless in the grand scheme of things.

So what am I talking about? Well it’s the kind of sophisticated hacking that contributed to the collapse of Nortel; that is, the kind that no-one even notices until it is too late.

The reasons why are simple:

Software is expensive
modern animation itself is expensive
everyone (and hence their data) uses the internet
the vast majority of animation is really just files on a computer
time is becoming an ever important factor in production schedules

The Motivation To Steal

It’s easy to speculate on why people steal but it’s often quite difficult to get down to the reasons why they are motivated to steal. Traditionally, animation studios were subject to [serious] theft of only two things: ideas and people. The former was perhaps most clearly evident when both Pixar and DreamWorks released films whose characters were ants (A Big’s Life and Antz). The latter came to light when Pixar and Lucasfilm agreed not to poach each other’s employees (resulting in an anti-trust lawsuit.)

With the growing complexity of animation (and hence, the growing cost) there will be those with a looser moral compass out there who will gladly exploit weaknesses in a competitor’s security. Again, I don’t mean that they will make such exploits known. The truly nefarious will gain access to a studio’s network, and gladly remain there out of site, quietly siphoning off whatever they feel they can get away with. Such activity offers the potential to steal far more than just animation files and data, but also information.

Information can, in fact, be far more valuable than any animation. Look at how it worked for DreamWorks with Antz; essentially giving them a leg-up with their CGI ventures. Imagine how valuable details on multiple films would be to a rival studio? Priceless is my guess.

What Will Be Stolen

So what will be stolen? Theoretically, any computer file stored or transmitted over a network is a target. In reality though, it will depend on who is doing the stealing. A small studio is more likely to go after files (rigs, backgrounds, etc.) A larger studio will be far more interested in ideas, concepts, etc. Studios fancying themselves as rivals to Disney would be thrilled to get a really close look at how Frozen is going.

Imagine if they could get as good a view as Disney employees get? Imagine they got a good look and managed to knock out a similar picture before Disney? All those knock-offs we see these days seem to be making money for somebody, just think how much they could make if they get there’s out first?

Basically, if it is on or transmitted over a computer network (or the internet), it IS a target. This isn’t fear-mongering, it’s a fact, and the more sober you are about it, the safer you will be.

Who It Will Be Stolen From

I mention Disney and DreamWorks as simple examples. The reality is that they already have well developed IT departments. More likely targets are smaller studios and independent animators. They simply do not have the budget to maintain a full IT department let alone one with a dedicated security division. They are ripe for targeting as many do work on projects for the big boys, and as such, can be just as valuable to the dedicated criminal.

Conclusion

Long gone are the days when if you wanted to steal something of value from an animated studio, you had to physically break into the place. Nowadays, you don’t even need to be in the same country to do it. Security is something that most people only play lip-service to until it is too late. Don’t let that be you.

The US government’s Computer Security Resource Center has plenty of guides to help.

Someone Will Hack Into An Animation Studio And Steal This Read More »

Animation Industry Strategies Trends & Opportunities

1 Comment / Analysis / Charles Kenny

Have you ever heard of a report entitled “Global Animation Industry: Strategies Trends & Opportunities 2012“? It’s a rather serious-sounding affair with a pretty serious price too, €5,350.00 (or $5,000.00…hey, wait a minute, that isn’t right, is it?). Click here if you have any doubt. The report is put out by Research and Markets who bill themselves as “the leading source for international market research and market data”. Basically they provide data for market research purposes, the gist being that you can just pay them for it instead of having to conduct it yourself.

The description contains some fairly bland and generally known information about the industry (“animation is increasingly used in video games, and movies are also increasingly reliant on animation and computer graphic special effects”) but also lists the chapters of the report.

Now while I was all up for reading and reviewing the entire report. sadly $5,000 would create a sort of a cash flow, uh, crisis for me in this quarter and for possibly a good few after that, so instead, let’s see if I can’t come up with my own report instead. I’ll even leave it here for you to read, free! OK, let’s go!

1. Animation Segments

When you think of “animation segments” what do you think of? If you thought theatrical, TV, web and so on, guess what, you’d be wrong hahaha. You see the report considers animation “segments” to be different types of animation. I.e. flash, 2D, 3D CGI and stop-motion are all considered different “segments”.

Hmmm, that doesn’t make a lick of sense to me. Visual FX may get a pass because the nature of that work does differ from traditional animation. So let’s re-write these animation segments shall we:

Theatrical films
TV shows
Shorts
Web series
Commercials
Video games
Visual FX
Etc. (educational and so forth)

These are the technique’s main areas of proliferation. They are where you can expect to find it, and they are where you should consider when deciding to create animation.

2. Forecasting Animation Content Demand

This chapter looks at animation demand around the world. Needless to say, things have been on the way up for many years now. North America has a decent market driven by features and TV shows.

Europe remains a very strong market thanks to various indigenous cultures, languages and producers. Of note is the industry in Ireland which has grown from near nothing to worldwide powerhouse in the space of 20 years. Creators in France and Italy continue to produce works for broadcast at home and abroad.

Markets in the far east are a bit trickier to say (at least from my place in the world) but one would assume that markets there, being significantly more developed than those in the west, are staying the course for the most part.

As for forecasting demand? Moderate growth in all markets would be a very conservative estimate.

3. Future Developments

A bit vague this one, but again, it can be broken down into a few easily digestible areas:

Technology – Expect ever more reliance on technology in all aspects of the business; from design, to animation to distribution. Digital platforms will become ever more a part of the overall content strategy for all ages and genres. It would be wise not to discount the effect it will have.
Audiences – Audiences won’t change drastically in terms of size (a steady growth as mentioned above is most likely) but I predict a greater number of young adults demanding good quality animated content and who are currently underserved.
Revenues – As I’ve talked about before, the revenue model for all forms of entertainment has been upended by the internet. Traditional models of licensing to networks and broadcasters is disappearing and will likely be replaced by online viewing or pay per view in some form. Extracting revenues from audiences will command the successful creation and exploitation of a fanbase. That’s fairly tricky to accomplish but is not impossible. Either way, it is how things are going.

4. Animation Software Market Landscape

Much is given to the kinds of software that are available (there’s an entire section dedicated to plug-ins) but the gist of the matter is that software will continue to proliferate, but a gradual consolidation will begin to occur. Simply put, with an increase in complexity comes an increase in the amount of experience that is needed. More experience means higher wages. As a studio, it will become impractical to use software that is not in widespread use. The result is that the larger players (Adobe, Autodesk, Toon Boom, etc.) will corner the market. One will eventually get bought out.

That said, there could always be open source alternatives on offer…

5. Animation Content Creation

You know what’s going to change here? Not much, besides the increased use of digital and online tools for collaboration. Having animators in multiple locations working concurrently is nothing new. It stands to reason that the traditional methods of producing animation will continue in the same vein that they already inhabit. Interestingly enough, ‘ink and paint’ is a section here. Must be a ton of traditional animation being produced somewhere…

6. Audience Dynamics

Because your audience is always moving, eh, eh? No? Oh well, Pixar is the poster child here for obvious reasons. Marketing and audience targeting get a mention, but c’mon, the easiest way to gain an audience is to simply create good quality content. Market research is a great tool, but it will only tell you so much, and it can so easily lead you astray.

Of note here is ‘Pixar’s Technological Advantage‘. While we don’t know what this section says, it is known that whatever advantage they did have has been eroded significantly since the heady days of the 1990s. While Pixar may continue to produce stunningly beautiful films, the competition has worked hard to catch up. Both camps are rapidly approaching photo-realism anyway, so on-screen advantages are mostly moot at this point. Interestingly though, DreamWorks has worked quite diligently to create and foster their IT platforms and software and they may hold an advantage over Pixar in ways that are not visible on-screen.

7. Economics of Animation

This one should be simple right? Make animation > sell for money > profit!

Things aren’t so simple though, and by the looks of things, the report goes into detail about licensing (pay to use my work), merchandising (pay to put my creation on your product), distribution (getting your work seen in different places) and exhibition (getting your animation on TV, DVD, etc). All of these require lengthy and costly negotiations and it’s well worth noting that even with the internet, these systems remain very much in place around the world.

That said, times are changing and it’s very much worth your while to keep in mind alternative options like YouTube and digital distribution. The report does not devote a section to it, but it is absolutely the single most volatile part of making animated content at the moment not only commands attention, it requires it.

Two sections are given over to copyright. Again, what they contain I do not know, but I’ve discussed copyright before and I would caution that relying on copyrights alone as a tool for extracting compensation or revenues is a false hope.

8. Guidelines for Setting up an Animation Studio

Already covered by this post!

9. Managing an Animation Studio

It’s just like any other business! Take in more than you spend, and make sure you have enough money to pay the bills as they arrive. Other than that, there really isn’t something in this section that you could not learn from a good business book down at your local library.

10. Animation Content Outsourcing

Ah, a contentious one this. Should you outsource? Are the cost savings worth the extra hassle? Which country should you outsource too?

These are all questions that will very much depend on the circumstances. It would be unwise to delve into them here.

The Rest

The remainder of the report goes through different global areas such as Europe, the USA, Korea, Japan and so forth with sections on how the industries operate, how large they are, how they do business and so on.

Conclusions

The bottom line is, this report is only worth paying for if you wanted to set up a studio and had absolutely no idea what the heck you are doing. Is it worth $5,000? I don’t think so. (I could easily do a detailed blog post on each and every section with what’s freely available on the internet.)

What does the report prove? Why that there’s a ton of money in animation of course!

Would you pay $5,000 for a report like this? Explain why with a comment!

Animation Industry Strategies Trends & Opportunities Read More »

Treasure Planet And the Failure To Advance Creatively

4 Comments / Analysis / Charles Kenny

Last weekend I decided to watch the film Treasure Planet. I hadn’t seen it before being, well, outside the target audience when it was released back in 2002. I started on Saturday evening and, well, had to give up after just under an hour. I made sure to finish it the following morning, but I couldn’t help but notice that the film proves what can happen when you rest on your creative laurels.

The Film’s Faults

As far as I was concerned, Treasure Planet is caught between a rock and a hard place. It came well after the storied Disney Renaissance of the late 80s and early 90s and was also made 7 years after Toy Story brought the storytelling bar to a whole new level of sophistication.

The Visuals

The visuals are stunning, but it was far too obvious that CG was in use everywhere, even where it wasn’t necessary. OK, I get it, you can use CG in a traditionally animated film, but the use was gratuitous in far too many circumstances and does nothing to advance the plot or improve the viewing experience. This is the film’s more egregious error; eye candy for the sake of eye candy. Yes, Beauty and the Beast did the same with the ballroom scene, but at least that had never been done before. By 2002, Disney films had a legacy of being visually stunning but always within the reason that it added to the viewing experience. In the case of Treasure Planet, having a CG prop fall of the table does not add to the viewing experience. In other words, CG was nothing new and couldn’t be relied upon to sustain an audience’s attention on its own. Miyazaki does it right; CG so subtle, you never notice it.

The Story

The plot of the film is nothing remarkable save for the fact that it places ~~Jules Verne’s~~ Robert Louis Stevenson’s Treasure Island in space. As mentioned above though, Pixar had already exhibited a knack for creating superb stories from elemental parts and proved that a complicated and outwardly sophisticated story isn’t necessary to make a great film. Treasure Planet follows in the footsteps of previous Disney films, but by 2002, audiences were being wowed by a different style of story emanating from Emeryville that has persisted ever since.

The Songs

Let’s just say that Disney’s hit songs were missing from their films long before Treasure Planet was released.

The Characters

This, at least for me, was the most disappointing aspect to Treasure Planet. TV Tropes identifies Treasure Planet as the film where Disney reacted to shifting market forces. Giving the characters a darker subtext (read: a dysfunctional family) was their way of becoming more identifiable with audiences. In addition to that, the remainder of the cast while complex in their own way, are never given a chance to shine; instead being slaves to a plot that dictates their roles. Case in point is Captain Amelia, who undoubtedly a strong female character (albeit with a very stiff upper lip), is nonetheless rendered useless in the latter part of the film. In a similar vein are Morph and B.E.N. who serve no purpose except as catalysts for the plot. All in all, the characters in Treasure Planet offer nothing exceptional outside of the film.

External Factors

The Competition

First and foremost, it has to be noted that by 2002, the feature animation landscape had changed, and by changed, I mean moved on. Pixar hadn’t so much shifted the goalposts as they had moved to another field entirely. Their storytelling combined with the CGI animation had won over audiences before Treasure Planet’s debut.

In a similar manner, DreamWorks’ Shrek gave audiences the send-up of Disney films that they never knew they needed. Suddenly animated films could be full-blown comedies rather than serious dramas.

Both these shifts leave Treasure Planet looking somewhat dated and belonging to another time, which undoubtedly it does.

Conclusion

Treasure Planet is far from a terrible film. Plenty of talented individuals worked on it for a long time and it is always disheartening to see an animated film fail to find success. However, the film proves in more ways than one that if you fail to progress creatively, someone else will rise up and overtake you.

Pixar has been quite successful are constantly upping their game, but even they are in danger of falling into tried and trusted routines (read: sequels) and stand to lose should someone else catch them unawares.

Treasure Planet should serve as a warning that even with everything going for it, a film that presumes success can, and most likely will, fail.

Treasure Planet And the Failure To Advance Creatively Read More »

The Most Underrated Man in Hollywood

Analysis / Charles Kenny

Let’s not spoil the surprise just yet, but see if you can guess who the most underrated man in Hollywood is before the reveal.

His Achievements

This person’s list of achievements is long over the course of his career. He has received numerous Academy Awards and has risen to a prominent place within a large animation studio.

He has been instrumental in the development of technology that has played such a significant role in the history of animation that without it, things would be quite, nay, substantially different than what we know it as today.

In addition to these achievements, he is also known as a man with a clear vision of the future. He was quite literally decades ahead of his time and his vision for animated entertainment was proven exactly as he envisioned. Naturally, he was astute enough to place himself in roles that would serve this purpose and his arrival at certain companies at particular times was quite fortuitous for both parties.

Today, his technological achievements continue to find widespread use throughout the world, and the films that he helped create rank among the highest grossing animated films of all time.

Although well known within the animation community and afforded some recognition outside of it, this relatively quiet intellectual does not enjoy the same celebrity status that some of his contemporaries do. As such, while his achievements, creations and the films that they have enabled have become synonymous among the public with quality entertainment, this man remains somewhat of a mystery to many of ordinary folks who enjoy his films.

Can you guess who it is?

Yes, it is of course, Ed Catmull.

You probably know who he is, and you definitely know the studio he helped found (Pixar), but his 34 credits on IMDB enormously belie his contributions to contemporary animated films and even to the wider movie industry itself.

Why He Deserves the Title

His Influence is Felt Everywhere

As one of many people behind Pixar, Catmull could be construed as being one of the backroom boys, but this is far from the case. While John Lasseter and others were forging ahead on the creative side, Catmull was heading up the technical side that was making the films possible.

That alone would make him noteworthy if it were not for the fact that he was instrumental in seeing how the technology he was developing could be applied to entertainment. That action puts him right up alongside Walt Disney in his forward thinking. Heck, he was mulling CG animated films in the 1970s, but had to wait until technology advanced enough to make it economical and until he found someone willing to give him the resources necessary to experiment. That person was George Lucas, who was apparently (thankfully) blind to the fact that a rogue computer animator was running around at Industrial Light and Magic.

Although initially Catmull’s software was only suitable for purely animated films, it has since found its way into special FX and today, CG FX often form so much of a film’s on-screen visuals, that they are considered fully animated.

Today, CGI animated films are prevalent. They dominate the American box office and have proliferated into TV shows too. At one point, they were considered to be the sole future for animation with result being that Disney shut down the traditional animation department that made them famous.

His Foresight Rivals His Patience

Although Catmull knew where CG technology would eventually go and what it could potentially achieve, he showed enormous patience as he wound his way through various universities and ILM before Pixar was spun off in 1985. Even then, his goals were not within arms reach. It took a few more years before Tin Toy debuted and showed that computers could make high quality animation.

Catmull’s goal ramained a few years away though. Finally, Toy Story was put into production and became the world’s first entirely CGI-animated film. This was Catmull’s ultimate goal and he only had to wait, what, nearly 20 years for it to reach fruition? That’s a heck of a lot of patience that most people in entertainment could stand to learn from.

His Passion For The Animated Technique, Not Just the Technology

It may be surprising to learn that Ed Catmull has a passion for all animation, not just the CGI stuff he helped develop, but also the traditional stuff too. In fact, when installed as the president of Walt Disney Feature Animation, in conjunction with John Lasseter, he was instrumental in getting traditional features going again at a time when many thought the technique was a dead as silent films.

Why He’s Underrated

As mentioned way up at the top, Catmull resides much more out of the limelight compared to his more publicity-friendly compadres like John Lasseter, Pete Doctor, Andrew Stanton, etc. Many people acknowledge his contribution to what Pixar became, but few seem to acknowledge the wider contributions to animated films and animation in general. Yes, he was not alone in this work, but he is the single link between otherwise disparate people and studios.

Ed Catmull’s grand contribution to modern film should not be overlooked, and that’s why he’s the most underrated man in Hollywood.

The Most Underrated Man in Hollywood Read More »

Female Demographics Neglected By Animation

5 Comments / Analysis / Charles Kenny

Daria Morgendorfer — This character should be a hint.

When we think of animation, or indeed any form of entertainment, there is a propensity to think of it only in terms of how it already exists. What I mean is that animation, for a staggeringly long time, was considered as belonging in the kids’ realm (I’m afraid I can’t source the famous “we’re the babysitter” quote that I thought was attributed to Wollie Reitherman.) and it’s only very recently that we’ve started to see it slowly away from that perception. What I’m curious about though, is are there female demographics neglected by animation at the moment, and if so, why?

Who IS Covered

First though, it’s important to look at who is currently covered:

Boys aged 0-12
Girls aged 0-12
Boys aged 16-29

Now before you get out the pitchforks, bear in mind that I’m talking specifically about animation that is aimed at a particular demo. Yes, The Simpsons can be, and is enjoyed by everyone; the same goes for Pixar films, but if you were to collar someone from the responsible marketing department and ask them nicely (or maybe rough them up) they will tell you that either animation is marketed with one demographic in mind.

Which demographic that is will depend heavily not only on who is expected to watch the show, but also who is expected to support it. Examples are pre-school and pre-teen shows. Neither has an audience with any meaningful disposable income but both possess parents who do!

So even though the pre-school show will appeal to kids, you find that it is specifically tailored to what parents desire in their kid’s entertainment. In the case of pre-school that is partly the reason why almost all of them contain a heavy emphasis on education over pure entertainment.

Moving up the age scale, kids aged 6-12 do get more of an emphasis on entertainment because their ability to sell their parents on supporting merchandise is much stronger and by the time they make it to the top, they are practically mini consumers; a.k.a. tweens.

Boys and young males aged 16 and above are adequately catered for through the likes of [adult swim], anime (if they are so inclined) and whatever other kinds of animated entertainment they can dig up for themselves.

Who is NOT Covered

Where things tend to fall apart is once the teenage years kick in. Based on what is currently out there, there is a glut for both genders around the 13-15 mark. That’s pretty natural though as kids get caught between a rock and a hard place in regards to content; too old for the younger stuff, too young for the older stuff. I don’t foresee this gap being narrowed substantially any time soon.

What is noticeable though is that while boys have options once they hit their mid-late teens, girls do not. In other words, boys are brought back into the animation fold through the likes of [adult swim] and anime (plenty of guns, violence and giant robots), girls don’t have anything (or very little) comparable to that at all.

Seriously. Close your eyes and think of a current, animated TV program (or animated film) that’s aimed specifically at mid-late teenage girls or those in their early 20s. I can easily name a dozen live-action shows but nothing animated even comes close to mind.

Again, this is not to say that girls in that age range can’t enjoy animated programming or films; a heck of a lot of them do, but a glance around the TV schedules and cinema listings reveals a glaring gap in animated programming tailored to them.

Oh, and as for Brave, well again, you’ll have to corner our marketing friend, but I would be greatly shocked if that was being tailored for anyone over the age of 13.

So could it be that girls are ‘dropping out’ of the animation scene in their teenage years because there is nothing to pick them up at the other side of the lull around 13-15? The signs currently point to yes, and there are many, many reasons behind it.

Standard arguments that get trotted out for this kind of thing is that there is no market for it, that girls genuinely have no interest in animated programming once they near adulthood and (most egregiously) that they simply enjoy the same content as guys. All are false. Audiences can only watch what they are given, so saying they don’t want to watch something that doesn’t exist is a load of hogwash.

What About Daria?

Ah yes, what about Daria. The MTV animated show could be said to aim precisely at the very audiences discussed in this post. It had a female lead(s) and tended to adhere to the social and moral quandaries that many teenagers face. The show also achieved all this while bridging the gender divide and appealing to all teenagers.

However, the show has long since departed from the airwaves and nary a replacement has been seen since. As of 2013, it regretfully resides in the nostalgia zone, where only those who originally watched it will seek it out in any meaningful numbers.

What Can Be Done

It’s a topic that’s been covered here on the blog before, but the bottom line is that there simply is not enough animated content being made for girls at all ages, prepubescent or otherwise. Even the comics industry has seen an increase in this kind of content with plenty of female comic artists and writers getting works out that is more likely to appeal to that kind of audience.

Animation retains a kind of stigma when it comes to this, and my guess is that no-one of the powers that be are willing to make the right move to get the shows that are needed, made and broadcast.

The simple answer is to make the content and make it well.

Female Demographics Neglected By Animation Read More »

A Venn Diagram of Animated Films

7 Comments / Analysis / Charles Kenny

Click to mammothly enlarge.

This Venn diagram of animated films represents three groups connected with an animated film (animators, fans and studio executives) and which film identifies with them in the most accurate way.

Do you agree or disagree with any of them? Leave a comment with your choices!

PS. Please feel free to share this around 🙂

A Venn Diagram of Animated Films Read More »

What An Analyst Sees In DreamWorks…And What They Missed

Analysis, DreamWorks / Charles Kenny

DreamWorks_Animation_SKG_logopng

DreamWorks Animation is a public company. Its stocks are sold on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) and have been since it was spun off from the original DreamWorks LLC in 2004. Since then, it has existed as an independent entity producing its own films in partnership with a distributor (formerly Paramount, now FOX). As a public company, it is subject to how various ‘analysts‘ think the company is doing. Today I’m going to look at one so that we can all see what Wall Street sees in Dreamworks, and also what they miss.

For the analysis, we’re going to use a recent one by Buffett Junior on Seeking Alpha, a website devoted to analysing stocks in all sorts of ways. It’s a fairly straightforward article with no big surprises but that doesn’t mean its all-inclusive.

What The Article Got Right

DreamWorks Success

During the last fifteen years, DreamWorks has created some of the best and most memorable CG animated films of all time.

You can’t argue with that. The studio certainly has created a string of successful CG films that are bettered only by Pixar. Disney as we all know, struggled to get their CG act together before ultimately buying the Emeryville studio to fix the problem. Other studios have also found success, but on a much more modest scale. DreamWorks specialises in big-budget blockbusters, and has so far done well by US standards.

Its Release Schedule

More recently, the company announced that it will now do three films per year from 2013-2016. I believe that this larger annual release schedule is likely to create more stable financial results for the company.

Despite the increasingly crowded marketplace, DreamWorks does need to get as many films out as quickly as possible for simple reason that as an independent company, it is dependent on its library of works. Tying into this was its recent purchase of Classic Media, which will further enable it to extract revenue without the expense of creating something new.

The Focus On Sequels

Investors might notice that a good portion of the future release schedule is comprised of sequels. The company’s long-term goal is to release at least one sequel film every year. With an entrenched fan base, sequels are inherently less risky and provide the opportunity to generate additional profits through increased home video sales, merchandising, and licensing.

You can’t argue with that logic, its right on the money but we’ll discuss it more further down.

Non-Film Activites

In recent years, DreamWorks has commenced a number of initiatives aimed at further capitalizing on its franchise film properties, such as Shrek, Madagascar, Kung Fu Panda and others. These business initiatives seek to diversify the company’s revenue streams by exploiting the film properties in other areas of family entertainment…

Slowly but surely, the studio has moved from its traditional base in feature films. the article discusses live-shows, TV shows and the various theme parks the company has either announced or already has in the works. There’s not a lot to say except that the move ensures that as the feature film division starts to play a smaller role in the revenues, it will help insulate the studio from the fluctuations of the film market.

The Managment

Under Mr. Katzenberg’s leadership, DreamWorks became the first studio to produce all of its feature films in 3D and in 2010 became the first company to release three CG feature films in 3D in a single year. It would be difficult to name anyone better suited for this job than Mr. Katzenberg.

My admiration for Jeffrey Katzenberg has been noted before and to say he is the best person suited to the job is a fair assessment of his value to the studio. His experience with Disney during its 90s renaissance has proven very valuable to DreamWorks, especially so since the company was spun off from its parent.

Risks

Because of the company’s limited release schedule, a box-office flop could significantly impair annual earnings and cash flows. It is extremely difficult to forecast a movie’s performance before its release, especially for non-sequel movies.

…

Animated films typically take longer and are more expensive to produce than live-action films, which increases the uncertainties inherent in their production and distribution. The typical DreamWorks animated film takes three to four years to produce after the initial development stage, as opposed to an average live-action film, which can be produced in less than one year. Additionally, the average budget for a DreamWorks film is $150 million, which is much higher than even that of a big-budget live action film.

A more near-term risk that investors should consider has to do with the company’s most recent theatrical release Rise of the Guardians, which so far has been a huge disappointment. The film cost about $145 million to make, and it has generated $260 million in global box office ticket sales since its debut in late November, well below that of a typical DreamWorks Animation movie. Before DreamWorks can make a profit on the movie, its distributor needs to recoup all its expenses plus pocket 8% for itself. That is the hurdle a DreamWorks movie has to clear before it even reports any revenue. Since the entire undertaking shared by the studio producing the movie and the distributor is approximately $300 million, DreamWorks will most likely be forced to record a large write-down next quarter. In other words, the company will report lower earnings than investors expect and the share price will most likely suffer because of it.

All of these can be evenly applied to any animation studio, although they are again more pronounced because DreamWorks is independent with no corporate parent to pick up the difference if they make a loss. There’s not much to add to these, but other risks are discussed below.

The rest of the article deals with the financials and valuation, neither of which is of interest to me and is unlikely to be of interest to you either, so we’ll ignore them.

What the Article Missed

The article provides a very comprehensive overview of the DreamWorks Animation organisation. The items above are totally worthy of inclusion, but they are not in and of themselves the entire story when it comes to a studio like DreamWorks. Here’s what it missed.

DreamWorks (Relative) Success

Yes, the article does include this, but it does only look at CG films and in although it notes that the studio’s films make up almost half of the top 20 highest grossing CG animated films, it’s not quite as simple as that. Why? Well quite simply, the entire list is made up of films from DreamWorks and, uh, Pixar. In other words the only other CG studio in existence for much of the time.

OK, so the revenues look good, but it’s like being in 1939 and saying Fleischer Brothers is a successful animated feature studio when there’s really only Disney to compare it to, and the market hasn’t fully developed.

The Animated film market is a bit more complicated than that, especially when you realise that DreamWorks began with traditional 2D animation and has faced competition from the same ever since.

The Focus On Sequels

Again, the article makes light of the sequels and notes that they are safer than original material. However, DreamWorks has been known for being extremely sequel-happy. (Remember Jeffrey Katzenberg’s comments about there being five Kung Fu Panda films after the original’s success?)

What the article doesn’t look at is how restricting that outlook can be. Yes, sequels are a financial safe bet but that argument flies out the window when you look at Pixar. They somehow manage to get a good story out [almost] every time and to be fair, their case of sequelitis has more than likely been acquired from Burbank than from within.

Original films do carry more risks, and this is something that animators and those unfamiliar with the way stock markets work can find tough to understand. Yes, it would be great if DreamWorks released original films constantly (and got great revenues for it), but when the odd dud does get through, that regrettably puts a squeeze on the studio’s ability to borrow money (and thus operate); an ability that is sadly regulated by the stock market and its skittish ways.

Alas DreamWorks needs sequels, at least for the foreseeable future as it funds its expansion plans. Until then, we can expect to see regularly recurring franchises. Let’s just hope they don’t reach Ice Age levels of ridiculousness.

The Non-Film Activities

The article doesn’t dwell too long on these anyway, but it completely neglects to mention two things, namely the studio’s digital strategy and its gradual shift to a technological focus.

Firstly, DWA has proven to be a bit of a pioneer in the digital media market. Although it remains a very traditional Hollywood studio in its home video dealings (there’s still plenty of money in DVDs), it was the first major studio to give Netflix the early rights to films. In other words, from 2014, their films will be available on Netflix before they are broadcast on television networks. Although it’s a fairly minor detail, it is indicative of the seismic shift that the media market is currently undergoing.

Secondly is the studios not-so-advertised shift to technological development. Besides the Ptch app the studio has developed, on the enterprise side, its tools and systems have become models for others to follow. That is something that many analysts seem to gloss over despite the fact that it his rapidly becoming a critical factor in the companies operations.

‘Piracy’

Piracy and shifting consumer preferences could severely weaken DVD sales, a major source of profits for all movie studios for the last decade.

Although that’s a common argument, there are many, many more factors at play when it comes to DVD sales. Illegitimate downloading is only one factor. DreamWorks appears to be already addressing the issue with the aforementioned Netflix deal, but you can be sure that the studio is well aware of what will happen as DVD sales slide. It’s a risk, but not as substantial a one as it normally made out to be.

Revenue Sources

The company currently derives substantially all of its revenue from a single source, the production of animated family entertainment, and the lack of a diversified business could adversely affect the company.

Such a statement appears to imply that the animation market is a non-diversified one. It’s the classic “animation is a genre” outlook. There is plenty of diversity within animation itself and the studio has done quite well to diversify itself within it. The article even discusses its move into other industries like theme parks and so on.

I don’t think it’s a fair assessment to proclaim DreamWorks content model as a risk. Would it be nice to see some more mature content from the studio? You bet, but the US is regrettably far behind the likes of Japan where animation is almost as much of an adult’s movie-watching experience as a child’s. Until that fact changes, DWA will have to stick with aiming content at younger consumers for the time being.

Conclusion

Apologies for the super long post. If you hung in until now, you’ll know that sometimes a studio’s health is dependent on a wide variety of factors that analysts can sometimes skip because they aren’t as important to the bottom line as they initially appear. Secondly, you’ll have garnered an idea about how a studio can get the cold shoulder from stock markets when an artistically great film does below “expectations”.

What would you add to the above? Is there something that DreamWorks could be doing in your mind to grow its business but isn’t? Let us know in the comments!

What An Analyst Sees In DreamWorks…And What They Missed Read More »

Why The Brand Of An Animation Studio Matters

Analysis / Charles Kenny

Via: The Animation Background Blog (defunct)

In a recent post on Cartoon Brew, Amid Amidi makes the case that YouTube’s attempt to create branded, niche “channels” has been ineffective compared to the individual videos that have been racking up the large viewing numbers on the site. I will demonstrate why the concept of the brand of an animation studio matters and why that will likely continue for some time to come.

The Background To Amid’s View

The original post dealt with the fact that the recent video of a toddler being grabbed by an eagle was technically animated and therefore one of the most viewed animated videos of the year. Amid’s point was that this single video did so without any significant backing behind it at all:

The success of this animation serves as a reminder that corporations remain clueless about what audiences want to watch online. YouTube spent $100 million dollars last year in its backward-looking attempt to create niche “channels” a la cable television. This single piece of animation, produced by students as a class exercise, outperformed the viewership of 76 of those YouTube channels. I don’t claim to have any answers as to what people want to watch online, but it’s pretty clear that the entertainment industry’s cynical top-down approach of mass-producing content for narrow demographics has become irrelevant.

Now that’s a fair assessment of the situation, but it does over-simplify things. This video garnered so many views for its content; an eagle snatching a child. That’s something that a lot of consumers (and not just brainless ones) want to see. It’s the kind of video that in times gone past would have made the evening news across the country, but thanks to modern technology, we can see it instantly on the internet.

Where Branding Comes Into Play

My original comment on the article pointed out that branding was the main reason why the YouTube channels were being created in the first place:

…If you asked the average punter in the street who made this, they likely wouldn’t have a clue. The limits of their knowledge would extend to the fact that it was outed as a fake and that’s it.

Branded channels are an easy way for companies to give consumers an easily recognizable symbol of quality and style. So even though it may appear backward looking, it actually does serve a purpose.

Videos like this one and Psy’s Gangam Style are flashes in the pan. Yes, they rack up the views, but any record company executive will tell you that a moderately successful artist will bring in more money than a one hit wonder any day and their brand helps play a large role in that.

Amid’s response was as follows:

Branding is a term that means nothing in the context of entertainment, creativity and filmmaking. It’s a modern concept invented by business world hacks who cannot comprehend the abstractions of creative enterprise.

Now I don’t disagree with that for a second because he’s absolutely right. Branding and creativity are mutually exclusive things. Creativity doesn’t depend on branding and anyone who’s familiar with Wal-Mart will know that branding certainly does not depend on creativity.

Such circumstances do not, however, mean that both can be entirely successful without the other. Branding may not be necessary for a quick success in the marketplace but I can guarantee that it will become necessary for repeated success.

The Historical Aspect Of Branded Animation

If we look back at the history of animation, it quickly becomes apparent that while branding didn’t play much of a part in the early years, by the early 30s, it became rather prominent. Early cartoons were produced by a vast array of individuals and small studios. Gradually, however, a few came to national success with one in particular casting a shadow over everyone.

That was, of course, Disney, whose cartoons were the standard against which everyone else was measured. In the beginning though, Disney was just a studio name like any other. Its purpose was simple; to inform the audience who made the film.

With the success of Mickey Mouse though, the Disney name came to mean much more than just who made the cartoon; it began to indicate the kind of entertainment and quality that audiences should expect in the film about to be screened. By the time Snow White rolled around, Disney was well established as more than a name; it was now a brand.

Other similar animation brands include the Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies as well as MGM with their Tom & Jerry cartoons among others.

A cautionary tale can be had from all this though; note there is one studio’s name missing above. That would be Fleischer Brothers. That studio was second only to Disney in success in the 20s and 30s but, their brand was nowhere near as powerful as Disney’s. This was despite similar levels of success and the fact that each film had the ‘Max Fleischer presents’ line on every title card. When Paramount took over (whether through wanting to make a clean break with an unpleasant past or not), they eliminated the Fleischer name. The Fleischer brand quickly disappeared into the history books. It’s possible that with a stronger brand, Paramount may not have so readily cast it on the scrapheap.

The Contemporary Importance of Branding

Today, branding in animation continues to define what kind of entertainment each studio produces. Josh L. Dickey recently wrote an article on the very topic for Variety where he takes a look at the cross-pollination of the Disney and Pixar brands in their 2012 films, Wreck-It-Ralph and Brave respectively:

Could this be the outline of an identity crisis for Disney? In truth, having two of the world’s strongest entertainment brands emulate one another is probably a good problem to have. Disney insists no one at the Mouse House is sweating this, but the fact is the studios veered into one another’s creative lanes this summer and, well … people noticed.

To be fair though, Disney and Pixar continue to have very strong brands that resonate firmly with consumers. But what if you took a DreamWorks film (say Megamind) and slapped a Sony Animation ident at the start. Would audiences even notice? Is the DreamWorks brand strong enough and their films unique enough to differentiate themselves from the rest? What if there was an Illumation Entertainment ident in front of Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs? Is either brand involved there going to be in trouble? The answer is possibly.

If you switched to the TV landscape, content aside, what differentiates the various studios? Brown Bag Films have their logo at the end of every show they produce, but most consumers know that Doc McStuffins is a Disney show, not a Brown Bag one. Surely that is an indication of the relative power of the brands. Brown Bag (being the smart people that they are over there) are rectifying the situation by heading into features, just like another Irish studio, Cartoon Saloon.

Why The Brand of an Animation Studio Really Matters

Returning to the context of Amid’s original post, YouTube channels don’t so much serve to create niche content so much as it gives creators (or more accurately, investors) the surety that the content they are funding will be received by a certain audience. Business constantly revolves around risk: measuring it, detecting it and managing it. Yes, you could fund the best animated film ever made, but because we are humans (and therefore idiots), a good brand association will not only greatly increase the chances that a film will succeed commercially, it will also help ensure it happens again.

In that frame of mind, if the creators of the eagle video launched another one tomorrow, would they achieve the same levels of success as their original one? What if they somehow branded the first video? Now how would they fare? In casual discussion, the first case would be “those guys who made the eagle video” while the latter would be “so-and-so”. They would, in effect, become a brand.

All that YouTube channels do is codify for viewers what kind of entertainment they can expect and in that respect, they are simply the latest in a long line of branded animated content.

Creative and artistic animation can still be commercially successful, but repeated creations inevitably lead to the creation of a brand, intended or not and since any commercial enterprise wants to succeed on a continual basis, that’s why the brand matters of an animation studio matters.

Do you think that branding YouTube channels is outdated? What could they do instead? Let us know in the comments!

Why The Brand Of An Animation Studio Matters Read More »