Disney

Disney Deals To Brides!?

3 Comments / Animation, Disney /

Most companies ignore the Immutable Law of Brand Extension and Disney is no exception. No market is ever too obscure or far-fetched to extend your brand into if there is money to be made in it, and how could a company stand by while so much hard earned cash is carelessly thrown away in a market sector it doesn’t have a toe-hold in? The answer is, get in there and grab a share!

The result is Disney Bridal (yes, really), a collaboration between Alfred Angelo (who?) of Philadelphia, PA and the Walt Disney Company of Burbank, CA. Let’s start with some choice quotes from the press release:

Dreams do come true, especially for women who grew up dreaming of a fairy tale wedding modeled after their favorite Disney Princess character……..the bridal gown collection is inspired by the essence, style and personality of seven iconic Disney Princess characters: Ariel, Aurora/Sleeping Beauty, Belle, Cinderella, Jasmine, Snow White and Tiana.

 

“This collaboration is a wonderful testament of two long-standing, established and respected industry leaders…the magic and storytelling heritage of Disney and the internationally renowned bridal fashion of Alfred Angelo”

 

“Every bride wants to be a princess on her wedding day, and through this collaboration with bridal fashion experts Alfred Angelo, we can now extend the reach of the Disney Fairy Tale Weddings brand and make beautiful Disney Princess-inspired gowns accessible to all brides at a broad retail distribution and affordable prices,” says Pam Lifford, executive vice president, global fashion and home, Disney Consumer Products.

 

Michael sought to capture every girl’s fantasy of feeling like a princess on her wedding day, while being inspired by the magic and identity of each Disney Princess.

So, there is plenty of the usual huff and puff you’d find in the press release. But how about the dresses themselves? Let’s have a peek, along with the descriptions for each.

Aerial

The treasures of the sea inspired Ariel’s gown. The mermaid silhouette features re-embroidered lace, pearl beading, and sequin sparkles.

Sleeping Beauty/Aurora

 Aurora/Sleeping Beauty’s gown is romantic with a dreamy, willowy skirt for this slumbering princess.

Belle

 Belle’s wedding dress, with a draped waistline is inspired by the iconic ballroom dance scene from the film and focuses on making a grand entrance.

Cinderalla

Cinderella’s gown radiates with sparkle as its inspiration is the fairy tale’s enchanted glass slipper.

Yes, but does it include a glass slipper as part of the outfit? If not, I’d feel cheated.

Jasmine

Jasmine’s wedding dress conveys freedom and individuality and as a result her shimmering soft satin gown is exotic with a bejeweled neckline and low cut back.

Snow White

Snow White’s dress is inspired by nature, beauty and grace like the Disney Princess character herself.

Tiana

The regal, one-shoulder taffeta gown for our newest princess, Tiana, reflects her independent spirit with an asymmetric bodice and ruched skirt.

BUT WAIT!

All-new for 2011 and just in time for the fabulous (and coincidentally timely) release of the hilarious Disney classic, Tangled, comes this latest addition to the collection!

Rapunzel

Yup, when it comes to Rapunzel, I’m sure not thinking so much about how inspired the dress is as much as I am how the bride’s hair will never live up to the fairytale image.

So there you go. The dresses range in price from a lot to a very lot and naturally have all the uniqueness that a Dow Jones company like Disney is renowned for. Being a guy with no fashion sense, I am nonetheless confident in saying that these dresses use the term “inspired” in the loosest way possible.

I’m sure even Disney knows that real inspiration for clothing like this comes from the character’s clothes more than anything else.

Thankfully, my fiancée saw right through the whole thing (she came up with the title of this post) as soon as she saw the ad in the Knot magazine. Head on over to her blog see why she won’t be getting one of these dresses.

Disney Deals To Brides!? Read More »

Animators and The Law: When Will Mickey Mouse Enter the Public Domain?

9 Comments / Animation, Disney /

 

This is the fourth and last in a series of posts that take a look at just some of the many legal aspects of the animation industry.

It’s a question that seems to lead plenty of people to this blog but the post they land on is not entirely relevant. So here, for all those people is the post they’ve been looking for.

When Will Mickey Mouse Enter the Public Domain?

The most important piece of recent legislation concerning our hero is the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, which basically extended the period of time for which creative works are covered by copyright. The interesting thing about this act is that it has a nickname. Care to guess what it is?

How about the “Mickey Mouse Protection Act”.

Yes indeedy, but first, it’s important that we define just how Mickey is covered and in order to do that, we must first define just exactly what “Mickey” is.

Mickey Mouse and similar characters inhabit the gray area where copyright and trademarks collide. A quick and dirty explanation is as follows:

  • Mickey Mouse’s films are covered by copyright
  • Mickey Mouse’s design/looks are covered by copyright
  • Mickey Mouse as a cartoon salesman is covered by trademarks.

Can’t tell the difference? Not to worry, that’s the purpose of this post.

Mickey Mouse is a creation, and as such his design is covered by copyright. His films are also subject to copyright in that they are expressions of the creation that is Mickey Mouse.

The distinction comes when Mickey Mouse is used as a tool to sell things. In that capacity, he is a trademark that is for the exclusive use of the Walt Disney company and anyone it licenses the character to.

Confused? Don’t worry, it will all be clear in a moment. 🙂

Why the distinction? Well, a trademark is sometimes not a creation, it can, in fact, have existed for hundreds of years. What a trademark does is extend to the owner the exclusive right to use the trademark for the business purpose that they applied for the trademark for. Sounds tricky doesn’t it?

It isn’t though. It basically means that someone setting themselves up as, say a record label called Apple is granted the privilege of being allowed to be the only record company called Apple. This is to avoid confusion in the mind of the consumer, which could result in “brand dilution”.

It does not prevent someone else from calling their company Apple and selling, say, computers. Why? Because selling records and selling computers are two completely separate market sectors that are unlikely to lead to confusion among consumers*.

Mickey Mouse is a trademark of the Walt Disney Company insofar that he acts as a salesman, mascot and calling card for the firm. Such uses are covered under trademark because they can be (and are) used by consumers to identify a particular company.

So now that we’ve established what copyright and trademarks are and the main difference between them, why are they important in the case of Mickey Mouse?

The reason is time.

You see, copyrights have term limits, trademarks do not (as long as they are actively enforced). Mickey Mouse can remain a trademark forever but his films will at some point enter into the public domain.

However, that remains to be seen:

Thanks to the lobbying muscle of Disney and its allies, U.S. copyright protection has protruded further and further into the future, from the 14 years of the first copyright law in 1790 to the 120 years of today — far beyond the lifetime of any artist.

That quote is taken from a superb article by Charles Kenny. No, not I, but a senior fellow at the Center for Global Development in Washington DC who I coincidentally happen to share the same name with. The full article is well worth a read to see how such actions by Disney and other entertainment giants are affecting the developing world in detrimental ways.

If Mickey Mouse’s films ever do enter (or are acknowledged as entering) the public domain, it will allow people to view them, edit them, remix them and so forth, it will not however, allow anyone to sell any merchandise branded as being “Mickey Mouse” merchandise. Why? Because unless they are officially sanctioned by the Walt Disney Company, they will be in breach of trademark law.

So, to answer the original question:

Mickey Mouse’s films will enter the public domain when their copyright terms expire. As of right now, that is 2020 for Steamboat Willie (barring further term extensions). As long as Disney maintains their trademark over the character, he will remain for their exclusive use indefinitely.

*As you may well be aware, when two market sectors do collide, a lawsuit results, as happened when Apple Computer launched iTunes, a breach of an agreement with Apple Corps.

Animators and The Law: When Will Mickey Mouse Enter the Public Domain? Read More »

Cars 2 Currently ‘Rotten’

Animation, Disney, Film, Pixar /


As of this morning (June 22nd), with release just two days away and with 20 of the top critics reporting, Cars 2 is currently sitting at 55% (EDIT: has dropped to 52% as of the afternoon), which is considered ‘rotten’ over a the movie review site, Rotten Tomatoes.

While it is still far too early to judge the films actual performance (there’ll be plenty of time for that in the coming days), it is nonetheless a worrying sign that almost half of the critics who have seen it have given it the thumbs down. Of course, RT ratings have to be taken with a grain of salt; plenty of films I love have gotten a ‘rotten’ rating from the critics but are loved by the fans.

Compare that with Toy Story 3 last year, which was sitting at 100% from the beginning until one critic decided otherwise. If that doesn’t say something about the difference in quality, I don’t know what does.

So we will have to wait and see, but in what I’m sure is a coincidence, Floyd Norman posted yesterday about when a film isn’t going so well, and he gives us this great sentance:

Most can see the wheels coming off the wagon early on, but we dare not say anything because we risk the wrath of those employing us. So we keep smiling as the train goes over the cliff.

The sad part is that Pixar has had us believe that as much creative energy went into Cars 2 as did Toy Story 3.

Cars 2 Currently ‘Rotten’ Read More »

When Dual Advertising Makes You Scratch Your Head in Wonder

5 Comments / Disney, Film /

The other day, the girlfriend bought InStyle magazine for the Taylor Swift article. Long story short, she decided to flip through the entire thing with an eye to creating a blog post about the ads. Well, today I’ve stolen her idea in order to write about one ad in particular.

Dual advertising has been around since day dot, especially in the entertainment industry. How else could studios get their films in magazines and extend the brand beyond the cinema? Espousing a product’s connections to a film or vice-versa is a well worn marketing gimmick that has been proven to work time and time again.

While toys are perhaps the most obvious choice, there have been plenty of example in live-action too. The James Bond films are great examples, he drives an Aston Martin, wears an Omega watch and drinks only Martini.

So without further adieu, let’s have a look at today’s subject:

Warning, large image (c. 1.4MB)

Yes, it’s not an animated film but that’s OK, it’s put out by a studio who used to (and to a certain extent still do) make their bread and butter from animation. Just sit and study it for a minute (you can click through for the full-size version).

Here we have an advertisement that is for O.P.I. Nail Lacquer that has something in it to make the polish appear cracked or worn. Fair enough, but what is that at the top of the page? Why it’s the logo for the Pirates of the Caribbean set of movies that [gasp] is in theaters right now!

Right, so, the ad attempts to tie the pirate movie with the cracked nail polish. Fair enough. I don’t see much of a connection between the two anyway, so how does the ad accomplish this task? By putting a mermaid in there!

Now when you think of Disney + Mermaid, Pirates of the Caribbean is not the first film to pop into my head. While there may be mermaids in the latest installment, that’s certainly news to me. Although to be fair, they have thrown in a pirate ship in the background for good measure, even though it’s just sitting there doing nothing.

Secondly, the tag is “Nail color you’re sure to TREASURE!” OK, but again, why do you say that when all there is in the background is a boat and a mermaid? When I think of treasure I think of a chest of gold, no? Ostensibly the “treasure” connection is supposed to be upheld by the already implied connection to “pirates”. However, visually, there is nothing to reinforce it and as a result, the tagline seems wholly inappropriate to the setting.

Lastly we have the only truly obvious connection to pirates:

(apologies for the poor scan, apparently magazines are tricky when it comes to that)

Gut-wrenching pun aside, it is buried down in the bottom right corner of the ad, where you have to have read the rest of the ad before you get to it.

All in all, this is the kind of dual-branding advertisement that makes you wonder how on earth these two came together. Sadly , it seems that it has a marketing department stamp all over it. No thought seems to have been given to the context of the product or the film. Yes, a pirate film is hard to sell, but that should not mean throwing all sensibility to the wind, right?

I mean, nail polish? No-one outside of an ad agency or marketing department desperate to share ad costs would even consider putting the two together. It’s not a particularly dumb move, but it doesn’t exactly shine with inspiration either.

Smart tie-ins can greatly improve a film’s commercial health and can provide a positive association between the product and the film. Done well it can bring in millions for both parties, but done poorly, it can leave each looking desperate and foolish.

 

When Dual Advertising Makes You Scratch Your Head in Wonder Read More »