Disney's Proposal: Movies Don't Make Much Money, But Toys Do

The LA Times (still doing occasionally interesting reporting on their website) tells us that Disney is not interested in a sequel to 2009's "the Proposal." Given that the movie made $314 million world-wide in box office gross revenues, this is remarkable.

The LAT spins this as part of Disney Chief Bob Iger's "branding strategy" which is doomed to fail. More likely, it is part of cash-strapped, debt-servicing (Disney's latest 10Q reports $118 million in interest, not net, for the Quarter ended Jan 2, 2010) Disney recognizing one bitter truth: movies don't make much profits any more.


Disney spent $4 billion to purchase Marvel Entertainment, in a mixture of cash and stock, requiring heavy debt service for at least two years and threats to downgrade its bond ratings from Standard and Poor's. Thus, Disney can't afford to push for projects that don't produce a lot of cash, up-front. The year-on estimates for Disney's cash payments for the Marvel (and likely, Pixar acquisition) are about $400 million a year. Given slow growth in theme parks and other divisions, including ABC and ESPN (the ad market is projected to only slightly improve for 2010), Disney has no choice but to maximize cash from films that make money from toys and games. Call it "the Revenge of George Lucas," who amassed his $3 billion dollar fortune largely off Star Wars merchandising, for which he retained the rights. Or as the movie "All the President's Men" urged, "follow the money."

The movie "The Proposal" cost around $40 million to make, with probably another $30 million to market for a total cost of $70 million. Even assuming very little in foreign revenues due to marketing agreements, and perhaps co-financing with outside partners, and focusing solely on domestic box office, we would arrive at the following. The opening weekend grossed $33 million, of which Disney would keep 75% or roughly $25 million. The remaining $130 million gross would result in Disney keeping $65 million, for a total of $90 million. This is at worst, a profit of $20 million, before of course other costs, depreciation, taxes, and so on. Very likely, at least some money would roll in from foreign box office.

But compare to a movie like Up. Its production budget was $175 million, with another $30 million or so for marketing, making a total cost of $205 million. Its opening week-end produced $68 million, of which Disney kept $51 million. The remainder of the domestic box office was $225 million, of which Disney kept roughly $112 million, for a total of $163 million. Nearly covering the production cost, and with $430 million in foreign revenues, it is likely that at least some money came back to the US to completely cover the production and marketing costs. Given how well an animated, often wordless kid movie would do overseas.

Now compare the two movies side-by-side after the films are done playing in theaters. What revenue does "The Proposal" bring in DVD, toy, licensing, and other revenue? The answer, not much. With DVD sales dropping, particularly with the threat of both Redbox $1 rentals and piracy, a film like "The Proposal" has little to offer in revenue after its done playing in theaters. It will make some money, from DVD sales, and perhaps TV rights sales, but not a lot.
By contrast, "Up" can be assumed to be a reliable seller, such as it is in the new market for DVD and Blu-Ray home video releases, because it appeals to kids. "Up" is a no-brainer to generate higher DVD and Blu-Ray sales simply because kids will want to see that versus "The Proposal" which is more like a $1 Redbox rental on a Friday night, or a Netflix queue movie. And in contrast to "The Proposal," there are toys, figures, licensing fees, and more to be milked out of the movie "Up," with "Doug" the talking dog, the old man and little boy character, and more. Kids (well their parents) will fork over cash for a toy based on the lovable talking dog. You can't make a toy out of actress Sandra Bullock.

What does this mean? It means money is shifting from films (and this started in 1977 with the release of Star Wars) to characters and toys, games, and so on based on the film. The film being one giant commercial for characters people love. Love enough to buy toys, video games, and more based on the character. The actor, and director, will be less important.

This too, points out a flaw in "AVATAR." The characters are bland, inter-changeable, and not "lovable." Ten year old boys and girls will not pester their parents for an "AVATAR" toy. You can't create and sell "AVATAR" bed sheets and video games. Little boys and girls won't clutch "AVATAR" stuffed animals in their beds at night, as they go to sleep, the way they will with "Doug" from "Up" or, perhaps, Captain America, Thor, Iron Man, Spider-Man, or the Hulk.

It used to be, that movie stars like John Wayne, were the ones who put butts in seats and thus, created the money. Later, stars like Paul Newman and Robert Redford, freed from the Studio system, exploited the power their ability to make money gave them, to the fullest. Now, Disney does not want a sequel to a profitable movie like "The Proposal."

Because the real money (which their debt load forces them to recognize) is not in actors, or directors, but CHARACTERS. The plots, situations, cinematography, and action of movies like "Up" or "Iron Man" may not be as complex or well-crafted as those of adult-oriented films featuring actors and actresses on top of their game, in funny or dramatically interesting situations. But little kids (and their parents, and young adults) don't go out and purchase "the Hangover" figurines, toys, and other paraphernalia. And DVD sales, having crashed, won't bail out Hollywood from recognizing the truth: it is characters (and those characters who can be made into toys children love) that count.

Because movies just don't make money.

On a related note, given that toys (and other merchandise) are what makes money, the creators of characters that kids love, can wield a lot of influence and power, if they organize to extract the best deals. On the other hand, actors and actresses and directors are mere disposable cogs, increasingly. Marvel is filled with characters kids have loved since 1940 (Captain America), but most of their characters that kids actually like date from that period up through the mid 1960's. No one would expect kids to embrace either the Punisher or "Terror" (a forgettable 1990's character from Marvel). Kids can be induced, if movie-makers don't screw it up, to reliably love and beg their parents to buy, Superman, Wonder Woman, the Flash, Green Lantern, and other DC heroes. They have before.

But in order to do so, writers must write not for themselves, or tragically hip editors, critics, peers, adults, and others, but the inner 11 year old boy, wanting wonder and excitement, and entirely devoid of irony, hipness, and posturing. Few in Hollywood are even capable of doing this, much less doing it well.

With barriers to entry (online film distribution, lower-cost CGI production through cheap WETA-style render farms, emphasis on writing-driven character creation, not big stars or effects) lowering, it is entirely possible that some group or collections of individuals will seize the moment, and produce kid-friendly content. This does not mean Disney duds like "Storyteller" or "G-Force" (animated hamsters) but particularly, heroes, characters, and such that young boys like (girls are already inundated with Disney princesses). Non-ironic superheros, fantasy "good dads" for fatherless boys in a single-mother dominated environment, positive male role models for boys to look up to, lovable talking dogs and other fantasy pets adoring young boys, these are the kinds of characters that will succeed in a marketplace where films (and TV, likely) are all just commercials for what really makes money: toys and merchandise. Other people besides Disney can make them too.





...Read more

Can Disney Grow With Boys and Men?

With the Mancession in full swing it would appear odd that Disney, along with Time-Warner, is busy restructuring itself to appeal more to men, and boys, but nevertheless, Disney is busy doing just that. Disney recently fired Disney Studios CEO Dick Cook, shortly after making an offer to purchase Marvel Entertainment. Reportedly, Disney CEO Bob Iger is considering Disney Channels Worldwide President Rich Ross as a successor, according to Nikki Finke's Deadline Hollywood Daily. Nikki's batting average on Hollywood rumors is the best among the Hollywood reporters, frequently scooping both Variety and the Hollywood Reporter, so the rumor is likely to have substance to it. But what the move shows, if true, is how thin the executive ranks in Hollywood are when it comes to proven ability to attract boys and men to either movies or (especially) television. The latter being a female and gay ghetto. [Disney's ABC is especially bad in this regard.]

Disney, Time-Warner, and other media conglomerates would prefer not to make the effort. They lack the ability, mostly, to shepherd complex, boy and man-appealing entertainment into success. Most of their outlets appeal to the "New Girl Order." But a terrible advertising climate, a crisis in DVD sales, and the threats of piracy, the internet, and simply watching existing DVDs has led Hollywood's media conglomerates to one conclusion. Women and girls are not enough.

Not enough to provide real growth in revenue, particularly if Larry Summers is correct and the current recession, with permanent job losses and structural unemployment at the 10-15% range over ten years or more, curtails the "New Girl Order." Even with men making up most of the unemployed, single mothers face economic pressure as well, if nothing else from declining real wages as tax increases and inflation mounts, along with job uncertainty. This promises to end the easy money of selling $100 "Hannah Montana" tickets to the parents of tween girls.

Hollywood focused on the female and tween girl audience because it was easy. Disney particularly was able to develop a strong stable of tween girl appealing stars, from Hillary Duff ("Lizzie McGuire") to Miley Cyrus. Disney's bets on Demi Lovato and Selena Gomez have not fully paid off, however, as the predicted influx of Hispanic/Latino girls flocking to those stars never materialized. Unsurprisingly to anyone but Disney execs drinking the Multicultural Kool-Aide, Latino/Hispanic (read, overwhelmingly Mexican) tween girls prefer real, authentic, Spanish-speaking idols from Mexico, available in Spanish-language television, magazines, and movies.

From the Wall Street Journal article:

Like other studios, Disney also has to combat the decline in DVD sales. Hollywood still makes the bulk of its profits from home-video sales. But that market, which grew more than 15% a year between 2000 and 2004, has begun to wilt. According to Adams Media Research, consumer spending on home video fell 9% last year. It projects home-video sales will fall between 8% and 10% for 2009.Mr. Iger has said DVD sales are in an irreversible decline, but he said Marvel's strong brand profile should offer a measure of protection. "They are not immune from the changes that we're seeing," Mr. Iger said, referring to Marvel, during a conference call with analysts Monday morning. "But they have established a footing that we think is more solid than what you typically see in the nonbranded, noncharacter driven movie."

As Charles M. Blow of the New York Times has written, the speed of the collapse of the Music Industry is amazing, cut in half from its peak in 1999, in ten years. First piracy, and then music streaming over the internet, free and legal, have severely cut industry revenues. Clearly, Hollywood can see the same problems facing themselves. Already Hulu.com, ironically created by NBC Universal (GE), Fox Entertainment Group, and ABC (Disney), has taught consumers to access streaming movies, television shows,and clips instead of buying DVDs. The success of South Park Studios where every South Park episode can be watched, for free, online, shows that creative people can build their own portals very quickly and capture consumer interest (and advertising revenue) without much cost. The success of "District 9" in providing a unique, and expensive look with a production budget of $30 million means that the studios, with high costs and overhead, face real challenges from productions in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and potentially many other nations with low production costs and favorable tax treatment.

Hollywood clearly must have a male audience, both boys and men, to provide revenue stability, let alone growth, if the pressures of piracy, online competition, and simply re-cycling existing DVDs (and video games) continues. Tween girls and women are not enough. From Box Office Mojo and the Wall Street Journal I have compiled the list of Female Skewing movies and Marvel Superhero movies:



Female Skewing Movie	World-Wide Gross
Sex and the City	$415,252,786
27 Dresses	$160,259,319
Devil Wears Prada	$326,551,094
Jane Austen Book Club	$7,163,566
The Proposal	$272,060,335
He's Just Not That Into You	$172,011,653
Marvel Movies	World-Wide Gross
Blade	$131,183,530
X-Men	$296,339,527
Spider-Man	$821,708,551
X2: X-Men United	$407,711,549
Spider-Man 2	$783,766,341
Fantastic Four	$330,579,719
X-Men: The Last Stand	$459,359,555
Ghost Rider	$228,738,393
Spider-Man 3	$890,871,626
Iron Man	$585,133,287
Wolverine	$363,362,640
Punisher War Zone	$10,089,373
Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer	$289,047,763

Most of the Marvel Movies outperform the Female skewing movie average (which was $225 million). Only 2 out of the 13 Marvel movies listed did less than the Female-skewing movies, and that is including the "Hard R" rated Punisher War Zone movie and 1998's "Blade" made over 11 years ago and featuring a very minor Marvel character. Even a not very well made movie like the second Fantastic Four movie brings in nearly $290 million. Obviously, the usual caveats apply. This applies to world-wide box office, including foreign box office grosses, and generally the studios receive significantly less than the gross for both foreign and domestic exhibitors. Often, foreign receipts are less percentage-wise to the gross than domestic receipts. Moreover, foreign receipts are more vulnerable to pressures of piracy. As MTV reported, the movie "American Gangster" was available in major US cities on bootleg DVDs (of high quality, too) before its release. Eli Roth reported that "Hostel II" was on sale in Mexico City for the equivalent of a quarter.

However , the average of the Marvel movies is $430 million world-wide. That is serious money no matter that the net for the studios is likely to be less.

Which makes Disney's move puzzling.

Disney has access to Marvel's characters, assuming they settle with Jack Kirby's estate over the rights to characters he created including Captain America, Thor, Iron Man, Fantastic Four, the X-Men, the Hulk, and the Avengers. These characters, are proven money-makers in extracting cash from the wallets of men and boys (who are the audience who sees the movies, and buys the DVDs). Disney also has family-film studio Pixar, with hit after hit, and a deal with Dreamworks for adult fare (likely to produce prestige but little cash). The role of the successor to Dick Cook as head of Disney Studios is to push products from the Marvel character library (and undo existing exclusive deals with Sony, and other studios such as Columbia, for characters like Spider-Man and Ghost Rider respectively) to grab more of the dollars "lying on the table" that belong to men and boys. Because clearly more "chick flics" and tween-girl pop princess fantasies face limited growth potential amidst DVD piracy and audience erosion from streaming online video.

According to Nikki Finke (who has an excellent track record), Disney is considering Rich Ross. Ross is listed in After Elton as one of the most powerful openly gay men in Hollywood. As noted in the NY Times article about how Disney used "Kid Whisperer" Kelly Pena to find out what boys liked, Ross was quoted thusly:

While Disney XD is aimed at boys and their fathers, it is also intended to include girls. “The days of the Honeycomb Hideout, where girls can’t come in, have long passed,” said Rich Ross, president of Disney Channels Worldwide.

Disney XD, which took over the struggling Toon Disney channel, has improved its predecessor’s prime-time audience by 27 percent among children 6 to 14, according to Nielsen Media Research. But the bulk of this increase has come from girls. Viewership among boys 6 to 14 is up about 10 percent.

Ross's track record is one of failure to increase boys watching Disney XD. As a Gay Man, he's incapable of understanding what boys and men like in entertainment. Ross could read market research report after report, and never understand why certain content succeeds and others fail. Including girls will automatically exclude boys, by making the content "girl-friendly" and therefore actively repellent to boys and men.

The extraordinary durability of Marvel Comics characters created from 1941 through the 1970's stems from the creators themselves. Often nerdy, shy, young men who did not find enormous success with the ladies, the creators (often deeply patriotic and assimilated Jews) created power-fantasies whereby "ordinary" young men with good character were transformed into weird and powerful heroes. Some were more upbeat, others more angst-ridden, but all were "fun" in the way that only a truly masculine identity could embrace: Spider-Man swinging through Manhattan's skyline and mouthing off to adversaries the way he could not in his ordinary life, Daredevil vigorously maintaining the line between hero and villain in a struggle to save his neighborhood, the Hulk's embodiment of a child's anger and innocence, or Captain America's exuberant love for his country and smashing his nation's enemies.

Making these characters "girl-friendly" requires mutilating them out of any appeal to young men and boys. Creating female characters who "tame them" and far too much competition over the female characters. The whole point of a character like Daredevil is that while his outward self may be handicapped, the inner person and hero is a ladies man, irresistible to a host of female characters: Elektra, Black Widow, and so on.

Because the executive talent pool for Disney and Time Warner is such a female and gay ghetto, reflecting much of its product, it is not surprising that Time-Warner appointed a female marketing executive whose prior experience was Harry Potter promotions as head of DC Comics. Nor is it surprising that Disney is considering an openly Gay executive, who notably failed in attracting boys to the male-oriented channel, as head of Disney Studios. Old habits die hard, and the Hollywood studios have pursued a gay/female ghetto strategy for so long that even when recognizing that growth, or more likely simply reducing the revenue erosion, depends on attracting boys and men, all the choices on hand to run the whole thing are women and Gays.

Thus, I expect Marvel Comics to get a lot "gayer" and existing projects such as the Iron Man 2 movie, the Thor movie, the Avengers movie, and so on to become a lot "gayer" and more "girl-friendly." Read: a flop like "Jane Austen Book Club" only costing a lot more. Hollywood simply does not know how to appeal to men.





...Read more

Disney Buys Marvel: Superheros and Where the Boys Aren't

Disney, desperate for growth in entertainment, has made a deal with $4 billion to buy Marvel Entertainment. As detailed by Deadline Hollywood Daily there are many entanglements to the deal, including Marvel's licensing deals with Hasbro (which makes Marvel Comics character based toys), Sony, Fox, and other studios that have extensive rights to make films of characters including the X-Men, Spider-Man, the Fantastic Four, and Ghost Rider. Disney will have to pay considerably more to make those deals go away and gain exclusive control over all of Marvel's characters.

Nevertheless, Disney is driven by one single factor: tween girls are not enough.



Not enough, anyway, to keep the cash flow going for Disney at a time when cash-strapped parents are thinking twice about $100 Hannah Montana concert tickets, and efforts to push tween stars Demi Lovato and Selena Gomez have flopped. DVD sales are down, dramatically, and piracy, among other factors, threatens to seriously impact Disney's long term cash flow.

Like other studios, Disney also has to combat the decline in DVD sales. Hollywood still makes the bulk of its profits from home-video sales. But that market, which grew more than 15% a year between 2000 and 2004, has begun to wilt. According to Adams Media Research, consumer spending on home video fell 9% last year. It projects home-video sales will fall between 8% and 10% for 2009.Mr. Iger has said DVD sales are in an irreversible decline, but he said Marvel's strong brand profile should offer a measure of protection. "They are not immune from the changes that we're seeing," Mr. Iger said, referring to Marvel, during a conference call with analysts Monday morning. "But they have established a footing that we think is more solid than what you typically see in the nonbranded, noncharacter driven movie."

Disney desperately needs boys (and their parents cash despite Disney CEO Iger's statements in the WSJ link above that they don't) and all efforts to develop anything along those lines internally have flopped. Hence the deal for Marvel. As in my post from last year, "Comic Books Dirty Little Secret: They Don't Make Much Money," if Disney thinks that buying Marvel Comics will give them a sudden insight into what tween and teen boys, along with young men, think and like, they are in for a rude awakening. Sadly, the total clue-lessness of Disney in regards to creating what boys like is indicative of an Entertainment Industry that has become totally dependent on a female audience, to it's detriment.

Disney spent considerable money on market research with focus group guru Kelly Pena, the "Kid Whisperer" to figure out what boys liked to develop Disney XD, a channel aimed at boys.



While Disney XD is aimed at boys and their fathers, it is also intended to include girls. “The days of the Honeycomb Hideout, where girls can’t come in, have long passed,” said Rich Ross, president of Disney Channels Worldwide.

Disney XD, which took over the struggling Toon Disney channel, has improved its predecessor’s prime-time audience by 27 percent among children 6 to 14, according to Nielsen Media Research. But the bulk of this increase has come from girls. Viewership among boys 6 to 14 is up about 10 percent.

Disney's Rich Ross is listed as one of the more powerful openly gay men in Hollywood by After Elton. It is questionable how well he and other execs operating in the very gay friendly and female-oriented Disney empire understand and relate to boys concerns, let alone straight male concerns and desires in entertainment. Disney has been successful in creating girl-friendly series and movies, featuring Selena Gomez and Demi Lovato. But neither Lovato nor Gomez have been able to break out to the degree that Miley Cyrus has, hampered by a down economy and the miscues of Disney expecting a large Hispanic contingent of fans. A critical error given that Hispanics consume Spanish Language media, most of it from Mexico (Telemundo and Univision).

Disney has found that tween girls are not enough, not enough to keep the cash flows Disney is accustomed to, in a down economy and where few successors to the Pop Princess parade of Britney Spears, Christina Aguilera, Hillary Duff, and Miley Cyrus have "hit." Certainly none of Disney's internal measures, including Disney XD have been "boy friendly" and Disney itself has no track record of providing entertainment boys like. Execs seemed puzzled that the Jonas Brothers and "High School the Musical" are not pulling in boy viewers.

Hence the deal for Marvel. With characters, situations, and storylines that appeal to boys and young men. Disney certainly needs them, being unable to develop that on its own. But if Disney expects that Marvel executives will be able to provide much-needed expertise on boys, they have another thing coming. Marvel Comics for example in their 2006 10-Q filed with the SEC admits their readership "extends" through the mid thirties. A trip to your local comic book store on New Comic day (Wednesday) will up that by about five years, in your own estimation. Marvel has made forays into online comics, aimed at younger audiences, and not dependent on Diamond Distribution (the sole distributor for the 2,500 comic shops where Marvel's weekly comic books can be purchased). However, those efforts have only netted a few million dollars per year, as stated in their Annual Report filed with the SEC. Note within that report, the 2008 revenues from publishing (Comic Books) amounted to about 19% of revenues.

Marvel's Comic books are written for, edited by, and purchased by, a few men in their late thirties and early forties, who want "hip/trendy" versions of their childhood superheros. Gay themes pop up constantly, as do openly gay superheros, excessive political correctness, and other things that are death to male tween, teen, and young adult popularity. Noticeably, NO comic book character has been allowed to kill, much less punch out, Osama bin Laden, despite Comic Book writer/producer Frank Miller ("Sin City," "300") desire to write such a story. Instead we have Spider-Man teaming up with Obama. To presumably, Hope and Change villains instead of fighting them.

It is true that the deeply assimilated Jews who created comics, from Siegel and Schuster (Superman), to Bob Kane (Captain America) to Stan Lee (Hulk, Fantastic Four) were able to tap into young adolescent boy's fantasies of power, of leadership, of success with girls, and so very well. In ways still remembered anywhere from seventy to forty years ago. But no real new "hit" character has been created at Marvel since the Punisher in 1974, thirty five years ago. While appealing to young men, the Punisher is certainly not a character appropriate or popular with young boys, who prefer more upbeat and colorful characters. And that's it — no new characters since then that are anything but minor.

Disney's problem, assuming it succeeds in buying Marvel, is that Marvel is coasting on the work done decades ago. All of its existing writers and editors, perhaps more skilled than those of the past, are simply incapable of inventing new characters and situations that appeal to young men and boys. Instead they simply recycle through extra doses of political correctness, existing characters and situations. Leaving nothing new and exciting for boys to claim as their own. Which is not surprising, comics are available only in comic book shops, because of exclusive distribution deals with Diamond Distribution. The Comic book shops number only 2,500, and comics can sell for $5 a copy, putting them out of reach of casual purchases by boys. Much of the publishing revenues are now coming from "trade paperbacks" or compilations of various issues that comprise story arcs, such as the Punisher-Daredevil-Nomad cross-over from the 1990's "Dead Man's Hand."

Disney has among it's entertainment empire a TV network that is very, very female-oriented and likely to remain so, cable channels that are very female oriented, and ESPN. Its challenge is to integrate Marvel Comics characters into it's existing empire in a way that draws boys and young men to its existing cable and broadcast channels. Which as a practical matter means pairing up available characters like Thor, Captain America, Iron Man, and the Punisher with ... the Desperate Housewives, Grey's Anatomy, and Lost. Or "the Wizards of Waverly Place" and "Princess Protection Program." Disney will have to spend billions more to reap money from movies with comic book characters Spider-Man, the Fantastic Four, the X-Men, and Ghost Rider, particularly if the company also wants to integrate Thor, Iron Man, the Hulk, and so on into the mix (which is a fan favorite and proven winner). Part of the charm of the "Marvel Universe" back when it was read by 12 year old boys, was that characters like Daredevil or Captain America or the Punisher or Ghost Rider could pop up into the middle of a fight between Spider-Man and the Kingpin, and change things. The extended social universe of the New York City based writers and editors, who all knew each other, was mirrored in the comic books and the young male fans loved it.

Now, a collection of loosely organized executives, many of whom do not have a lifetime of working together, some of whom are openly gay (and thus removed from the most basic concern of young men — young women), and most of whom have spent lifetimes producing or managing the production of content aimed at women and girls, must integrate very different content aimed at boys. Of course there must be a "Honeycomb Hideout, where girls cannot come in" because boys do not wish contests to find the twirliest princess nor angsty drama nor other things that appeal to girls but turn boys off.

Prediction: the acquisition of Marvel by Disney will be a share-holder value destroying bust, making the already age-skewed Marvel Comics into "girl friendly" territory and thus of no interest whatsoever to young men and boys.
...Read more

The Ugly Side of Disney's Pop Princess Machine

Recently, Disney pop princess Miley Cyrus performed at the Teen Choice Awards. Dlisted has a full range of pictures and video. Watching the video and looking at the pictures, makes one wonder about Disney's formerly sure touch in manufacturing (and discarding) tween appealing pop princesses. Has Disney hit the bottom of the well, and must resort to pandering to the worst instincts of it's tween audience figuring their parents won't be involved? Or is Disney simply unable to execute it's strategy, with any level of coherence, as key executives burn out and are replaced by lesser figures. Either way, we are likely to see both a flashpoint in general between angry, and economically stressed parents, and the ugly exploitation behind Disney's Pop Princess-Making machine.



First, Miley Cyrus at the Teen Choice Awards (yes it's a stripper pole on top of an ice cream cart):



[click Picture to enlarge]


And her nine year old sister, Noah, at the party thrown by the Teen Choice Awards:



Disney has been very good in the past at extracting lots of money from parents of "tween" (ages eight to twelve) girls by pushing a series of (highly disposable as they age) Pop Princesses. From Lindsay Lohan ("Herbie Fully Loaded," Hillary Duff ("Lizzie McGuire"), Melissa Joan Hart ("Clarissa Explains it All"), Britney Spears, Christina Aguilera, Vanessa Hudgens ("High School the Musical"), Demi Lovato ("Camp Rock"), and Selena Gomez, to of course Miley Cyrus, a common theme runs through the characters Disney creates. An "ordinary girl" who is of course far prettier than an ordinary teen age girl, between the ages of 13 and 16, discovers life outside her sheltered family, as a secret wizard or witch, princess, or pop star (no it doesn't make sense — it's for kids). Girls eight to twelve have reliably consumed this basic princess fantasy, since 1991 and "Clarissa Explains It All" on Nickelodeon. Variations include actual pop princesses (Spears and Aguilera on "the New Mickey Mouse Club") and ordinary-girl/pop princesses hybrids such as Miley Cyrus on "Hannah Montana."

As recent as 2007, Cyrus's concert ticket sales and album sales netted her $64 million, and #11 on Billboard's top earners, higher than Faith Hill and Bon Jovi. Tween girls love pop princesses, and Disney has excelled in giving them what they want. Disney's only concern is — tween girls don't make their own money or buying decisions, their parents do. Sadly, Disney has always had a seamy side to the pop princess machine.

First, there's the issue of disposability. Girls age out of appealing to tweens, when they get too "old" which generally happens around 16-17 or so, and no longer become fantasy figures of pre-adolescents (the way say, Superman or Captain Marvel is for young boys) but rather "near adults" that tweens find harder to identify with (presumably because of overt sexual issues and looming adulthood). Most of the Disney princesses know from past experience with other girls, their shelf-life approaches that of the average NFL career: four years. Indeed, Hillary Duff, Britney Spears, Christina Aguilera, Vanessa Hudgens, and others all started to make their transitions out of tween roles at around age seventeen or so. Some with more success (and happiness) than others. Every girl (and her management/agents) knows that her time as a Disney pop princess is limited, and as such her transition to adult roles must be fairly rapid. Hence the built-in incentives for the pop princesses in transition to act "adult" or take on adult roles as rapidly as possible.

Second, the business itself can be seamy. Teen star Lindsay Lohan famously spun out of control. Britney Spears was famously, briefly institutionalized. Sister Jamie Lynn Spears was pregnant at 16, while starring in "Zoey 101" for Nickelodeon. Rumors (never proven) had it that the responsible party was not the named, 19 year old boyfriend, but a Disney exec. Either way, the end result is not particularly wholesome family fare. Some Disney Pop Princesses and actresses come out alright. These tend to be the smarter, more driven, and more lucky (in that they have functional families looking out for them). But far too many end up with serious problems for Disney to be entirely comfortable.

It's hard to fathom the thinking of Disney execs who while not directly controlling the Teen Choice Awards, certainly have a say in how their principal star acts, allowed negative images to be created. In the age of cell phone cameras, any negative image (and audio, as Michael Richards found out) will be publicized. There simply is not any hiding any more. Cyrus may be their biggest star, and best earner, but the danger in hard economic times is that parents will simply pull the plug on cable TV (and thus, earnings for Nickelodeon which still gets the bulk of its revenue from subscriber fees). Moreover, parents can cut back or simply eliminate Disney purchases for tweens. Which are, at their core, discretionary spending.

It's possible, that Disney execs either did not wish to alienate Cyrus's management, or deliberately encouraged or at least said nothing to discourage, Cyrus from adopting an "overly sexy" performance in an attempt to prolong her earnings power by appealing to older girls, who would as 14-16 year olds find the more solidly adolescent Cyrus a more appealing figure. This would be likely if the launch of new "replacement stars" Lovato and Gomez came up duds.

If this was the case, and it might not be, then Disney execs would be incapable of seeing the danger. The sky-high earnings and popularity of Cyrus guarantee that any possible mis-step will be reported in the press. Probably the video and particularly that of nine year old Noah Cyrus playing around with her friends on the stripper pole in a party aimed at kids and early teens are incendiary for parents. Parents, as a general rule, do not like at all sexualization of children, and negative role models for girls particularly when the words "stripper pole" are involved. Disney was lucky to sweep Jamie Lynn Spears pregnancy (whoever the father) into the memory hole, in good times when parents did not quibble over spending $100 a ticket for Miley Cyrus concerts if it made their 10 year old daughter happy.

Those good times are gone, unlikely to come back, and even if they do, spending habits are likely to be permanently changed (in favor of thrift). Chris Rock had a reputedly hilarious routine about keeping his daughter off the stripper pole. Anger at inappropriate sexualization (aimed at, after all, girls eight to twelve) coupled with discretionary spending at the minimum, means parents have much less slack they will allow companies like Disney.

Any of the explanations are disturbing: Disney seeking to extend Cyrus's run as a money-maker by appealing to older girls with a "sexy" image ala "Gossip Girl," execs fearful of alienating the star and her family/management, or execs simply clueless and unaware of the changing morality caused by hard times. Whatever the reason, Disney seems as unable to chart a course in the recession as any other media company, disturbing since allegedly Disney was one of the better run companies, with savvier executives.
...Read more