It feels to me like Hasbro has lit a fire under Wizards of the Coast, and given them

[CharlesRyan]

Compared to what multi-national conglomerates consider sales?

No, not at all.

Ah, yes. Flogging the old "Magic/D&D are inconsequential to Hasbro, but at the same time Hasbro suits are obsessed with micromanaging them" horse again. One of the net's most enduring myths.

Hasbro operates a constellation of brands, the vast majority of which "only" generate tens of millions of dollars in revenue. D&D and Magic fit very comfortably within that model, and probably outperform many recognizable Hasbro brands and business units.

Hasbro does not tend to micro-manage its brand units (not unless it's had a radical change in management policy since I was there). Top-line strategies and bottom-line performance are subject to corporate review, and some functions (licensing, for example) are centralized, but the "suits" in Rhode Island really don't have time for the tactics.

In other words, both of the premises in that self-contradicting theory are utterly false.

 

[Jhaelen]

According to Livingdice.com WotC just said today that MTG sales went up 70% in 2009 with a 20% increase in active players, compared to the year before. Sounds to me like it's doing okay. WotC had a record performance in 2009, according to the same website, driven by those MTG sales.

Wow, that sounds even better than I suspected! No need to worry about anything, then

 

[Umbran]

Ah, yes. Flogging the old "Magic/D&D are inconsequential to Hasbro, but at the same time Hasbro suits are obsessed with micromanaging them" horse again.

Um, no, Charles. He's doing no such thing. He said (without much support, admittedly) that Magic isn't selling on the big-company scale. But he's said not a single thing about Hasbro micromanaging.

 

[Shazbot79]

Um, no, Charles. He's doing no such thing. He said (without much support, admittedly) that Magic isn't selling on the big-company scale. But he's said not a single thing about Hasbro micromanaging.

Well the idea posited in the OP is that Hasbro has lit a fire under WotC's butt to improve sales, which is the notion notion that Charlesryan was refuting.

Personally, I'm inclined to believe that the suits at Hasbro realize that D&D and M:tG appeal to niche markets, and probably have pretty realistic expectations as far as sales go...thus do not take an overt hand in the direction of the line.

In other words, I think that D&D is pretty much WotC's baby through and through, and if anyone pulls the plug on the line it will be Wizards themselves.

 

[AllisterH]

The thing is, Hasbro is a LOT more than just GI Joe and Transformers.

Sure, those are the big tier money makes and then you have the second tier products like the well known board games like Monopoly

I've mentioned this before, but I used to be a Hasbro stock holder and actually had the opportunity to attend a shareholder's meeting (when those were pre-Net meetings).

Note, this was PRE-WOTC buyout (basically the period from when G1 Transformers had stopped and Beast Wars hadn't revitalized the franchise) but Hasbro is a very hands-off corporate parent.

It might have changed in the intervening years but I would be honestly surprised if Hasbro looks at specific brands although..the more successful a line becomes, the more corporate will want to be overseeing it. For example, Hasbro was MUCH more active in the script for Transformers Animated - the last cartoon series from last year than when their involvement in the 1st couple of seasons of Mainframe's Beast Wars - writers basically had carte blanche

 

[darjr]

That's ironic. So Hasbro may be more hands on with WotC but only if it's a 'big deal' in their portfolio.

 

[Cadfan]

I'm always a little surprised at the automatic assumption that Hasbro would be worse at managing a multi million dollar intellectual property franchise than would a bunch of gamers turned professional. I feel like there's this underlying assumption of "those corporate suits just don't get us, man! Its gotta be by gamers, for gamers!" that just isn't justifiable. Its an especially surprising assumption given that we, as a group, have constant experience with companies that suck precisely because they haven't got faceless suits directing them- the "by gamers, for gamers" mentality is probably the number one reason that local gaming stores go under.

Not to mention, the fact that Hasbro suits aren't sitting on WotC's shoulders telling them what to do just means that WotC has its own suits in-house. As they should.

 

[delericho]

Would this be a bad thing?

Yes, because Hasbro probably wouldn't sell WotC (or just D&D). They would cancel the line and shelve the IP for later use.

It's highly unlikely D&D will ever be sold off unless someone fabulously wealthy really wanted it, and was willing to make Hasbro a really big offer. Although it might just be possible that Hasbro could license out the rights to make a new edition.

 

[Merlin the Tuna]

Nope; not for nearly ten years, now.

I am somehow comforted with the knowledge that I haven't done anything remotely Pokemon-related in the last decade. Thanks!

 

[mudbunny]

Yes, because Hasbro probably wouldn't sell WotC (or just D&D). They would cancel the line and shelve the IP for later use.

It's highly unlikely D&D will ever be sold off unless someone fabulously wealthy really wanted it, and was willing to make Hasbro a really big offer. Although it might just be possible that Hasbro could license out the rights to make a new edition.

Yup. There is a very big difference in price for D&D (the game) and D&D (the IP). As a game, D&D is not that expensive. As an IP though, D&D would be very expensive. WotC did some market studies a while back (this is 2nd-hand info, I don't have the source) and it was determined that the name D&D is recognized by over 95% of the population of the US. Not the population of gamers, but the population as a whole.

That probably puts it way up in the higher echelons of recognition, and thus, value.