D&D Movie/TV D&D Movie Hit or Flop?

[bedir than]

First of all, thanks for linking the report.

I read through the whole of the report, paying special emphasis to Wizards of the Coast, and it looks like even though franchise performance for D&D is up, WOTC net revenue and profit are down.

Page 34 (3-month period): "Wizards of the Coast and Digital Gaming" - 'external net revenue' down 11%, 'operating profit' down 37%
Page 36 (3-month period): tabletop gaming down 17%, digital and licensed gaming up 33%, but total is still down due to difference between; meanwhile, film and TV is up 3%
Page 37 (6-month period): WOTC & Digital - revenue down 2%, profit down 34%
Page 39 (6-month period): tabletop gaming down 7%, digital & licensed up 20%, but total is still down; meanwhile, film and TV is down 5%

So there appears to be an increase in overall engagement, but without a corresponding increase in sales.
As for film and TV, I am guessing the difference between the 3 & 6 month numbers is due quite heavily to production on HAT; we probably won't know for sure how much impact HAT has had until the next quarterly statement, profit or loss.

No, they explicitly call out the different production of Magic the Gathering sets

Q1 had 4 sets
Q2 had 3 sets

The typical set is about 100 million in revenue

 

[Ferrousbones]

No, they explicitly call out the different production of Magic the Gathering sets

Q1 had 4 sets
Q2 had 3 sets

The typical set is about 100 million in revenue

On page 13, where it says that D&D and Transformers are up (+74% & +83% respectively), the category they are in 'Franchise Brands' is down 5%. Combined with the WOTC specific parts from my prior comment, this means that D&D isn't heavily impactful (yet) on the revenue, even with getting close to doubling its performance.

On page 17, using the major sets times average revenue yields a 2022 value of (4 x $103) $412 million, and 2023 value of (3 x $128) $384 million, about $28 million less. Looking at MTG data throughout the pages, it is all down, and clearly its absolute value is down more than D&D's absolute value is up.

Comparing WOTC overall & MTG via pages 35-36 and 38-39:
(3-month)- overall, WOTC went from $419.8 million to $375.6 million, and MTG went from $365.5 million to $311 million; so D&D was up to $54.3 million in Q2 2022, then up to $64.6 million same time this year, an increase of $10.3 million and ~19%.
(6-month)- overall, WOTC went from $682.6 million to $670.8 million, and MTG went from $562.7 million to $540.1 million; so D&D was up to $119.9 million in H1 2022, then up to $130.7 million same time this year, an increase of $10.8 million and ~9%.

Looking at the document overall, that 74% means that D&D must not be a large share, or the 74% is a metric other than $.

 

[bedir than]

Looking at the document overall, that 74% means that D&D must not be a large share, or the 74% is a metric other than $.

In Franchise the up 74% would also include non-gaming D&D from licensed goods. Trying to figure out where those appear in the various charts seems impossible, because of their multi-bucketing system.

D&D is both part of Franchise Brand reporting and part of Wizards of the Coast reporting. Some elements of D&D the franchise are not Wizards of the Coast (the movie for example).

 

[delericho]

Finally, U.K. readers will find Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves on their version of Paramount+ August 18th. The U.K. was the largest international market for the movie and it hasn't been streaming yet, just on VoD.

That's good news for me, but I'm not sure it's good news for HAT - it had been on NOW, which obviously meant they were being paid for that. If it's now becoming available in the in-house streamer, that presumably limits the value of the NOW deal.

 

[bedir than]

That's good news for me, but I'm not sure it's good news for HAT - it had been on NOW, which obviously meant they were being paid for that. If it's now becoming available in the in-house streamer, that presumably limits the value of the NOW deal.

Spurring monthly subs at 5-15 pounds a month is better than a one time payment of similar

 

[delericho]

Spurring monthly subs at 5-15 pounds a month is better than a one time payment of similar

NOW are another streamer, so they'd have paid a good bit more than 5-15 pounds. I don't know how much, but I do know that exclusive rights would have been worth more than non-exclusive.

As to whether any spike in Paramount+ subs is worth more than the difference, we don't know. I did say I wasn't sure.

 

[bedir than]

NOW are another streamer, so they'd have paid a good bit more than 5-15 pounds. I don't know how much, but I do know that exclusive rights would have been worth more than non-exclusive.

As to whether any spike in Paramount+ subs is worth more than the difference, we don't know. I did say I wasn't sure.

AhA!

I thought NOW was VoD and was considering it from the consumer spend

 

[mamba]

Spurring monthly subs at 5-15 pounds a month is better than a one time payment of similar

if you attribute it all to HAT

 

[bedir than]

if you attribute it all to HAT

I haven't done this, nor has any streaming service ever done this. They track views, signups and renewals as they judge what movies and series are responsible for income.

 

[delericho]

I was thinking on it some more, and it's entirely possible that NOW's owners have a pre-existing deal with Paramount for an exclusive window on all their films. So it's entirely possible that there is, effectively, no new money at all associated with HAT being there, and that it's "coming home" as early as P+ can get it.