Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="CharlesRyan" data-source="post: 4520776" data-attributes="member: 5265">There's a straightforward business logic to that statement, but it's not very enlightened. Other factors come into play: maintaining a diverse portfolio of property types, understanding the value of core consumers as thought leaders,  making sure you don't cannibalize sales from other properties, market segmentation, and so on.Maybe a competitive collectible fantasy game would sell better than the RPG format. But if you already make one of those, and it's already an industry leader, why would you dismantle a brand's existing value just to compete in the same space?Hasbro may be many things, but clumsy, stupid, or unenlightened when it comes to its IPs is not generally one of them. Sure, someday, Hasbro might move brand leadership for D&D away from the RPG category (things change in business all the time, just like in the rest of life)--but it's hardly inevitable. I think D&D's fortunes would have to change dramatically (up or down) for that to be the case.Of course. But having been that guy, I can assure you that the shareholders pay the brand leaders to maintain an insightful, long-term vision for the company's IPs--not to just jump on the latest trend with no regard for a brand's historic strengths.</blockquote>