Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jacob Marley" data-source="post: 6013775" data-attributes="member: 89537">Um, no. That's not what Hasbro said. Hasbro considered 50M to be the point of differentiation between Core and Non-core brands. Core brands would receive financing from corporate for product development whereas Non-core brands would have to fund product development through existing cash flows.  Sometime around 2005ish, Hasbro made an internal decision to divide its businesses into two categories. Core brands, which had more than $50 million in annual sales, and had a growth path towards $100 million annual sales, and Non-Core brands, which didn't. Under Goldner, the Core Brands would be the tentpoles of the company. They would be exploited across a range of media with an eye towards major motion pictures, following the path Transformers had blazed. Goldner saw what happened to Marvel when they re-oriented their company from a publisher of comic books to a brand building factory (their market capitalization increased by something like 2 billion dollars). He wanted to replicate that at Hasbro. Core Brands would get the financing they requested for development of their businesses (within reason). Non-Core brands would not. They would be allowed to rise & fall with the overall toy market on their own merits without a lot of marketing or development support. In fact, many Non-Core brands would simply be mothballed - allowed to go dormant for some number of years until the company was ready to take them down off the shelf and try to revive them for a new generation of kids. You can read the full piece <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/news/315975-wizards-coast-dungeons-dragons-insider-d-d-4th-edition-hasbro-some-history.html" target="_blank">here</a>. </blockquote>

Verification