Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Iosue" data-source="post: 6597408" data-attributes="member: 6680772">Dancey said that the current regime doesn't have to answer for the promises of the previous regime.&nbsp; However, Hasbro is still pursuing a Core Brand strategy, which means D&amp;D still needs to clear $50 million if it wants to lavish in Core Brand support.&nbsp; Maybe they don't.&nbsp; But as Dancey noted, D&amp;D could not maintain its 70+ employees without Core Brand financial support, and the division has been culled accordingly.&nbsp; Whether the current team's pitch to Hasbro included a goal for Core Brand status or not, they do need to bring in big bucks if they want to expand.As for D&amp;D put under the general WotC umbrella, this is the first I'm hearing of it.&nbsp; WotC is not mentioned in the Investor Reports.&nbsp; Lots of individual brands are.&nbsp; Magic is, as a Franchise Brand (and they say, &quot;Franchise Brand&quot; a lot).&nbsp; I recall you making a very convincing argument that WotC's star was ascendant in Hasbro because Games was up, and WotC was making up most of the revenue growth in Games.&nbsp; That doesn't mean that for purposes of deciding its operating budget D&amp;D is counted along with Magic in WotC.&nbsp; I would be very happy if that is true, but I haven't seen any evidence of it.&nbsp; I do see evidence of Magic being treated special.&nbsp; I do see evidence of Hasbro still pursuing a Core Brand strategy.&nbsp; I do see evidence of the D&amp;D division being trimmed down from its 3e heyday.&nbsp; I do see evidence of D&amp;D looking outside of the RPG for streams of brand revenue.&nbsp; I'm going to assume that any brand that thinks it can become a Franchise Brand will endeavor to become one.&nbsp; Whatever the particular target number may be.Again, all of which is to say, &quot;D&amp;D not dead, not on last legs, not being thrown bone by Hasbro before mothballs -- D&amp;D exploring new ways to bring in revenue and increase its profile in the company with licensing avenues it's never had before since WotC took over.&quot;&nbsp; Something tells me we don't disagree on that.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Iosue, post: 6597408, member: 6680772"] Dancey said that the current regime doesn't have to answer for the promises of the previous regime. However, Hasbro is still pursuing a Core Brand strategy, which means D&D still needs to clear $50 million if it wants to lavish in Core Brand support. Maybe they don't. But as Dancey noted, D&D could not maintain its 70+ employees without Core Brand financial support, and the division has been culled accordingly. Whether the current team's pitch to Hasbro included a goal for Core Brand status or not, they do need to bring in big bucks if they want to expand. As for D&D put under the general WotC umbrella, this is the first I'm hearing of it. WotC is not mentioned in the Investor Reports. Lots of individual brands are. Magic is, as a Franchise Brand (and they say, "Franchise Brand" [I]a lot[/I]). I recall you making a very convincing argument that WotC's star was ascendant in Hasbro because Games was up, and WotC was making up most of the revenue growth in Games. That doesn't mean that for purposes of deciding its operating budget D&D is counted along with Magic in WotC. I would be very happy if that is true, but I haven't seen any evidence of it. I do see evidence of Magic being treated special. I do see evidence of Hasbro still pursuing a Core Brand strategy. I do see evidence of the D&D division being trimmed down from its 3e heyday. I do see evidence of D&D looking outside of the RPG for streams of brand revenue. I'm going to assume that any brand that thinks it can become a Franchise Brand will endeavor to become one. Whatever the particular target number may be. Again, all of which is to say, "D&D not dead, not on last legs, not being thrown bone by Hasbro before mothballs -- D&D exploring new ways to bring in revenue and increase its profile in the company with licensing avenues it's never had before since WotC took over." Something tells me we don't disagree on that. [/QUOTE]

Verification