Toggle navigation
Home
Ask A Question
Answer Questions
Users
Support/FAQ
Login
Register
Preview 50% of the Answer Below
Due to formatting, images, tables, or paragraphs may be out of place or not shown. Rest assured that they will be included and formatted correctly in your purchased answer.
Details
Question Title:
Disney: Building Billion Dollar Franchises
Go Back to the Question
Answer Preview
1. Before announcing its streaming services, what type of corporate strategy was Disney pursuing? Which core competencies were shared and how?</span></p> <p><span class="s1"></span> </p> <p><span class="s1">1. Before Disney launched into the streaming services market, Disney was focus on a corporate strategy of alliance-based acquisitions and franchising. The core of Disney’s strategy was essentially one that created alliances and used acquisitions to incorporate other media businesses to create theme-based franchises. Disney strategically acquired companies to capitalize on specific assets. For example, Disney got a roster of beloved characters and their IP from Marvel, the legendary Star Wars franchise from Lucasfilm, and experience in Youtube content creation from Makerstudios. This allowed Disney to leverage its significant advantages in its distribution network, stellar reputation, marketing, brand building, and product expansion across a plethora of channels, such as streaming revenue, toys and merchandise, books, ebooks, gaming, TV shows and theme parks, to build billion dollar brands. Its shared competencies of a robust distribution network across multiple channels, a strong brand name, a dedicated marketing team, brand building expertise, and franchise building experience also allowed it to successfully monetize its acquisitions. For example, it turned the struggling roster of beloved Marvel charaXXXXX into a XXXXXX profitable shared XXXXXXXXX universe, and XXXXXXXX the XXXX XXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXX, TV shows XXX XXXXX.<span class="XXXXX-converted-XXXXX"></span></span></p> <p><span class="XX"></span> </p> <p><span XXXXX="XX">2. XXX XX you think Disney's XXXXXXXXXXXX of Pixar, Marvel, XXX XXXXXXXXX were so XXXXXXXXXX, XXXXX XXXXX media interaction XXXX as Sony's XXXXXXXXXXX XX Columbia Pictures XXX XXXX XXXX.'s XXXXXXXXXXX XX XXXXXXX XXXX XXXX less XXXXXXXXXX?</span></p> <p><span class="s1"></span> </p> <p><span class="XX">2. XXXXXX’s XXXXXXXXXXXX XX XXXXX, XXXXXX XXX XXXXXXXXX XXXX so successful because XXXX featured XXXXX valuations XX XXXXXX XXXXXXXXX, used Disney’s shared core competencies, XXX XXXX XXXXXX XX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXX-XXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX. XXXXXXXX, XXXXXX’s acquisitions XX XXXXXXXXX, XXXXXX XXX Makerstudios were based on savvy valuations of XXXXX XXXXXX potential. XXXXXX could XXX XXXX these were XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX struggling XX XXXXXX, XXX XXXX a successful XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXX allow XXXXXX to XXXX a XXXXX deal at a low price. These acquisitions also aligned well XXXX XXXXXX’s XXXXXXXXX priorities. Conversely, News XXXX XXXXXXXX an XXXXXXXXXX XXXXX in XXXXXXX, which XXX XXXXXXX on XXX verge XX XXXXXXX, while Columbia XXX a similarly XXXXXXXXX XXXXX elephant for XXXX, which XXX not truly XXXX XXX production systems that Columbia XXXXXXXX offered. XXXXXXXX, Disney succeeded because it XXXXX use its XXXXXX core XXXXXXXXXXXX, such as its distribution XXXXXXX, stellar reputation, XXXXXXXXX, XXXXX XXXXXXXX, and XXXXXXX expansion across a plethora XX channels, XXXX XX XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX, toys XXX merchandise, XXXXX, XXXXXX, gaming, XX shows XXX theme parks, to XXXXX billion XXXXXX brands. XXXXXXX, Disney XXXXXXXXX because XXXXXXX XX its XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXX strong XXXXXXXXXXX that XXXXXX XXXXX XXXX XXX to build XXXXXXXXXX through expansion XXXXXX XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX, XXXX as XXXXXXXXXXXXX, theme parks and co-XXXXXXX XXXXXXX spin XXXX. The XXXX Wars XXXXX XXX Marvel lunchboxes that have XXXXXX ubiquitous in XXX XXXXXXX today are a XXXX example XX XXXX XXXXXXXXXXX.</span></p> <p><span XXXXX="s1"></span> </p> <p><span XXXXX="XX">3. XX you XXXXX XXXXXXXX on XXXXXXX-XXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXX XXXX a XXXX XXXXXXXXX strategy XXX Disney? XXXX are pros and cons XX XXXX XXXXXXXX?</span></p> <p><span class="s1"></span> </p> <p><span XXXXX="XX"></span> </p> <p><span class="XX">XXX pros of a focus on XXXXXXX dollar franchise XXX the strong brand reputation, XXX huge XXXXXX XXXXXXXXX and XXX synergies that XXXX with XXXX a franchise. Foremost, there XX a strong XXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXX Disney acquires every time it decides XX XXXXXXXX a Marvel or Lucasfilm-XXXX XXXXXXX, which comes with XXX accumulated XXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXX XXXX XXXXX companies XXXX built XX. Secondly, XXXXX XX XXXXXXXXXX market XXXXXXXXX in cinematic universes such XX the ones XXXXXX XXX Lucasfilm XXXX set up, which XXXXXX is able to monetize XXXXXXXXXXXX. XXXXXXX, Disney benefits from XXX synergies in demand XXX these XXXXXXXX. Audiences XXX XXXXX XXXXXX movies XXX XXXX XXXXXX XX XXXXX XXXX XXXX movies. This creates XXXXXXXXX XXX horizontal XXXXXXXXX by leveraging XXXXXXXXX in audience XXXXXX across XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX.</span></p> <p><span class="s1"></span> </p> <p><span class="s1">However, XXXXX XXX several downsides. Disney XXXXX XXXX XXX risk of reduced XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, XXX loss of innovation and XXXXXXXXXXX, a declining TV XXXXXX, underperforming acquisitions, XXX the XXXX of brand XXXXXXXX. XXXXXXXXXXXX worrying is that, by relying XXX heavily on billion XXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX, XXXXXX could potentially lose XXX XXXXXXXXXXX XXXX drove XXXX XX XXX XXXXXXX in XXX XXXXX place. For example, XXXXXX would XXXXXXX its in-XXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX XXX become too reliant on these XXXXXXXXXX established franchises. XXXXXXXXXXX, XXXXXXXXX XXX XXXXXX fatigued with too XXXX similar shows, such as the latest ‘Loki’ XXXXXXX or XXX another XXXX XXXX XXXXXXX TV show, XXX XXXXX to XXXX interest. XXXXXXX, Disney XXX become XXXXXXX as a XXXXX XXX XX overreliance XX a few XXXX-XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX.<span XXXXX="XXXXX-XXXXXXXXX-space"></span></span></p> <p><span XXXXX="s1"></span> </p> <p><span XXXXX="s1">X. XXXXX the build-XXXXXX-or-buy framework, do you think XXXXXX should pursue alternatives XX XXXXXXXXXXXX? Why or XXX not?</span></p> <p><span class="XX"></span> </p> <p><span class="s1">XXXXXX XXXXXX begin XX XXXXX more on XXXXXXXX rather than borrowing and XXXXXX. XXXX is XXXXXXX Disney XXX XXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX on borrowing XXX XXXXXX XXX reputation of other companies XX fuel XXX XXXXXXX-dollar franchises. Disney XXXXXX XXXXXXX pursue in-house innovation XX XXXXXX XXXXX products without XXXXXXX on the XXXXX-and-XXXXXX formulas of other companies. XXXX is because such a strategy would XXXXX XXXXXX XX save on acquisition XXXXX, XXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXXX XX XXXXXX novel and XXXXX XXXXXXX that XXXXXXXXX XX appeal XX XXX XXXXXXXX segments.<span class="XXXXX-converted-space"></span></span></p> <p><span class="s1"></span> </p> <p><span XXXXX="XX"><strong>X. XXXXX Disney's XXXXX XX creating XXX XXXXXXXXXX billion-XXXXXX franchise, XXXX industry observes XXX XXXX Disney XXXX XX a global consumer XXXXXXXX company XXXX XXXX rather than a media company. Do you agree with this perspective? Why or why not? What strategic XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXX it XXXX if XXXXXX XX truly a global consumer XXXXXXXX company XXXXXX XXXX a XXXXX company.</strong></span></p> <p><span class="XX"></span> </p> <p><span XXXXX="XX">I XXXXX XXXX XXX above XXXXXXXXXXX that Disney, given XXX XXXXX XX creating and XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX-dollar franchises, has evolved XXXX XXXX a XXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXX XXXX a XXXXX company. XXX XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXX Disney XXX tremendous. XXXXXXXX, such a shift would indicate XXXX Disney XX now XXXX invested in a broader range of XXXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXXX rather XXXX simply XXXXXXXXX media XXXXXXX, XXXXX XXXXX XXXX Disney XX intent on XXXXXXXX on a XXXXXXXX of XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX. Secondly, the shift XX consumer XXXXXXXX XXXXX that XXXXXX XXX to XXX XXXXX XXXXX competencies that it XXX XXX XXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX, XXXX XX supply XXXXX management. XXXXXXX, the move XX consumer products means XXXX Disney is XXX more exposed XX XXXXX in other XXXXXXX, XXXX as those XX the XXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXX.<span class="XXXXX-converted-XXXXX"></span></span></p> <p><span class="XX"></span> </p> <p><span XXXXX="s1">X. What type of corporate strategy XX evidenced in Disney's XXXXXXXXX streaming services? XXXX XXX XXX potential benefits XXX risk of XXXX strategies? </span></p> <p><span XXXXX="s1" <the="" corporate="" strategy="" evident="" in="" XXXXXX’s="" announced="" streaming="" services="" XX="" one="" of="" XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX.="" XXXXXX="" XXXXXXX="" XXXXX="" XX="" expand="" into="" the="" market="" order="" XXXX="" on="" incumbent="" XXXXXX="" a="" highly="" XXXXXXXXXX="" XXXXXX,="" netflix.="" benefits="" XXXX="" are="" tremendous="" XXXXXXXXX="" XXXXXXXXX="" ability="" gain="" high="" revenues="" XXXX="" manage="" XXXXXXXX="" ecosystem="" like="" XXXXXXX="" and="" XXXXXX="" for="" licenses="" other="" XXXXXXX="" providers.="" risks="" XXXX="" competencies="" XXXXX="" XXXX="" make="" XXXXXXX="" XXXX,="" saturated="" XXXXXXXX,="" given="" recent="" entry="" competitive="" players="" as="" XXXXX,="" XXXX=""></span></p> <p>XXX corporate strategy XXXXXXX in XXXXXX’s announced streaming services XX XXX of XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX. XXXXXX clearly wants to expand XXXX the streaming services market in order XX take XX XXX XXXXXXXXX player in a XXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX market, XXXXXXX. The benefits XX such a XXXXXXXX are the XXXXXXXXXX market XXXXXXXXX in XXX XXXXXXXXX services XXXXXX, XXXXXXXXX the ability XX gain XXXX XXXXXXXX from XXX XXXXXXX to manage a XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX like Netflix and charge for XXXXXXXX for XXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX. XXX XXXXX of XXXX a XXXXXXXX XXX XXX XXXX XX competencies which will make such a venture XXXX, and the XXXXXX saturated XXXXXX for XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX, XXXXX XXX XXXXXX XXXXX of other XXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX players such as Starz, Hulu and XXXXXXX.<XX></p> <p><span XXXXX="XX"></span></p>">
