This is becoming an interesting debate, which PDL Capital President Lawrence Meyers takes on this morning in a vigorously argued blog post responding to Bernstein Research analyst Todd Juenger’s controversial report last week on the subject. Juenger said that the huge success of The Avengers – which has generated $1.3B in ticket sales at worldwide box offices this month — merely makes Disney’s 2009 agreement to pay $4.2B for Marvel “a good deal,” not a self-evidently great one. That’s ”the silliest statement I’ve heard in years,” Meyers says. The value of Disney CEO Bob Iger’s decision “was self-evident the day the deal got made.” Juenger misses the point, Meyers says, by focusing on the probable returns from Marvel-related movies. The operation will “generate tens of billions for Disney over decades” as it comes up with new characters, and storylines to pair them. “Movies will be the flagship product, but there will be television shows (primarily animated), direct to video, and at some point in the future, they’ll just reboot each of the characters and start all over again,” Meyers says. “This literally will go on for decades. And audiences will keep paying.” They will, that is, as long as the studio doesn’t cut corners that would cheapen the productions — something that Meyers says he does not expect to happen. As a result, “Ten years from now, everyone will wonder how Disney got Marvel so cheap.”
Juenger says that may be true, but “one must question why Marvel will make ‘billions of dollars’ in the future, but hasn’t made ‘billions of dollars’ in the past.” He notes that Disney’s $4.2B price put a high value on Marvel compared to its historic earnings. And while Meyers may be right about Marvel becoming a cash machine, the problem is that the returns “come, well, in the future.” Today’s investors in Disney have to discount those potential billions to account for inflation, and the possible profits they could make by parking their cash somewhere else.


“This literally will go on for decades. And audiences will keep paying.”
Because, as we all know, audiences tastes and viewing habits never change or shift away from the saturation point.
What a moronic and offensive thing to say.
Well, some of the comics have been making money, in some form, for 7 decades. So, it’s not difficult to imagine that this will continue.
You sir are a moron, comics have been around for a long time and people still buy them, even though they’re recycled characters and story lines, with timeline changes and a few obvious other changes… the industry is a gold mine, someone needs to utilize it… By the way; Twilight fan?
Up until the Avengers the biggest movie from Marvel(out of the heroes they own movies rights to) was Iron Man 2 with just over 620 million dollars. And it actually made less than the first Iron Man domestically.
There is absolutely no reason to believe Iron Man 3 or any other upcoming Marvel superhero movie can break 1 billion dollars let alone 1.5 billion or more the Avengers will make.
Maybe not until ‘Avengers 2′, which will make a ton of money as well. I can see ‘Iron Man 3′ making 800-900 million globally and ‘Thor 2′ doing potentially 600-700 globally. But yeah, outside of the ‘Avengers’ films no other Marvel films seem to be 1 billion dollar grossing films, but they don’t necessarly need the films tp reach that amount, they just have to do well and make a profit when i’m sure they will.
AH HA HA HA HA HA!
IM3 $1.25B
Not to mention Rides and merchandise in the parks, thats the real money. Avenger ride is sure to be in works, and endless avenger wear (T-shirts, hats, candy, etc) is surely being produced at rapid speeds to get the summer rush in all the Disney Parks world Wide.
I’m glad Iger was thinking about the long term when he bought Marvel. So many stupid decisions have been made by executives who were only thinking about now, now, now. Disney’s a special company that does best when it stays true to its rich heritage of telling quality stories that appeal to all ages, and Marvel with its own renowned history in the world of comics fits within that scope.
So why did they sell Miramax, Power Rangers, etc.?
Disney’s strength is when they can capitalize on their intellectual property by exploiting it across the entire spectrum of their company: film, networks, parks, and merchandise.
Entities like Marvel (or The Muppets), which creates a whole universe of characaters, lend themselves wonderfully to that enterprise model. Miramax produces small boutique films that don’t.
And, as far as I know, Disney never owned Power Rangers.
The brand is obviously still growing…and Disney has so many ways to extend it and use it. So, yeah, 4.2B is starting to look like a really good deal for them.
And please. Stock owners who are looking for some sort of immediate payout are not really “investors”. They are gamblers.
Funny how comic books are never mentioned.
The last line is nonsense: “Possible profits they could make by parking their cash somewhere else”
Which, in the end, is a hypothetical – as opposed to the tangible profit the studio is making on that investment at this very moment.
Alone, Marvel is a losing proposition. The audience for comic books is aging and shrinking, and recent bumps in sales caused by heavily hyped “events” are not expected to last.
Bringing in new readers is unlikely since it’s easier for a ten year old to buy marijuana than a comic book in many communities, since they’re mostly only available in a shrinking number of specialty retailers. “E-Comics” are being touted as the panacea, but a lot of the big name comic titles require too much knowledge of decades of continuity to understand what’s going on in any given issue, so you’re basically marketing to those who are already fans. The days of a kid picking up a comic book at the corner store because the cover art caught their eye, and becoming hooked, is a relic of a bygone age and unlikely to be seen again.
However, as part of Disney, it can be very lucrative. A massive multimedia giant like Disney can afford to maintain the comic business more or less as a write off as long as it keeps pumping out characters and stories for them to sell in movies, TV shows, and merchandise.
It’s not a perfect business model, I would like to see the comics business be more widespread, and more lucrative on its own, but it’s the best anyone seems to be able to make out of the current situation.
Of course there will always be the danger that the currently successful management will be replaced, and new management will lack the skill or the vision to exploit these properties, and you’ll get a creative logjam of misfired projects.
But the bubble will never burst! Look at the housing market! People will just keep paying!
I actually think this is a win-win for both Marvel and Disney. Historically, Disney has failed to appeal to young boys with its original characters (up until Pixar’s Toy Story and Cars anyway). Now it has a host of established characters to utilize.
Marvel, up until very recently, had flop after flop in television and movies. Low budgets, bad acting, licensing out characters to other studios who failed to utilize the source material when making movies.
Too bad this didn’t happen before Marvel gave up the rights to X-Men and Spiderman. It’s a shame we’ll never see Storm and Spidey with the Avengers.
New-school garbage. Storm and Spidey will NEVER be true Avengers. Putting Wolverine in the Avengers comic was also stupid. Blatant cash grab because of the movies. Thank God Sony and Fox have the rights to Spidey and the X-Men so these trainwrecks can’t happen on screen.
And for the record, I hate the idea of the Winter Soldier too.
Considering the Avengers started out as Marvel lumping their most popular individual characters in one team, why do you object to them doing the same thing in the present day?
Furthermore, you know people have been complaining about new avengers since they introduced Hawkeye, Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver right? Comic characters and teams are ever-evolving, don’t get so stuck in the past
The real trick will be if Marvel can/will ever get back the film rights to X-Man, Spiderman and The Fantastic Four. Those three, along with The Avengers (and the associated characters with each group) , make up the Big Four of Marvel’s properties. If/once they have all of them under their control again then you have an absolutely HUGE potential for blockbuster films. Even if they could get back The Punisher it would help.
X-Men vs The Avengers, anyone?
A Spiderman & Wolverine team-up?
Punisher and Wolverine?
The films, crossovers and cameo appearances Marvel/Disney would be able to have if they had the full Marvel comic roster to work with would be amazing.
But I doubt it will ever happen. Sony will keep rebooting Spiderman every 3 years, just to keep control of the property, the same with FOX and the X-Men.
Those are properties Disney needs to go after and try and buy back in the future in order to keep the Marvel $’s flowing in.
Ant-Man? Could be fun/funny but will never be a major hit. Iron Man 3, sure, but Iron Man 4-6? People will get tired of the characters eventually, unless they can add popular “new blood” to the mix and that will mean getting back the other Marvel properties that currently belong to other studios.
you are forgetting that Disney earns on the Sony releases as well. Whatever Marvel earned of that deal in the past now goes to Disney. Same w X-Men / Fox.
Marvel earned a SMALL PERCENTAGE of the total revenues from Spider Man and X Men.
True — one should ask if returns will be higher if capital is parked elsewhere. That, however, is always the question. WIth regards to Disney, Marvel is but one part of an empire that will not be the sole catalyst for revenue nor stock price appreciation. You are welcome to park capital elsewhere. I have lots of suggestions. But Disney, as a core holding in a diversified long-term portfolio, is about as good as you can find for those with the appropriate appetite for risk.
Why hasn’t Marvel made billions in the past? Really? Mr. Juenger knows better.
1) Marvel’s earliest incarnation was only as a licensing entity. Had it owned the first 3 Spider-Man films, Marvel would have, in fact, made billions. (See also: X-Men)
2) The company only secured the Merrill Lynch capital to produce in-house in 2005. Only then, working with ridiculously cheap capital, could it reap all the benefits of its films.
3) It’s because the long-term strategy of creating multiple franchises, that also interconnect via The Avengers, is in its infancy.
Exactly.
Juenger is a Wall Street money man who fails to see the big picture. Meyers is correct that the films will continue to make excessive amounts of money, whether they be individual franchise films that can easily average over $400 million WW, or “event” Avengers films that have proven to be billion-dollar earners. Further though, what Juenger misses is that Marvel is a brand with nearly unlimited merchandizing potential. And Disney is a company that knows how to sell merchandize. Think about Mickey Mouse, Buzz Lightyear, the Disney princess line, etc. and now realize that they can do the same for Spider-Man, X-Men, Iron Man, Hulk, etc. Even if audiences grow temporarily weary of superhero movies (something that seems at least many years away), Disney can still fill the dry spell with toys, dolls, video games, TV shows, cartoons, theme park rides, and comic books themselves. From this point on, as long as Disney is profiting off of Mickey Mouse, they’ll be profiting off of Marvel characters as well.
Yes, there’s no doubt it was a very good buy, I see no end to Superhero movies being a long-term entertainment for audiences. Not even counting the endless reboots and sequels, Marvel still has dozens of top characters that would make good movies. Examples might be Dr. Strange, the Inhumans, Sub-Mariner, Capt Marvel, Warlock, Morbius the living Vampire, Luke Cage, Black Panther… the list goes on and on. And many of these characters could be geared towards specific (growing) audiences like Latino and African-American, etc. Disney’s only just begun to mine these properties. The future there looks very bright indeed.
Not counting out future theme park rides – and a revitalized action option at Disney Parks would go over in a competitive environment; animated series, sure, movies, yes, the thing is, Marvel did do quite well before Disney, it’s worth more now because the technology is in a better place to bring a lot of it’s stuff to life.
Perhaps the answer lies somewhere in between the two points of view. Maybe Mr. Juenger should expand his focus beyond simply movies, but I think it is far from a sure thing that “audiences will keep paying” for everything that Mr. Meyers describes. I would add a wrinkle to Mr. Meyers’ dead-on quality control argument – and that would be a degree of “quantity control”. If the audience is thrown everything that Mr. Meyers describes, even the most ardent Marvel fans – count me as one – could get fatigued. So without quantity AND quality control, it’s my opinion that the “longtail” could lead to diminishing returns. With both types of control, I believe the sky’s the limit.
The reason Marvel IP hasn’t been leveraged as well in the past is because the technology was not there to pull off live-action features. Now that special effects have caught up with the characters and concepts, the feature films establish the brand with adults and younger viewers alike, generating the bulk of the revenue as well as paving the way for ancillary products (cartoons, live-action TV, toys, etc.)
We are now rebooting John Carter on Mars as a Marvel comic book hero.
Then we can remake the movie with all sorts of Marvel characters in it.
Another new-schooler. *sigh*
“John Carter Warlord of Mars” WAS INDEED a Marvel comic in the 70s.
If the movie had been as good as the comic (Gil Kane R.I.P.) it might not have flopped.
Funny – isn’t the reason Iger brought Rich Ross in was to drive franchise creation as he did on TV??? Seems funny that this is going to be the success of decades to come but Iger couldn’t back his hand-picked candidate through Disney’s biggest success to date.
The popularity of these characters should be self-evident by now. Any property that’s been continuously published, merchandised and licensed for fifty years, like the main Marvel books have been, has more than proven it’s value and appeal. Something like Spider-Man or The Avengers that appeals to contemporary children as well as to the nostalgia of their parents and grandparents, is money in the bank, and there’s absolutely no reason to think it won’t be for decades to come.
So what is going to happen to the already awesome Marvel Island in Universal Studios Orlando?
Joe Quesada said the Marvel Island theme park is staying. So Universal I guess still is paying the license.
This Todd Juenger comes off as a bit of an airhead. Marvel has made billions of dollars in the past. Maybe not on its own, but their characters and brand has. Spider-Man and X-Men became billion dollar movie franchises before Marvel Studios started releasing their own movies.
And these characters can be continually reinvented and re-adapted in different forms of media because it had already been happening for decades. Spider-Man had already been a pop-cultural icon for years before the release of his own movie. The Hulk had his own popular live action television series in the 70′s and 80′s. The 1990′s X-Men animated series practically saved the company and Fox Kids and basically made what is happening now possible. People have grown up and responded to these characters for years and it continues with new generations today who now have the movies and the new shows and cartoons. It’s not unlike the response to the Looney Tunes, the Disney animated characters, or even the beloved toys of Toy Story.
Yeah, if Whedon directs and writes….
They have so much potential now with Disney characters, Fairy tales, Muppets, Avengers…
Kermit, the Hulk…He has all the prerequsites: He’s Green, hops well, etc. Just don’t get him angry! How about Mickey Mouse-man? Donald Wolverduck? Don’t you think Super Big Bird would fly?
For aging kids, there can be products like Buzz Light Beer, Iron Man Grill,Snow White Stain Remover, Snow White House cleaning products, Woody Vibrators, (or should that be Pinocchio?)
Movies like “Disney Princesses Go Wild” “The Incredible Hulk in 3D XXX”
So many possibilities and decades to exploit, um, explore them all!
I thought that when Disney made the deal with marvel there was a clause that disney would not be able to sell any marvel merchandise in any disney owned themed park, or have characters or attractions either, mainly due to marvel land in islands of adventure, florida, dont know if this is just a rumour but it would certainly explain the absense of avengers in wdw. and when i spoke to somebody in islands of adventute just last week, they told me that anything with the avengers characters on that they sell, eg, iron man
, sells as soon as it comes back in stock….
Personally, I think the answer lies somewhere in between the opinions of Meyers and the analyst.
A few things to consider: does “Avengers” represent the top (or a short-term top) for the Marvel asset? Of the next few Marvel films to be released, will any of them come close to over $1.3 billion in worldwide gross (which is what “Avengers” has taken in at the time of this post)? What will “Avengers” 2 make? Isn’t it difficult to assume that the sequel will make as much?
I think the big tell in terms of the true value of Marvel will be on display once someone else is cast in a major role. Thought experiment: would all the Marvel fans be upset if the “Avengers” sequel recast all the roles with cheaper players? Talent compensation, especially on sequels to widely successful celluloid products and including participation clauses in addition to salary guarantees, must be considered in any calculation of risk. If all the Marvel fans refuse to support an “Iron Man 4″ with Joe NoName, then will the Marvel asset be counterproductive at some point in the future?
I’m a Disney shareholder, and I have always wondered if Disney could have simply created its own Marvel-like characters (as well as its own Pixar-like characters) without the need for big acquisitions. I look at a multi-billion acquisition and always think about whether I would like it executed over an increase in the dividend…
Avengers 2 will make more than Avengers 1. Bet on that.
I don’t know what you’d we’re talking about but I really in joyed watching the avengers I want to wag h it again me aid and again also journey 2 ad one ifs. Best movies as well I really enjoyed that also alvin and the chipmunks I think that they got their inspiration from nature also choumks well ano