|
|
Post by Next Manufactured’s Sweater on Jan 11, 2023 8:59:44 GMT -5
The biggest issue is WWE making every old timer sign a legends deal in the first place. There’s no reason why Mattel couldn’t ask WWE to sign guys to a action figure only contract. There are many reasons why Mattel couldn’t ask WWE to sign guys to action figure only contracts - chief one being WWE is very unlikely to see a decent return on the investment. These obscure 1980s wrestlers aren’t going to be the hottest toy of next Christmas. You’re proposing a scenario where: WWE pays Butch Reed’s estate several thousand dollars for the rights to make dolls of him. Mattel makes and sells the dolls, which amounts to a small quantity. Mattel gives some small royalty percentage of those sales to WWE. That percentage at the end will almost definitely not cover what the original payment to the estate was, let alone the related legal and admin costs. If signing obscure wrestlers to toy-only deals was profitable, Mattel wouldn’t have stopped doing it. Now, the likeness rights cost gets spread over various forms of media via a WWE legends deal so there’s a much better chance of making the money back. WWE and Mattel are businesses. |
|
|
|
Post by newgenandy on Jan 11, 2023 11:24:24 GMT -5
The biggest issue is WWE making every old timer sign a legends deal in the first place. There’s no reason why Mattel couldn’t ask WWE to sign guys to a action figure only contract. There are many reasons why Mattel couldn’t ask WWE to sign guys to action figure only contracts - chief one being WWE is very unlikely to see a decent return on the investment. These obscure 1980s wrestlers aren’t going to be the hottest toy of next Christmas. You’re proposing a scenario where: WWE pays Butch Reed’s estate several thousand dollars for the rights to make dolls of him. Mattel makes and sells the dolls, which amounts to a small quantity. Mattel gives some small royalty percentage of those sales to WWE. That percentage at the end will almost definitely not cover what the original payment to the estate was, let alone the related legal and admin costs. If signing obscure wrestlers to toy-only deals was profitable, Mattel wouldn’t have stopped doing it. Now, the likeness rights cost gets spread over various forms of media via a WWE legends deal so there’s a much better chance of making the money back. WWE and Mattel are businesses. No mattel are an entity which supplies random, obscure,, uncommercial niche figures to adult collectors for no other reason than they demand it |
|
Greensborohill
Main Eventer
CHAMPION
Joined on: Jan 14, 2007 14:44:44 GMT -5
Posts: 2,657
|
Post by Greensborohill on Jan 11, 2023 13:07:12 GMT -5
I see The Goon ( and other questionable guys) with a figure and no: Dino Bravo Butch Reed Corporal Kierschner (sure I spelled that wrong) Hercules Hernandez Bad News Brown Dynamite Kid Amongst others I understand a legends contract issue but man, after this long? Here's the answer from the horses mouth. I asked this question back on 12/14/22, so about a month ago. I was surprised by the answer "I could make any of those work at retail". I was very pleased by that answer actually. Is it possible to crowd fund certain 80's era legends that may not be viable at retail? Either as a set of six, individually or as multipacks? Lot's of guys could possibly be slotted here: Hercules Hernandez Ron Bass Ken Patera Butch Reed Killer Bees Rougeau Brothers Adrian Adonis Billy Jack Hayes etc It’s not about viability. I could make any of those work at retail. We just don’t have rights to them at the moment and crowdfunding doesn’t really solve that. I’ll keep plugging away at getting new names added to the Legends roster though. |
|
|
|
Post by stc13 on Jan 11, 2023 14:17:03 GMT -5
The biggest issue is WWE making every old timer sign a legends deal in the first place. There’s no reason why Mattel couldn’t ask WWE to sign guys to a action figure only contract. There are many reasons why Mattel couldn’t ask WWE to sign guys to action figure only contracts - chief one being WWE is very unlikely to see a decent return on the investment. These obscure 1980s wrestlers aren’t going to be the hottest toy of next Christmas. You’re proposing a scenario where: WWE pays Butch Reed’s estate several thousand dollars for the rights to make dolls of him. Mattel makes and sells the dolls, which amounts to a small quantity. Mattel gives some small royalty percentage of those sales to WWE. That percentage at the end will almost definitely not cover what the original payment to the estate was, let alone the related legal and admin costs. If signing obscure wrestlers to toy-only deals was profitable, Mattel wouldn’t have stopped doing it. Now, the likeness rights cost gets spread over various forms of media via a WWE legends deal so there’s a much better chance of making the money back. WWE and Mattel are businesses. It's not a question of if it would or wouldn't be profitable. But like you said, it's what's MORE profitable. Mattel could probably cover their costs pretty easily doing direct deals. Those types of contacts are going to pay a modest downside, and then a percentage of sales over that threshold. They know how many units they sell and where their break even points are, and could structure contracts accordingly. Those arrangements have been done for talent ranging from huge names to relatively obscure. But it's not in Mattel's or WWE's financial interest to do so. The current arrangement allows Mattel to avoid the direct cost of signing talent (and the added background work of managing contracts, legal, etc). And by contracting talent that can then be licensed out across all their licenses (cards, toys, video games, etc), WWE is able to offer a value-add to their licensees that ends up being more profitable for WWE in the long run. Ultimately the why doesn't matter. It is what it is, and all we do is hope those want-list figures get made and hope that folks like Steve get a few names off their want list. But it's a safe bet that the current arrangement is in place because it makes both companies the most money. |
|
themadbubbler
Mid-Carder
Joined on: Dec 6, 2022 18:15:48 GMT -5
Posts: 89
|
Post by themadbubbler on Feb 26, 2023 20:05:55 GMT -5
I will say, with a few names mentioned in OP's post, WWE is probably hesitant to sign them to Legends contracts. Corporal Kirchner wasn't in WWF for long, quit after a drug-related suspension, and had a rep for being a surly guy. Dino Bravo had his mob connections and unfortunate death. Dynamite Kid was an overall terrible human being. The fact that smaller companies have made Dynamite Kid figures shows that his estate is willing to license out his likeness, but WWE doesn't want to be associated with hi, and frankly, I don't blame them.
|
|
