Pixar

Disney used the character of Mickey Mouse and others to create movies that customers enjoyed like “Beauty and the Beast” while Pixar was producing made up animated characters to create films like “Cars” and “Wall-E”. Disney was creating animated movies but struggling to generate the amount of money Pixar was making on producing only one movie a year. Disney wanted to grow in creating more animated movies and decided to buy out Pixar in 2006 for $7.4 million dollars. (Barnes, 2008) According to Disney’s CEO Robert

Buying energetic, young and creative Pixar, Disney intends to regain lost ground. But, they must do that in a smart way, to satisfy the needs of the Pixar owners, shareholders and employees. Back to the ownership test, the Disney ownership of Pixar will produce a greater competitive advantage for them. They will lose a powerful competitor, and will produce something

Disney’s tentpole strategy has been fairly successful throughout the Disney Studios lifetime. Even though this strategy worked in the past it may not be the best strategy moving forward, as there are advantages and disadvantages to this strategy. One advantage of this strategy is that the tentpole films attract movie going customers that think of the movies more as an event rather than just a film they want to see.“A $200 million movie is more likely than a $20 million movie to have elements that appeal to moviegoers--to have special value for them.”, said Horn. Just as with any bet, there could also be a risk and disadvantage. If the film fails, they would both have to take the fall instead of just Disney Studios. “When our

Introduction: The Walt Disney Company is on the threshold of a new era. Michael Eisner has stepped down from his position as CEO and turned over the reigns to Robert Iger. A lot of turmoil has been brewing through the company over the last four years; many people are hoping that this change in leadership will put Disney back on the road to success. Issues began around mid-2002; when declining earnings, fleeing shareholders, and

Disney’s acquisition of Pixar had both benefits and implications for both parties involved. By acquiring Pixar, Disney was given access to Pixar’s proprietary technology, which was an important factor, as well as access to new characters. These characters provided a new source of income for Disney, not just for movies, but also to use in theme parks, merchandise stores, etc., meaning new characters would supply immense revenue streams for Disney in several forms. Disney also gained strengthened market power, as acquiring one of their rivals would give them a competitive advantage and would simultaneously make them more powerful in the market. Additionally, Disney was never very successful with their animated movies, and acquiring Pixar would

Based on our valuation of the investment, as outlined below in the Analysis portion of the report, we have determined a per-movie-value of $8.9 million when considering purchasing the rights to the entire portfolio of 99 movies analyzed in the sample data. Based on production of 10 sequels, the per-movie-value of the portfolio would be $52.25 million. Our calculations based on the hypothetical portfolio is that Arundel Partners should make this investment as long as the present value of the expected cash flows from the sequel revenues exceeds the cost of production plus the cost of the investment. Depending on what value a studio will accept as payment per sequel, there appears to be significant profitability in the investment.

The film industry has always been somewhat of a dichotomy. Grounded firmly in both the worlds of art and business the balance of artistic expression and commercialization has been an issue throughout the history of filmmaking. The distinction of these two differing goals and the fact that neither has truly won out over the other in the span of the industry's existence, demonstrates a lot of information about the nature of capitalism.

In addition, by having access to the Pixar brand and its characters, they would help to supplement Disney’s existing characters across its different businesses like theme parks, merchandise, and television, which provide more sales opportunities. Despite the dilution of Disney’s earnings per share, it is for the short-term. The acquisition fills a crucial strategic gap for Disney and can create long-term value for its shareholders. As such, Pixar is a “near perfect strategic fit” for Disney and hence should be acquired by Disney to remain competitive.

This is Disney we’re talking about, the studio that not only has raised the bar, it created the bar so of course the giant can afford to take risks. Though the studio continues to put their money into the safe “Fairy Tale” path, instead of continuing to make great original films like “Wreck It Ralph” and “Big-Hero 6.” Both of these films were decently advertised, but what about the film that is still being raved about two years later. Disney is all about advertisement and selling their products, and with the extreme hit of “Frozen” the studio has a new product to sell besides the old “Disney Princess” Line. Once again Disney is sticking to their guns of keeping it safe, instead of the great original works that it had done previously and

This study examines how leadership, teamwork, and organizational learning can contribute in making mergers and acquisitions work. Our intention is to identify critical factors and practices needed for merger success. Our research is part of an ongoing project, and builds on previous analysis of merger success/failure in such organizations as Standard Oil, Exxon Mobile, and Time Warner-AOL. In this paper, we turn our attention to the recent merger of Pixar and Disney. In our view, the Disney-Pixar case seems to be a good example of a successful merger in progress. This is demonstrated very clearly by recent box office successes such as Academy Award

The Walt Disney Company (DIS) has a history marked with ups and downs. Taking numerous risks, expanding internationally, acquiring various businesses and diversifying its operations; the company has emerged stronger than ever. Ranking #53 on the Fortune 500, DIS has experienced continuous growth for the past 5 years, with bright prospects. Detailed analysis shows the market undervaluing the stock despite its healthy performance, indicating potential future gains.

As a subsidiary company of Disney, one of the biggest companies in the entertainment industry, Pixar has strong financial support. Disney provides the production cost of the films, and it handles marketing and films promotions as well as distributions. Each of Pixar’s films made between $300 million and $1 billion at the box office, and two of them have exceeded $1 billion in income (Lynch, 2016).

Known to be one of the largest producers of multi-media content, Walt Disney and Pixar greatly impacted the entertainment industry with the use of three-dimensional generated content. It quickly gained popularity with the release of its animated movies and especially got the attention of children from their sequels. With the growing popularity, the competition in the media industry began to increase. Disney was then faced with a difficult decision regarding its relationship with Pixar on whether they should acquire or not acquire the company.

Established in 1923, Disney Studios released the first ever full-length animated feature film, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs in 1937. By 2015, Disney Studios employed about “6,500 employees, and spent $2 billion producing films annually”. Alan Horn, Chairman of the Walt Disney Studios, oversees five studios, that together made up Disney Studios. The Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures ‘Disney Live Action’ and Walt Disney Animation Studios ‘Disney Animation’ are directly from Walt Disney’s original studio. The three others were acquisitions made during Bob Iger’s time as chief executive officer of The Walt Disney Company. The first was Disney's competitor animation studio, Pixar, which was purchased for $7.4 billion in 2006; second, Marvel Entertainment, which had its roots in comic books, for $4 billion in 2009; and finally the legendary filmmaker George Lucas’ Lucasfilm for $4.05 billion in 2012. During this time, Disney Studios began pursuing a “tentpole” strategy, which entails investing in higher budget films that would hopefully produce a larger profit by pulling in a large portion of the market. The larger profit would also help compensate for losses that may occur in smaller budgeted films. As it stands, Disney studios currently produces 10-12 films annually with approximately eight of them with production budgets in excess of $150 million. The current breakdown of tentpole films expected annually is as follows: two from Marvel, one from Lucasfilm, one from Pixar,

So, when all departments contribute together to create value for consumers, the process will become more effective and efficient while the products quality will increase (Slater & Narver March-April 1994). In addition, the employees should be treated as the “assets” of a company. This is because employees are always the one who have interaction with the customers. So, some big and success organisation like Walt Disney gives a staff training before they interact with customers (McChesney July 1997).