I remember when Marvel Comics went bankrupt in the mid 1990s. I was at the tail end of my career as a comic book collector and I was saddened by the possibility the comic book company that brought us the Fantastic Four, Spider-Man, The Incredible Hulk, X-Men and Iron Man (my favourite) was going to die such a death.
What a difference ten years makes. Somewhat akin to the resurrection of Apple computers when you think about it.
How did it happen?
Among other reasons, Marvel perfected the art of licensing its trade-marks. When the first Spider-Man movie hit the silver screen in 2001, Marvel received only 5% of the $400 million dollars the movie grossed in the United States of America. The rest went to Sony. Sony had, smartly, previously purchased the theatrical rights to the comic book character.
Marvel obviously had someone in its organization who figured out that there was another way to make money from Spider-Man - by licensing the Spider-Man trade-marks and associated goodwill. In 2002, Marvel generated $155 million dollars from toys and other goods bearing the Spider-Man symbol, logo, etc.
Using this model, Marvel went on to monetize various other superhero characters and the company now generates approximately $230 million annually simply from its licensing business. Marvel is now (or was in 2006) the fourth leading licensor in the world after Disney, Warner Bros., Nickelodeon, and Viacom. Marvel has licensing arrangements for all manner of goods and services with companies ranging from Johnson & Johnson (for health and beauty products) to Microsoft (for a multiplayer online game set in the Marvel universe).
The point I am trying to make here is that there is more to the world of intellectual property than patents and copyright. In particular, patents. The company that owns the brand Jack Daniels is one part manufacturing company and one part branding company. Indeed, Jack Daniels and other brands of that type have, in some circumstances, eclipsed the product behind the brand such that the product is sometimes purchased by consumers for the brand and not the other way around.
Who would have thought.
Posted by: |