FTC posts X-Men movie/cartoon costumes comparison on Facebook. Hmmmm

[Timothy2251]

Since we're getting a Wolverine from EMCE Toys in the near future, I'm betting FTC won't be getting the X-Men license anytime soon.

The only caveat I'd make, though, is the rumored X-men-less Marvel Universe post-reboot that's been alluded to by sites such as Bleeding Cool. X-Men and FF are in Fox' wheelhouse for films, and allegedly, Marvel's playing down those properties as a result. If a side deal has been cut by FTC for X-Men, that'd be one heck of a coup.

[scott metzger]

And yet Mattel holds the master license to DC and we still get DC ReMegos from FTC.

In today's toy industry, the way licenses can be split up is sometimes mind blowing. Different scales from the same exact property can wind up with different companies, as in Mattel making 6" Batman '66 figures, and FTC making the 8" ones. I think with something like this Hasbro or Mattel, as master license holders, have first shot at things (if it isn't specifically within their existing license), but if they pass, others can jump on board. And the nature of the license can make a difference; I think the '66 Batman license is totally separate from the regular DC license Mattel holds as the rights and such weren't straight out DC/Warner's to begin with. Look at Mattel's Masters of the Universe Classics line, where they had to license the Filmation cartoon characters based on their own property because they no longer owned the rights. Without knowing the exact terms of the agreement Marvel has with Hasbro, it's hard to say what is possible and what isn't.

[Iron Mego]

They said the had the whole DC catalog very early on.

[megocrazy]

The thing that confused me was initially all we heard about was the 66 Batman license. Even the initial protos were all related to that particular license. There was no talk of a complete DC license at all. I actually don't know if there has been ever. The initial mego repro releases were all characters related to the same show, and then they announced Teen Titans. Now Wonder Woman. The thing that really confused me was there were a ton of directions I probably would have gone if the entire license were at my disposal. I'm guessing if there was something shady going on DC would have halted it, but it was kinda strange the way it was presented initially.

[hedrap]

The genius was getting GeekTyrant.com to write the article on June 24th to coincide with their stealth marketing launch of action figures based on the X-Men cartoon & Fox movies.
...And to leak it on Geekxgirls.com a week before that on June 19th.
...And to have them previous GeeksAreSexy.com post a week before that on June 6th.
...And the Dorkly post on June 3rd.
...And if that wasn't enough... to plant the original Tumblr site on May 24th. Almost a whole month before!

No wonder FTC is doing so well. They are always thinking 5 steps ahead. Disguising it as just "yet another comic book meme" making its rounds on the internets. Almost had me fooled.

Pretty sneaky, sis!

Or....once Matty abandoned 8-inch the whole DCU was up for grabs in that scale. We're witnessing, right now, that Hasbro did nothing for Days. So technically they abandoned the X Movies as a license on behest of Marvel. That's pretty much how FTC got Batman '66. Now consider Doc was given an exclusive with limited range, Same deal with the Fox X franchise.

So I don't think it's arbitrary. They're a company that licenses trademarks, not a fansite or aggreagtor. With this one post, they've created what could fall under "market confusion". If they kept it up, as a way to bait people into thinking they were about to get a Marvel deal, Hasbro would eventually send a cease/desist.

It's not hard to see FTC using a free, circulated graphic that someone made for the release of Days, to gauge their audience on how new designs mesh with retro toys. As we've seen on the forum, you can't ask outright because everyone says they're buying when the real number is, at best, half will.

[CrimsonGhost]

LOL! Sprytel for the win.

[sprytel]

The genius was getting GeekTyrant.com to write the article on June 24th to coincide with their stealth marketing launch of action figures based on the X-Men cartoon & Fox movies.
...And to leak it on Geekxgirls.com a week before that on June 19th.
...And to have them previous GeeksAreSexy.com post a week before that on June 6th.
...And the Dorkly post on June 3rd.
...And if that wasn't enough... to plant the original Tumblr site on May 24th. Almost a whole month before!

No wonder FTC is doing so well. They are always thinking 5 steps ahead. Disguising it as just "yet another comic book meme" making its rounds on the internets. Almost had me fooled.

Pretty sneaky, sis!

[Mego Milk]

Guess what, FTC...it worked!

[Iron Mego]

How is showing a picture of costume comparisons "promoting the other guy"? There is no Marvel 8" line to go up against at this point, and the EMCE stuff is so limited that it's not going to warrant much competition in the market as it is. And FTC hasn't asked for suggestions on costumes up to this point, why would they start now, on a license they most likely don't even have?

There are no toys in the pictures. It's a comic related link from a company that is interested in the comics universe. I think all it really shows is how colorful the cartoon costumes are vs. the black/grey "armor" of nearly EVERY movie X-Men costume.

[ThePlayerOnTheOtherSide]

Again mentioning and discussing the competition is not promoting. You are suggesting using social platforms for traditional marketing.

Sigh. Ok then.

[madmarva]

Again mentioning and discussing the competition is not promoting. You are suggesting using social platforms for traditional marketing. Certainly, those platforms can help with that. I'm not suggesting that traditional marketing should not be included in a social marketing strategy, but I am suggesting that if that strategy does not include the component of listening and engaging your consumers about your own product and the competitors' products through chats, forums, blogs, Facebook, Twitter and other relavant social platforms to learn what consumers think of both, then that strategy is not maximizing the opportunity.

I do look forward to at least scanning your book in a book store if not purchasing it. I'll take a good idea anywhere I can get it.

[ThePlayerOnTheOtherSide]

nt....

[madmarva]

If the competition is never brought into the conversation, it is difficult to learn what consumers like and do not like about the products you are competing against. The information is also unfiltered. Survey's are costly and the questions are usually rigid. The way a question is asked can often lead a consumer so the validity of the information can be suspect. Knowing a customer is satisfied or unsatisfied with a product is good information, but knowing why is much better and more useful. Also, I'm not suggesting making the competition a tent pole of a company's social media efforts. I am simply saying the fear of mentioning or using the competition for your own means in social marketing is outdated thinking. Learning about the competition is merely an aspect of the conversation not the entirety of it.

Mentioning Marvel characters in one post isn't going to greatly help or hurt FTC, but it could provide the company with some useful bit of information. There is a fishing aspect to social media. Sometimes you catch something, sometimes you don't. There is a short- and long-game aspect to it that need to be mastered to make the most out of social media efforts.

Saying social media is free was wrong. It does cost the commitment of man power and possibly some equipment. It can't be thrown on top of one person who already has too much to do, and upper management must recognize the benefit that can be gained by stepping out of the box, but it does not cost what traditional marketing and advertising do. Setting up blogs, Facebook pages, twitter and Other accounts are free. Employees can do this for themselves and often find it a fun escape from their regular order of business. Some are resistant to the process, but every employee or manager does not have to be involved in social media for it to be effective.

I would like to read your book. What's the title or could you post a link to it on Amazon?

The ideas you have mentioned in this thread seem to be just transferring traditional marketing to new medium, but I understand not wanting to give the best ideas of your book away on a message board. Used to its fullest extent, social media can be more than just getting the message out or protecting a brand. That can be hard to relate to key decision makers.

[jayraytee]

I think everyone is reading too much into it. I think it was just something the person that runs the FTC facebook saw and thought was interesting and posted it to facebook. I think that is all that was behind it. I don't think it had anything to do with marketing anything. May not of even been to gather consumer feelings on products either. It legitimately could of been as simple as hey look at this article. Especially considering they are producing Batman 66 (TV) and Batman (comic) Mego reproductions at the same time. So the article might of just interested them and thought it might interest others.

[ThePlayerOnTheOtherSide]

Again you miss the point. A company with a smart social marketing plan wants consumers thoughts not only on its products but also the competitions to make improvements on its own products. The old fear of mentioning the competition ( not promoting) is out the window. The difference is there is no monetary cost to social marketing. Now a company would not want to purchase ad space or time and mention the competition in most situations but the conversation on Facebook or from message boards is free. The whole idea of not acknowledging a competitor is petty and frankly condescending to consumers. Just because something is traditional doesn't make it right for every situation.

FTC can do all that without mentioning characters associated with a license that they do not own. The idea today is that you gain credibility by not RUNNING DOWN the competition. There's no need too, just like there's no need to promote the competition when you could be promoting your own products.

As for the thought that social media is 'free', sorry but you could not be more wrong. I battle this misconception every day and it drives me up a wall.

I have been advising brands for 8 years on how to use social media to create content that best creates value for its customers, and I've written a pretty popular book on the topic. I'd like to think I know what I am talking about here.