Disney’s purchase of Lucasfilm has stirred up a whole slew of worry and concern. Headlines like “When you wish upon a death star” and “May the mouse be with you” abound, but I have to admit that rather than “I have a bad feeling about this”, I have a good feeling about it.

From a brand perspective it seems an extraordinarily good fit; all-action family entertainment is the hallmark of the Star War franchise and is a perfect fit with what the Disney brand promotes. Indeed Disney has its own history of fantasy adventure films like “20,000 Leagues Under the Sea”

What’s more Disney’s record with some of its other purchases is pretty impressive.

When shortly after the takeover, the new Disney Pixar announced Toy Story 3, many were worried that Disney was just out to milk their new asset. The film however proved to be a huge box-office and critical success winning 2 Oscars and for some is seen as the best of the trilogy.

When Disney bought Marvel Entertainment, there were similar worries. Comic book fans worried about what the Magic Kingdom would do to its heroes and anti-heroes and yet Avengers Assemble allayed their fears and took £937million at the box-office globally.

Now the c

How do we classify success? How do we define it?

For Barack Obama and Mitt Romney success is easy to define. On November 6 the candidate with the most electoral votes (not the most votes) will be elected as the President of the United States of America. For the makers of the latest James Bond movie Skyfall’s success will be taking more at the box office than its predecessor Quantum of Solace, for Manchester City it will be retaining the title as champions of the English Premier League (EPL).

Is success the same for everyone? In every category?

If you talk to current NHL players currently involved in a labour dispute with the league then they won’t say that winning Stanley Cup is success but being able to play this year (http://www.jackjohnson3.com/). For Newcastle United and West Bromwich Albion it is a top 8 finish in the EPL, for Blackberry and Nokia it is returning back to profitability and for England’s Graham Onions it was being able to play cricket again (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cricket/20110547).

Success is not always a clearly classified goal but is defined often by circumstances and means. Success is relative… but relative to what? When assessing the success of new products and their fit within wider portfolios are the right relativities being chosen? Apparently not.

Current statistics vary depending upon the source but the failure rate for new product launches is somewhere between 67% and 90%. Has new product development research misclassified what success means for the brand? Are the right tools chosen to predict success or are the chosen relativities too formulaic such that all new products get judged as if one-size fits all?

But one size fits no-one, because different people have different needs.

Is it time to change our definition of new product success?

Coming next: Part 2 – The impact of consumer behaviour on brand potential.

Some of you may know that is 20 years ago that Nick Hornby’s seminal football book Fever Pitch was published.

I expect fewer still will know and remember the one man stage adaptation of it which starred Tom Watt – radio presenter, journalist and actor – Lofty  in “EastEnders”.

Even fewer may know that the Oxford Playhouse performance was sponsored by a small, forward thinking brand consultancy…

But now you all know – and hopefully the ones who attended and are still here remember it well – TVE’s small part in the literary history of the beautiful game!

It seems like the politicians in Las Vegas aren’t heeding our suggestions and it’s spend, spend, spend.

Late last week, Las Vegas set a new record as the place with the most televised campaign advertisements in a single year when the count passed 73,000. It now has the dubious distinction of being the most saturated media market in what likes it will be the most expensive year in American politics ever.

Media experts are estimating that spending on political advertising in the States could be as much as $3.3 billion this year, which would represent an increase of about a third on the $2.5 billion spent  in 2008.

The New York Times reports that the ads are not going down that well either …

“I hate ’em, I hate ’em, I hate ’em,” said Debbie Markland, 62, a cocktail waitress at a downtown casino who now mutes the television in exasperation during every commercial break. “I can’t wait until this election is over.”

It’s like brainwashing,” said Marques Hill, 27, a bartender.

“It’s sickening,” said Steve Culp, 58, a casino manager.

“The money is obscene. Obscene,” said Jimmie Johns, a retiree. “I have never witnessed a campaign like this one. And I’m 67.”

So while recognising that TV presence is important we would suggest its time the political strategists over there spent some time trying to out-think rather than just out-spend each other.

Angry people are twice as likely to suffer a heart attack as a person in better control of their emotions.

Source: balancetime.com