>>10671407>could be the next big thing toywise in the westBut you don't even know how close it is, thanks to no one bothering to adjust for inflation.
Again, using Looney Tunes in 1978 as an example, it made HALF A billion dollars in a single year, on merch sales alone. You found a source it's made 15 billion in its lifetime. That means a SINGLE YEAR made up 1/30 of all the money Looney Tunes made in its 93 years of existing.
Does that sound right to you?
Despite 1978 being decades after the golden age of the cartoons where they were pumping out dozens of shorts every single year? Despite 1978 being almost a decade before theme parks used them as a theme? Despite 1978 being over a decade before Warner Bro stores were opened in malls across America to sell Looney Tunes products almost exclusively?
1978 was ONE THIRTIETH of it's total money made in its nearly hundred years of existence.
A single year of merch sales made up 1/30th of all money made total: compared to 92 other years of sales, licensing, marketing, syndication, movie tickets, promotions, and who knows how many other sources of revenue.
And Looney Tunes isn't even on the list you posted, where the lowest number is only 17 billion.
>>could be the next big thing toywise in the westIt bears repeating that you have no idea how flawed this is. Movie sales as an example, cause someone did the work for inflation and ticket sales, with inflation not keeping up with wages and tickets cost much more than they did long ago. In other words, films like Gone with the Wind, A New Hope, ET and Dr Zhivago were far more popular than movies like Avatar Titanic, and Force Awakens: up to around a hundred million more tickets were sold at the widest gulf (in the US, cause getting numbers from other countries becomes sketchy). Nevermind syndication/tv rights+vhs/dvd/bd sales, it would still skew heavily toward the older movies, since more people watched TV even a decade ago than how fractured and insular people are now
