How Merchandising Saves Lives (and why it's a bad thing)

Look at the roster of DC and Marvel superheroes on screen and you'll notice one thing that unites just about all of them. They are visually very distinct. You know Thor from his hammer, Iron Man his metal suit, Superman the big 'S' on his front and Spider-man the spider symbol. As well as making the characters stand out - historically in comic books and now also in film and television - this iconography presents a wealth of opportunities for merchandisers. It's easy to make just about any product link to Batman - just put the 'bat' symbol on it. Moreover, a large proportion of the fans of these characters are children, thus related action figures, dressing up costumes and other toys are extremely marketable. Of course, this marketability relies on consumer demand - shops won't sell toys nobody wants, after all. Comic books, advertisements and television shows go some way to generate this, but nothing boosts it like a blockbuster film. Statistics show that sales of Hasbro Spider-Man merchandise rise up to 60% in the years a film is released about the character, and drop of equal magnitude in those one isn't.

This relationship between the films and merchandisers isn't purely one-sided, however. Why do you think Captain America wears a different outfit in each of his filmic outings? It doesn't make a practical difference, nor alter anything about his character or the stories of the films; the reasoning is purely so that companies like Hasbro can manufacture and sell different merchandise with each film. It's a similar story for the other Avengers, in fact, as well as many of DC's characters.

The many variations of Captain America's outfit. Each has it's own corresponding merchandise.

Now, I know what you're thinking: a few outfit tweaks here and there hardly constitutes an issue that threatens or substantially devalues the genre. But the fact is that merchandising influences stretch further than just costume departments, and in the past have gone as far as to effect the dramatic impact of a film - and not positively. 2016's Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (SPOILER ALERT) ended with the supposed death of Superman. This was a powerful moment in the movie, and served to pave a road of conflict and uncertainty for Batman and the remaining superheroes in DC's Extended Universe, now responsible for ensuring justice in the world. Yet only a year later, (SPOILER ALERT AGAIN) Superman was back, joining Batman and the team in Justice League (2017). In the build up to Batman v Superman, Warner Bros. made $277 million in merchandise licensing fees; enough, it would appear, to tempt them to the Man of Steel's grave with a shovel. After all, how do you maintain demand for Superman figures when the character is no longer around? You don't. But in resurrecting the him - at least as soon as they did - the otherwise meaningful moment of his death was devalued.

What's more, all too often in cases where a superhero does get proper closure - such as Batman in The Dark Knight Rises - studios have been quick to reboot the character in order to continue the merchandise licensing profits. With hype surrounding the release of The Dark Knight Rises - the finale in Christopher Nolan's critically and commercially successful trilogy - Batman rocketed in popularity (see graph below). Accompanying this came global excitement for new merchandise, meaning huge profits from licensing. Interest for the caped crusader then dropped, predictably, over the following year. Did Warner Bros. simply move on from the character, content at having done him justice with the most critically acclaimed superhero trilogy ever made? No, they wanted the commercial boom again, so rebooted the character in Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice in 2015, announcing his return to the big screen only a year after his departure. Sony did something similar with Spider-Man - rebooting the character twice in the last decade. This is not surprising given statistics just prior to their latest reboot (from January 2016) showed Spider-Man to have the highest merchandise sales of any superhero in film, reaching over $1 billion. Batman sat in second place. This clearly benefits the studios, but the calibre of the films seem to have suffered. So far none of the rebooted Batman movies have garnered over 50% on Rotten Tomatoes' critics score. Compare this to the 87% The Dark Knight Rises sits with and it's clear that quality has been sacrificed in favour of profit.

Courtesy of Google Trends, the graph shows interest for Batman (out of 100) on the Y-axis, against time on the X-axis - based on searches in Google Shopping. The green line marks July 2012 (The Dark Knight Rises' release), the red line October 2015.

Since October 2015 - just prior to Batman v Superman's release - searches for Batman in Google Shopping (see graph above) have had an overall decline. This is despite both Batman v Superman and Justice League hitting cinemas. Exact merchandise sales statistics are unavailable, but this strongly suggests a reduction in demand for products linked to the character, which, if it hasn't already, is likely to have a negative impact on Warner Bros.' merchandise licensing profits. I only hope this serves as a lesson to studios to show restraint when faced with the temptations of licensing money, and ensure the quality of their films is the main priority.