Movies -- people love them. They are an ingrained part of our culture, representing an important social nexus where people come together and share communal experiences that can and will touch their lives, sometimes in profound ways. Any social nexus presents vast investment opportunities for companies; it's no wonder that the film business rakes in many billions.
Unfortunately, movies are one tough business: Companies such as Fox (NYSE: FOX), Sony (NYSE: SNE), and Lions Gate Entertainment (NYSE: LGF) are trying to cut all competitive throats in sight. Talk to executives at Disney (NYSE: DIS), and they'll tell you how difficult it is to achieve decent returns on investment. Predicting the success (or failure) of a particular project can be an exercise in futility.
Which brings me to Viacom's (NYSE: VIA) Lemony Snicket's A Series Of Unfortunate Events. I thought this was going to go through the roof, to be honest. Many observers came to the same conclusion that I did when seeing the trailer -- Viacom has come up with a potentially usable paradigm for capturing the Harry-Potter zeitgeist that worked so well for another media conglomerate, Time Warner (NYSE: TWX). The lush fantastical world brimming with the chaotic doings of an evil count played by the likes of Jim Carrey seemed a good bet. Nevertheless, by definition, bets are just as apt to go south as they are to trek in a northerly direction; Snicket turned out to go against my expectations, it seems. This is disappointing for Viacom, considering its recent troubles with the Paramount division.
It's not the mother of all bombs, to be sure, but as I write this, the not-cheap-to-make movie still has yet to break the $100 million barrier (Viacom has a releasing partner in DreamWorks SKG on Snicket, so it should be noted that the risk has been shared). In fact, it's not even comfortably close to that mark. As I write this, the movie has taken in slightly more than $75 million after almost two weeks, according to boxofficemojo.com. Doesn't seem appropriate, even with the much-discussed "dark themes" and "black humor" the plot apparently presents (I have yet to see the flick). But it doesn't matter what I think -- only the value that the collective marketplace sees fit to bestow matters.
Viacom shareholders were certainly hoping for an unqualified, runaway phenomenon to get the stock back on track. As Rick Munarriz has pointed out, a single film does not make a run-up in valuation, but movie studios oftentimes can benefit from a blockbuster that seems to usher in better prospects for an upcoming slate; that may sound too existential to some, but reality sometimes works that way. And when slates are on fire, the studio segments do better and can drive earnings, leading to better growth potential for the equity tied to the media concern.
It takes a lot of patience these days to hold a stock like Viacom or Disney; their performance the last five years or so has been anything but outstanding (take it from me, a Disney shareholder). Longer-term, though, I believe they have a shot at outperforming the market, since I don't take lightly the idea that entertainment is an important way to play the opportunities inherent in the gregarious nature of the global population.
For more articles on issues involving media companies, see:
Fool contributor Steven Mallas owns shares of Disney.
Terms & Conditions
RSS Headlines
Fool UK