Thursday, June 20, 2019

Family Movies: Are they more profitable?

After enjoying the new Disney movie ‘Aladdin’, I decided to do a quick short research.

I wanted to find out how much money this movie is making; in order to test my hypothesis that the producers who invest in family movies are likely to earn higher profits.


For that, we need a sample of family movies, their budgets and their earnings. If we can collect and analyse this data, we will be able to understand if their producers really earned what they wanted.

But, first, a little bit of literature review.

How do we define ‘a family movie’? Typically, the ‘family’ genre of movies has its stories and themes oriented towards families.

Some people differentiate a children’s film from a family film, by saying that the former targets children alone, while the latter offers value for the whole family (Unshrinking the kids: Children's Cinema and the Family Film, a book by Cary Bazalgette, 1995, British Film Institute).

For the purpose of this essay, however, I wish to take G-rated family film and also PG-13 rated teen films into one single category. Since the under-18 kids with families can also watch PG-13 movies, my categorization, I assume, would be acceptable.

If you just type out ‘a family movie’ or ‘family movies’ into your Google search box on your computers, it will immediately return a list of movies it thinks you are looking for.

Among the top family movies, released in the last six years, I found are these, listed in the ascending order: Frozen (2013), Lego Movie (2014), Minions (2015), Moana (2016), Jungle Book (2016), Coco (2017), The Boss Baby (2017), Incredibles 2 (2018), and The Grinch (2018).

In 2019, so far, ‘Dumbo’, ‘How to Train Your Dragon’, ‘Toy Story 4’, and now ‘Aladdin’, have already made waves. And it has not even reached the half-year mark yet.

According to boxofficemojo.com, Aladdin has already made $727 mn, worldwide. And it is not even a month since it released on 24 May 2019. Its production budget was only $183 mn.

‘Frozen’ costed $150 mn to make, but earned a whopping $1.3 bn. ‘Incredibles 2’ was produced at $200 mn, but earned $1.2 bn.

And ‘Minions’ with a production budget of just $74 million earned $1.2 bn worldwide. That’s more than 16 times its cost of production.

Even when we look at PG-13-rated movies made for teens and twenties – especially, the ones with superheroes - the cash registers at cinemas are ringing in loads of dough for the producers.

Last month, in the middle of May 2019, I had stumbled on an interesting piece of news; that ‘Avengers: End Game’ – which had a rousing welcome from movie-goers around the world - has toppled ‘Titanic’ from its second place of the all-time highest grossing movies at the box office.

Now, among the worldwide top-grossing movies of all time, the top five are these: Avatar (2009) made $2.8 bn, Avengers: Endgame (2019), $2.7 bn, Titanic (1997), $2.2 bn, Star Wars: The Force Awakens (2015), $2.1 bn, and Avengers: Infinity War (2018), $2.0 bn.

Quite clearly, the investment into children’s movies, family movies, and teen-adventure or teen fantasy movies will make the producers laugh all the way to their banks.

But, sadly, when you wish to treat your family to good movies, in cinema theatres or on Netflix, the choice is almost always limited.

Of course, a limitation of my research is that we did not consider family movies which may have lost money due to bad craftsmanship.

But one thing is clear. The hypothesis that producers who invest in family movies are likely to earn higher profits, can be said to be true.

Saturday, June 15, 2019

The Growing E-Waste Problem: Who is responsible?

Do you have old electronic equipment at home? That which is unused or no longer usable? And, is it occupying unnecessary space?

From old mobile phones to televisions, from laptops to DVD players, from headphones to gaming consoles, from CDs and video cassettes to wires and plugs, many electronic items must be lying in our houses.

Throwing them into municipal garbage bins is not a recommended option. And, sadly, there are not many e-waste collection facilities available, for us, to dispose them, safely.



So, despite our reluctance, ultimately, much of our electronic stuff might end up in a garbage heap, or in a junkyard. From there, it may go into an incinerator.

Electronic waste that goes into landfills and incinerators will not only cause environmental pollution but also extreme health hazards. Harmful diseases have been found to result from the burning of e-waste.

A great deal of scientific evidence is available today that proves - without a doubt - that unsafe e-waste disposal is a major health hazard.

And that is why we should hold the producers of electronic equipment responsible - at least partially responsible - for this nightmare they are creating in the form of newer and newer electronic gadgets.

Every enhancement in the new models of mobile phones is making old mobile phones obsolete. Every increase in speed and memory of computers is making old laptops and desktops obsolete. Every development in HD, UHD, and 3D television technology is making the old TVs obsolete. Every development in wireless technology is making all the wired technology obsolete.

Today, instead of making long-term durable electronics – on the pretext of advancing technology, and with greed for more profits – electronics product manufacturers are inundating our markets with new gadgets which are no longer compatible with old hardware. They force us to upgrade and to buy new gadgets, by deliberately reducing the product life cycles.

The TIME magazine says, “…dozens of televisions from the 1970s and 1980s have stopped working only recently. Yet instead, technology companies are speeding the pace of obsolescence. Most smartphone batteries can’t be easily replaced when they stop holding a charge, new laptops don’t accept old cables, and software companies push upgrades that won’t run on old devices. ” (The World Has an E-Waste Problem, TIME, 23 May 2019).

The main reason is this.  The existing global Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) laws, which require manufacturers to establish and fund systems to recycle or collect obsolete products, are not being effectively implemented.

Recently, I found a news-item from India which said: “Premium smartphones and electronic merchandise worth 5000 crore rupees (720 million US dollars) of 10 tech companies including Apple, Samsung, Vivo, HP, and Motorola are stranded with customs after the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) suspended their import permits for not complying with e-waste rules” (Apple, Samsung in a jam with imports held up at customs, Economic Times, 12 Apr 2019).

According to the news item, the Indian government suspended the import permits of the 10 companies for violating Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) clauses. The companies had not re-collected e-waste they had promised they would.

By 2025, Singapore will have extended producer responsibility (EPR) laws in place for both packaging and electronic waste (e-waste) which will make it difficult for manufacturers to dump new products on us, without taking back some old ones.

The USA, the UK, and most European countries have already had legislation to make producers re-buy, recollect and re-use their products, for two decades now. But implementation is still a challenge.

As responsible consumers, we must push our governments to insist that producers comply with Extended Producer Responsibility laws, and show us how much e-waste the producers are taking back.

Only then can we curtail this growing e-waste problem.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Suggested Readings:


Europe exporting electronic waste despite a ban

What will Singapore’s producer responsibility laws mean for business?

Extended Producer Responsibility: A Guidance Manual for Governments

Each U.S. Family Trashes 400 iPhones’ Worth of E-Waste a Year


Some pictures from where electronic waste is dumped: