INCREDIBLE!

[Braylon]

Quote: Originally Posted by Erratic

I didn't know EA's financial manager had joined us. Welcome buddy...

Just wish I had the money to get in on it. It's actually a somewhat rare occurence that something like this would be announced in such a way that many people had an opportunity to prepare before the market opened. After the increase after the NFL deal, I knew this was going to happen today. I just wish I had the money to get in on it.

[grunt]

Quote: Originally Posted by Braylon

To answer your questions... Zero more games will have to be sold to make a profit. If sales and price remain constant, even with this added cost, EA still turns a profit. Additional revenue streams? For one, there is no competition. For another, this isn't just a licensing deal, it's a marketing integration deal. EA and ESPN won't necessarily fuse per se, but there will be EA and ESPN tie ins in their respective media. EA will likely be infused with Sportcenter, and ESPN's involvement within EA games will be obvious. There are talks that EA and ESPN will launch gaming leagues, fantasy leagues, in-game ESPN content, online gaming with ESPN content, etc. This is huge. It's not just slapping ESPN graphics on Madden. And yes, EA has won. EA's value as a company has increased about 14% between the NFL and ESPN deals so far.

I think your wrong. If the sales and price stay constant then their profits compare to the year before will be less. Last year they didnt need to spend 100 mil and this year they did. That is clear.

There will always be competition in the market place. Take-Two will make sport games and consumers will buy these games. EA partneship with ESPN will not bring any more money into their company coffers. EA has been on ESPN for the past few years, including this year.

Dont declare victory before the battle. Many firms try to rig the market place and lost. Just something to think about.

Peace

[Braylon]

Quote: Originally Posted by grunt

I think your wrong. If the sales and price stay constant then their profits compare to the year before will be less.

Of course they will. But they still turn a profit. You said they need to sell more to turn a profit. I proved that they could sell the same, with sales and price remaining constant, and still turn a profit.

But, of course, sales are not going to remain constant. Sales will increase by EA being the only game in town, and by the marketing integration with ESPN

Quote: Originally Posted by grunt

Last year they didnt need to spend 100 mil and this year they did. That is clear.

They didn't have to spend $100m (and that number is wrong no matter how you look at it...long term we're looking at a combined $600m over 5 and 15 years...short term, about $85-90m a year...you forgot to factor out the difference between what they are paying for licenses now and what they will pay under these deals).

They spent it to make money. And they have made a killing.

Quote: Originally Posted by grunt

There will always be competition in the market place. Take-Two will make sport games and consumers will buy these games.

An inconsequential number of consumers will buy these games. Before this deal, Sega had an 8% market share in the sports game market. That will drop to 1% after this deal, and EA's market share will gobble all of that up and then some.

Quote: Originally Posted by grunt

EA partneship with ESPN will not bring any more money into their company coffers.

The deal has made $421,000,000 today so far. Today.

Quote: Originally Posted by grunt

EA has been on ESPN for the past few years, including this year.

A couple of commercials is not integrated marketing. You know nothing about business.

Quote: Originally Posted by grunt

Dont declare victory before the battle. Many firms try to rig the market place and lost. Just something to think about.

Seriously, you know nothing about business. These deals are exactly how money is made.

You don't think Ford made money by acquiring Lincoln, Mercury and Jaguar? You don't think General Motors made money by acquiring Chevrolet, Pontiac, Oldsmobile and Buick?

I am just curious what you have that would suggest that the business world is completely wrong and that this deal will not make money for everyone. ESPECIALLY considering that the NFL deal paid for both of these deals twice over ALREADY, and this deal has made EA over $400m TODAY ALONE.

[grunt]

Quote: Originally Posted by Braylon

Of course they will. But they still turn a profit. You said they need to sell more to turn a profit. I proved that they could sell the same, with sales and price remaining constant, and still turn a profit. But, of course, sales are not going to remain constant. Sales will increase by EA being the only game in town, and by the marketing integration with ESPN They didn't have to spend $100m (and that number is wrong no matter how you look at it...long term we're looking at a combined $600m over 5 and 15 years...short term, about $85-90m a year...you forgot to factor out the difference between what they are paying for licenses now and what they will pay under these deals). They spent it to make money. And they have made a killing. An inconsequential number of consumers will buy these games. Before this deal, Sega had an 8% market share in the sports game market. That will drop to 1% after this deal, and EA's market share will gobble all of that up and then some. The deal has made $421,000,000 today so far. Today. A couple of commercials is not integrated marketing. You know nothing about business. Seriously, you know nothing about business. These deals are exactly how money is made. You don't think Ford made money by acquiring Lincoln, Mercury and Jaguar? You don't think General Motors made money by acquiring Chevrolet, Pontiac, Oldsmobile and Buick? I am just curious what you have that would suggest that the business world is completely wrong and that this deal will not make money for everyone. ESPECIALLY considering that the NFL deal paid for both of these deals twice over ALREADY, and this deal has made EA over $400m TODAY ALONE.

Its funny you are using Ford and GM as examples. I think those are good examples for EA but other companies such as Honda, Toyota, and Datsun/Nissan decided to gain market share in a diffrent way. Make a better product. The Accord/Camry/ Altima are top cars in our country.

Its funny I remember when people said they would never buy a Japanese luxury car. Guess what? Infinty, Acura, and Lexus are doing well. Instead of buying existing brand to create market share they made a better quality product.

Just something to think about.

Peace

[killspeed52]

Damn Braylon, you're sure on top of this. I don't doubt for a second that the main thrust of what you're saying is true. EA has "won" in several ways, just like bullies usually do. They destroyed their smaller, superior football competitor, and look to be poised to maintain their large lead in other sports games.

But what the hell gets you so jazzed about the 800-pound gorilla stomping all over everyone else and attempting to monopolize a business? No, I don't need to be lectured on why EA and EA Sports aren't actually monopolies...I said attempting to monopolize.

As a qualified business expert, you must realize that the stock market is not a static entity. You don't "make $400 million" in the market until you sell, and I don't think EA is cashing their chips in today. The stock market is dynamic, and stock values actually go both up and down, believe it or not. Big business deals create big reactions that can send a stock's price soaring, only to come back down later -- see AOL/Time Warner or MCI/Worldcom or DaimlerChrysler or Enron. I'm not saying this will happen, as I think EA continues to be in a very good position in a growing business. They are the market leader. But companies do not "make $400 million" on the market from day to day...this is all on paper.

I do completely agree that the ESPN deal is very smart, and gives EA Sports loads of new marketing power. However, though the NFL deal is big, it's big only because it destroys the competition, not because it actually grows the market. This NFL deal is EA spending a bunch of money to reclaim dominance they had just a couple of years ago in a sector (football games) that may not grow to justify the expense.

[Erratic]

Quote: Originally Posted by grunt

Its funny you are using Ford and GM as examples. I think those are good examples for EA but other companies such as Honda, Toyota, and Datsun/Nissan decided to gain market share in a diffrent way. Make a better product. The Accord/Camry/ Altima are top cars in our country. Its funny I remember when people said they would never buy a Japanese luxury car. Guess what? Infinty, Acura, and Lexus is doing well. Instead of buying existing brand to create market share they made a better quality product. Just something to thimk about. Peace

great post

[Braylon]

Quote: Originally Posted by grunt

Its funny you are using Ford and GM as examples. I think those are good examples for EA but other companies such as Honda, Toyota, and Datsun/Nissan decided to gain market share in a diffrent way. Make a better product. The Accord/Camry/ Altima are top cars in our country. Its funny I remember when people said they would never buy a Japanese luxury car. Guess what? Infinty, Acura, and Lexus are doing well. Instead of buying existing brand to create market share they made a better quality product. Just something to think about.

For your point to be valid in relation to this argument, a new league would have to be formed that overtook the NFL, and a new network would have to overcome ESPN, and then a new company would have to get these licenses and produce a better game than EA.

That's what happened in America with those auto makers. Japanese cars came and people bought them. That would mean that new leagues and networks would have to come to make your analogy work.

[Braylon]

Quote: Originally Posted by killspeed52

Damn Braylon, you're sure on top of this. I don't doubt for a second that the main thrust of what you're saying is true. EA has "won" in several ways, just like bullies usually do. They destroyed their smaller, superior football competitor, and look to be poised to maintain their large lead in other sports games. But what the hell gets you so jazzed about the 800-pound gorilla stomping all over everyone else and attempting to monopolize a business? No, I don't need to be lectured on why EA and EA Sports aren't actually monopolies...I said attempting to monopolize. As a qualified business expert, you must realize that the stock market is not a static entity. You don't "make $400 million" in the market until you sell, and I don't think EA is cashing their chips in today. The stock market is dynamic, and stock values actually go both up and down, believe it or not. Big business deals create big reactions that can send a stock's price soaring, only to come back down later -- see AOL/Time Warner or MCI/Worldcom or DaimlerChrysler or Enron. I'm not saying this will happen, as I think EA continues to be in a very good position in a growing business. They are the market leader. But companies do not "make $400 million" on the market from day to day...this is all on paper. I do completely agree that the ESPN deal is very smart, and gives EA Sports loads of new marketing power. However, though the NFL deal is big, it's big only because it destroys the competition, not because it actually grows the market. This NFL deal is EA spending a bunch of money to reclaim dominance they had just a couple of years ago in a sector (football games) that may not grow to justify the expense.

This was a very good post. See Grunt? This guy understand business and formulates solid arguments. You could learn from him.

Why am I happy about EA stomping the competition? Honestly, I prefer EA's games to ESPN's. However, I like ESPN and I want a game that has Madden's gameplay (actually, I am far more into the college game than the NFL, and I am one of those weird people who think NCAA 2005 was a great game...so NCAA 2005's gameplay) with the ESPN presentation.

The way things were, that was not going to happen. Now, it is.

At this point, EA is an 800lb gorilla like you said. What I want next is for them to buy VC and incorporate into Madden (NCAA 2005) the best parts of the current ESPN series.

Options and competition are great, but it always leads to a "well, I love X, but I wish it had this part from Y" situation. With these two moves, my wishes have become closer to being granted.

Also, I want an AFL game. According to EA's deal with the AFL, they have to make a game.

The $400m is a paper gain, you are right. EA's net worth increased. But the question here was whether the stockholders were happy about this. Their portfolios have grown by 12-14% because of these deals, and they are happy about that.