UlasanAnime.com – This article reflects on the significant decline in Funimation’s sales, noting a drop of over 75% since 2004, a point highlighted by a news piece. The author expresses surprise that the anime market is still as robust as it is today, though acknowledges that comparing it to 1999 might be an exaggeration.
The author recalls presentations from around 2008 or 2009 that suggested anime was not in decline and that Funimation was consistently releasing new products. However, these presentations failed to mention the significant number of re-releases, including older titles and those rescued from ADV/Geneon. The impact of this strategy wasn’t immediately apparent but was later articulated by DL ShawneK.
The piece argues that consumers buying re-releases are typically those interested in older titles. These buyers are generally not hardcore fans, as they would likely already own these titles. Instead, they tend to be individuals new to the hobby or those whose financial situations have improved, such as recent graduates who have found employment.
You might also be interested in : Analyzing Miku’s Success: Part 3
This contrasts sharply with new license releases, which generate excitement and sustained interest. The author likens American fans’ reaction to industry and license announcements to Pavlov’s dogs, anticipating a celebratory response. The author expresses disappointment over the mishandling of public relations for certain titles, such as “Coffee Samurai.” The strategy of re-releasing older titles, presented as progress, is described as a deceptive tactic.
The author suggests that Funimation needs to become more agile. While a title like “Summer Wars” has the potential to be profitable, the author feels the company is not capitalizing on opportune moments. The release of “Summer Wars” this week means it missed the previous holiday season, fiscal quarter, and opportunities to be sold during Navarre’s inventory clearance.
Despite this critique, the author acknowledges the difficulty of faulting Funimation’s actions. The company is taking a cautious approach to new media while relying on established methods. The author supports Funimation’s transition from a model focused on a few major titles to producing dubs for other licensed shows, even when not initially profitable. The stream of re-releases, while having negative consequences, was likely a pragmatic decision given the shrinking licensing market.
Funimation is seen as being in a difficult position. While dubbed content sells, the author questions if it’s accurate to say that “nothing sells that much anymore.” From a business forecasting standpoint, as new companies like NISA and Aniplex innovate their strategies, Funimation risks falling behind in profitability by focusing on cost-cutting rather than strategic shifts. This is contingent on these new companies’ long-term success, as NISA, in its first year as an anime localizer and distributor, is likely already facing challenges with titles that don’t sell, regardless of their appeal.
The North American market has been anticipating a breakout hit akin to “Yugioh” or “Pokemon” for about a decade. The author doubts this wait will end and suggests it may be too late to analyze the flaws in that particular business strategy, humorously suggesting a return to the market conditions of 1999.
