The company is struggling and likely pulling out all the stops the avoid bankruptcy, when you need liquidity this could very much include cuts to otherwise profitable segments.
They still own the underlying IP[^1], so as long as the contract is a decent one, Paramount has to deal with the actual making/distributing the film, and Hasbro just gets the money, and a toy line off the back of the film. Feels like an easier set up than taking the risk on movie-making yourself (which they did attempt with eOne for other properties, but seemingly have decided that it's probably not a good deal with them)
[1] yes, yes, it's a bit more complicated with Takara in the mix too, but you can essentially view it as a Hasbro-owned property
Notably, the entire Death Row Records catalog, Grey's Anatomy, Criminal Minds, international distribution for The Walking Dead, etc.
I guess they don't want to be in the legacy media licensing business.
Isn't that business basically free money? The way I see it, no capital investment is needed. You just need to keep a few accountants and lawyers around to handle occasional licensing paperwork. Am I missing something?
Because this is my layman's conception of how media licensing works, at least.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/present-value-annuity.a...
For assets line like IP you have to factor in how risky the returns are, how much investment you'd have to make to see them (e.g. making a movie), and overall strategy (do we want to be in that line of business).
All this to say - if you have IP that pays 10 million a year, you can value future returns on that IP in today's dollars. If someone offers you more than that to buy it, you should take the deal; you come out ahead.
Hasbro is doing the same. Swap fifty years of slow income for instant liquidity. A company with as many steels in the fire as Hasbro should be able to use that to generate a lot more money than through legacy property.