Hacker News Reader

Comment by rafweverbergh | Hacker News Reader

Thanks for posting, dirtyaura (I wrote the article). Rovio is insanely good at keeping that Angry Birds brand relevant, but I do wonder whether they're too dependent on that one brand. (Armchair business strategist much, lol?)

View on HN

Outside of the phone games and some pictures of merchandise from Finland, I had no idea how big their reach was. Then I saw my 5 year old Nephew recently and was covered head to toe in Angry Birds stuff, coloring a Star Wars Angry Birds coloring book surrounded by Angry Birds toys.

I asked my brother how good my nephew was at playing the games on the phone (considering my brother and his wife don't have smartphones) and he responded "they have games too?"

I've found Angry Birds merchandise in remote villages in Thailand. It's reach is unimaginably large.

Sure, they are a one brand company. It is their Achilles' heel, but I think it doesn't mean that they can't continue their trajectory for a few more years. A rather comparable case of Hello Kitty has been milking billions per year since early 2000s.

Good point.

> continue their trajectory

Nice.

Hopefully they have more products too, just in case current trajectory crashes into some obstacle destabilizing it.

Good story, however I'd like to ask if Vesterbacka made any clearer statements on what "managing revenue" means. Their 2011 filing for the Finnish officials state they made about 75 million euros in revenue (far from the $500 million cited in the article).

Does this number represent the value of the merchandise sales of the company or was he explicitly referring to the revenue of Rovio itself?

Edit: here's the link to the Finnish officials' records http://finder.fi/Televiestintälaitteita%20ja%20palveluja/Rov...

That's a good question. I was also surprised at the number reported by Total Telecom, which is why I asked Vesterbacka to comment via Twitter. No answer yet, though. Thanks for that link.

Thanks for your input - I updated the story.

Finnish accounts show only the financials of the individual P&L rather than the "consolidated Rovio group" P&L. Unless one is provided with an organisational and shareholding structure (with corresponding financials) it is impossible to know what is and isn't accounted.

So you're basically saying we can't know how much business Rovio is generating through fiscally optimized holding structures outside Finland, then?

Updated with your comments, I hope you don't mind, it seemed important for the story to add your perspective. I added a link to the comments here.

Definitely need a clarification.

By comparison, Supercell which has the #1 top grossing app (Clash of Clans) and #4 top grossing app (Hay Day) was reported to have $15M in gross monthly revenue, which is far less than Vesterbacka's statement about Rovio, but closer in line with Rovio's Finnish filing.

Angry Birds Star Wars is currently #46.

Maybe the merchandise and licensing is where the money is at?

Disney at some point was "too dependent" on Mickey (or whatever character). It's how they handle it from here on out. They could go bust or they could become a top entertainment conglomerate.

Yes, agree. They tried that with Amazing Alex, but not too successfully: http://www.whiteboardmag.com/the-app-store-wormhole-why-even...

they are diversifying a bit, such as with the bad piggies (https://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/bad-piggies/id533451786?mt=8) which was pretty popular when it came out (probably still is)

"I do wonder whether they're too dependent on that one brand"

They'll sure milk it as much as they can. But having something that successful gives you something that most people can only dream of: a gigantic advertising opportunity for their next games.

At any point in time where they're still relevant, they can just buy any small game company making the next great game and advertize it like mad, making the next great game even more successful than what it would have be.

They could have bought, say, Riot games if they wanted: the chinese forked "only" 400 millions to buy Riot Games / Leage of Legends.

Whenever Rovio shall feel like it they'll be able to fork out an height or a nine figures to acquire the next big game.

Rinse and repeat.

Wasnt that zynga's strategy too?

Strongly disagree. Riot/LoL is like the exact opposite of what Rovio is as a brand.

Surely that is an almost impossible feat to pull off

1. $NEXTBIGTHING is tiny and cannot be distinguished from the noise

2. $NEXTBIGTHING is going to be the next big thing, but only a few people can realise this

3. $NEXTBIGTHING is spreading like wildfire - the owners of $NEXTBIGTHING could take 400m from you, or they could take 20m in VC and become the next rovio.

The time period between 1. and 3. is probably tiny compared to the time it takes to broker a 400M dollar deal

Reply on news.ycombinator.com