The Wiggles vs. Disney Channel Australia

Started by danielcelano, Jun 07, 2014, 06:26 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

danielcelano

The Wiggles have a lot of similarities from the Beatles but what we don't understand is that most people of Australia don't watch The Wiggles and Disney Channel at the same time, not even a Disneyland special. But what if somebody has it with a clearer high copy? I'll show you an example.

http://wiggles.wikia.com/wiki/File:AnthonyatSleepingBeauty'sCastle.jpg

nimrod

Quote from: danielcelano on Jun 07, 2014, 06:26 PM
The Wiggles have a lot of similarities from the Beatles but what we don't understand is that most people of Australia don't watch The Wiggles and Disney Channel at the same time, not even a Disneyland special. But what if somebody has it with a clearer high copy? I'll show you an example.

http://wiggles.wikia.com/wiki/File:AnthonyatSleepingBeauty'sCastle.jpg

Ive never even seen them, been in Oz since 1987

Moogmodule

Quote from: nimrod on Jun 07, 2014, 06:36 PM
Ive never even seen them, been in Oz since 1987

The Wiggles are a toddler/young kids group. So unless you have kids that age you wouldn't know much about them.

They were very clever though. They saw a market niche to target young kids of baby boomers. Basically give them their own Beatles. It's worked well although the original band has basically folded. Only one member is left with a bunch of newbies. I think since that happened their star has dimmed somewhat.

Normandie



My girls used to LOVE the Wiggles. I still get some of the songs stuck in my head sometimes. They did remind me a bit of the Beatles, in that each of the four members had a distinct style/personality.

Moogmodule

Quote from: Normandie on Jun 07, 2014, 08:49 PM

My girls used to LOVE the Wiggles. I still get some of the songs stuck in my head sometimes. They did remind me a bit of the Beatles, in that each of the four members had a distinct style/personality.

They diminished the brand a bit when one of the originals had to pull out through a degenerative illness. They replaced him with his stand in. But then a couple of years later suddenly dumped the replacement and put the original back in. It was rumoured that the original member had financial problems and needed to come out of retirement. It was badly handled and affected their popularity.   Then not long after that they announced anyway that all but one were quitting and being replaced by a younger group. 

Not a textbook example  of proper succession planning. I think they got stuck in between a perception of themselves as a genuine band, like the Beatles, and a children's entertainment concept which was less dependent on who was filling the  coloured shirts.