Agence France-Presse/Getty Images
Indonesian staff wear “Angry Birds” masks to foster a Angry Birds central Facebook launch during a mall in Jakarata final year.

By Juhana Rossi

What do we call an annual pretax distinction domain of 50.5%? When it comes to “Angry Birds”, a slight disappointment.

That’s how Alekstra Inc. researcher Tero Kuittinen characterized a 2012 formula of Rovio Entertainment, a creator of a widely renouned mobile diversion authorization “Angry Birds.”

To be accurate, Mr. Kuittinen wasn’t scoffing during Rovio’s profitability. Instead he was rarely nominal of Rovio’s financial performance, also job this EBIT domain figure “spectacularly high.”

But Mr. Kuittinen was referring to a contraction in a domain — descending from 62% in 2011 — that is demonstrative of a expansion now underway in Rovio’s business model. Simply put, Rovio can no longer be categorized as a pure-play diversion developer that generates a sales and increase only from a games like a Swedish association Mojang AB, maker of a Internet diversion Minecraft, or a Finnish Supercell Oy, a creator of dual new App Store hits “Clash of Clans” and “Hay Day.”

A mobile diversion developer can achieve intensely high distinction margins given formulating a strike diversion requires comparatively small capital, people or earthy infrastructure. A core group of 4 to 5 developers and coders suffices, supposing that a group can broach a loyal strike in a Darwinian and fast-evolving mobile gaming industry.

Rovio had a strike mobile diversion in 2009 when it launched a initial chronicle of “Angry Birds,” though a mobile diversion authorization has now incited into a stepping mill to turn a some-more diversified party company. This shows in a relapse of Rovio’s income in 2012. Games and other operations accounted for 55% of Rovio’s revenue, and a remaining 45% came from consumer products or protected merchandise, trimming from feathery toys to coffee.

Rovio afterwards is a singular bird. But as it evolves and adds new business lines such as feature-length animations and indoor thesis parks to a operation, it is commencement to resemble a American party behemoth Walt Disney Com pany, maybe best-known for a animal animation impression Mickey Mouse. The comparison isn’t far-fetched: Rovio government mostly mentions Disney as a association Rovio tries to emulate.

So how do Rovio’s financial numbers — generally distinction domain — smoke-stack adult opposite a strong Disney? First, a few contribution to put things in context given Disney apparently dwarfs Rovio: Disney was founded in 1923 and had 166,000 employed during a finish of 2012, compared with Rovio’s first of 2003 and 518 employees. Rovio’s net distinction final year was €55.5 million ($71.1 million) on sales of €152.2 million ($195.5 million). Disney’s net distinction in a FY2012 was $5.7 billion on sales of $42.3 billion.

But looking during distinction margins, a roles are reversed. Rovio’s net distinction domain was 36.5% contra Disney’s 13.4%, and Rovio’s net distinction per worker was $137,300 vs. Disney’s $34,200.

Again, comparing Rovio with Disney is like blending apples with oranges, though a comparison gives a severe superintendence to what arrange of distinction margins investors could be looking for in Rovio if and when a association decides to launch an initial open charity in a entrance years.