Believe what you want, mate.

Thewrap.com says that WB got around $50M from Turkish Airlines for the publicity and product placement. Believe what you will.

The article you linked to doesn't take product placement into consideration. In addition to that, it is using some old numbers for Man of Steel. Those numbers are from BO and home video sales only. No product placement, no broadcast syndication, etc.

Even The Amazing Spider-Man 2 which cost $430M and made $709M at the BO made a profit of $70M without product placement.

I'm thinking that The Amazing Spider-Man 2 must have been way over budget its visual effects where less then impressive for a movie that had a production bugdet of $255 million dollars.  Plus Hans Zimmers score was also wasn't that good not even close to some of his best work all the other Spider Man movies had better scores as a matter of fact the score by Danny Elfman for the first Spider-Man movie (2002) is one of the best super hero movie scores of all time.

That $50 million from Turkish Airlines sounds about right I wonder what other companies they got the remaing $120 million dollars from.  One movie that was actually profitable before it even opened in theaters was E.T. the Atari game deal which was between 20-25 million pretty much covered E.T. total budget.  On top of that they also got some money from Reeses Pieces and other product that where placed in the movie.

Putting things in perspective once again:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-08/-batman-v-superman-seen-earning-less-profit-than-superman-alone 

“Batman v Superman,” one of the most expensive films ever made, is on pace to produce a $278 million profit for Warner Bros. once home video, TV and merchandise proceeds are tallied, according to SNL Kagan analyst Wade Holden. That’s less than the estimated $300 million the studio earned from “Man Of Steel.”

To be as profitable as the lower-budget “Man of Steel” -- and some of the more successful Marvel films, which generate 44 percent net profit on average -- “Batman v Superman” would have to gross $1.15 billion worldwide, Holden estimates. “Age of Ultron” earned $853 million, he estimates.

Still 2 more movies added to the slate with the same vision being carried over for Justice League. In the meantime, Disney considers AoU a failure despite all the money it made.

Where did you get Disney considers AoU a failure from lol, no one in theire right mind would complain about a 800M+ profit from a 220M investment. And Warner is shifting things around, they are trying to make a Batman solo movie (wich is basicaly an asured BO sucess even if it sucks, and Bat Afleck was the best thing to come out of BvS, everyone agree on that)  and some say the other date anounced is for a Suicide Squad 2 because Warner realy trusts that movie will deliver (and I hope it does). Its possible they will shift dates around to have Justice League after some of these sole films so they can better build theire story and to release JL on the back of a sucessfull movie rather than on the back of a criticaly paned one. They are very clearly attempting to reasure investor wich are displeased with the way bellow expectations return of BvS. Warner considered the Man of Steal return poor, and BvS wich is a much biger movie with a far greater appeal, will return even less, they have no reaosn to be happy with it.

Whats happening here is the equivalent of Marvel releasing Avengers 3 and it grossing less than 1 billion, it would have a net profit around 300M when its all said and done but itd be a failure, theres no way around it.

http://www.cinemablend.com/m/new/Why-Disney-Executives-Apparently-Think-Avengers-2-Was-Failure-80867.html

So by the logic in your previous posts, it is definitely a failure.

The only way they are reassuring investors is by cutting out movies that aren't part of the DCCU and doubling down on the latter.

You do realise that if some Disneys investors consider 800M+ profit a failure that theres no way in hell any Warner investor consider BvS a sucess at all right ? Also everything is relative, the Disney execs probably whanted the same or more money than Avengers 1, but the movie wasn't that great, it was just an OK movie, and that cost some money. So we had a possible 1.6B+ BO movie doing 1.4B. BvS case is that to the 10th scale, we have a possible 1.5+B movie doing less than 1B (aparently its tracking to low 900M now with the Friday BO results and the predictions for this weekend) and bringing the studio less money than a movie they considered wasnt a good return (Man of Steel) for an investment that is much biger than both Man of Steel and even Avengers Age of Ultron.

However it seens the majority of execs at disney liked the return and the direction of the MCU, since the fallout of this situation was them firing the producer that wanted to reduce the Marvel movies budget and letting Feige get even more money than initialy planed for Civil War. If they didnt like the returns Marvel was giving they wouldnt be raising the budgets.

Again put things in eprspective if Disney considers 1.4 B BO from a 220M budget movie "underperforming", what do you think Warner is feeling about a 250M budget film that is probably gona end its BO run on the low 900M range.