Fisher price was once a respected toy company with lots of creative products sought after by parents….
Then Mattel happened
19 replies (most recent on top)
living in the past and unable to adjust is part of the problem.
welcome to capitalist adulting. Kids don’t matter as much as the bottom line and the smiles on shareholders faces.
No, actually let’s focus back on the point of this thread and what you fail to realize: how Mattel’s high overhead has destroyed the quality and price value of each of the brands it has acquired. Economy of scale has allowed Mattel to only do one thing to make up for its high overhead…produce and manufacture dollar store quality cr-p for toys while laying to waste all the quality brands it has acquired.
"regarding all things being equal with respect to volume of a given product being produced"
Well, no duh that's my point: no one produces toys in volume like Mattel does. It's not even close. Lego sets are just reconfigurations of mostly the same 20 or so bricks in different colors. What's Hasbro (or let alone a smaller company) producing at the same volume Mattel makes dolls and hot wheel?
When comparing Mattel to a much leaner competitor, your analogy does not hold true regarding all things being equal with respect to volume of a given product being produced.
I have experienced first hand how much of a struggle it is to complete against leaner competition when it comes to price value. Feature for feature they all seem to offer more for less and there is only one thing that contributes to that, Mattel’s high overhead. It burdens every aspect of being competitive. It is simply impossible to ignore this reality.
No, economy of scale hold true regardless of how inefficient other aspects of the company might be. In fact, production at a high scale is an efficiency. You think Mattel could manufacture, ship and sell tens of millions of Barbie's and hundreds of millions of Hot Wheels cars each year if they didn't have efficiency in manufacturing?
Go ahead, start your own super low overhead one-man toy company and see if you can manufacture and sell a fashion doll for $6 or a diecast car for $1 and still make a profit.
What's the margin on a basic Hot Wheels car? Anyone know?
“Economy of scale” works if a company is efficient in all aspects of its business.
Mattel’s has lost its competitive advantage because of it’s inefficiencies, thus translating to its complete deterioration of price value throughout all of it’s portfolio of products….ergo, no amount of “economy of scale” will help a company that is over bloated with inefficiencies.
What is concerning is that you fail to understand the reality of what is actually happening.
Lets not forget all of the children that died from the FP product. That HAD to have lost a lot of consumer confidence.
Let’s tell it the way it is. A good design at FP has to have your manger, director, vp, and even the CEO make comment and change what was a good design into something they think is best. We are talking about weekly design reviews, and monthly reviews with the vp and CEO. To many opinions that can change from meeting to meeting. You are doing what your told changing your design to keep your job and be a team player. Let’s not forget marketing, play lab, engineering, safety all have a opinion on your design. That is why it all comes out the same.
Is it the same at Mattel?
I’m sorry but this simply isn’t the case. Think about the price structure breakdown of a toy; you have production costs (material, labor, packaging, shipping etc), the retailer’s cut and the profit margin.
So let’s say Mattel and a smaller company both make a similar $20 toy. Both companies want to make 40 points of margin.
Mattel has the competitive advantage because they have listings in thousands of stores all over the world, which means they can produce tens of thousands of toys in a single run which reduces the production cost per unit. Because of Mattel’s large scale, their production costs will be much lower than the smaller company which will likely be producing at just the minimum order quantity scale.
Ergo, Mattel can spend have a higher per unit per unit manufacturing cost and still make the same exact profit as the smaller toy company on each unit sold. This means Mattel can have more features, better material, more deco etc on their products and still make the same amount of money.
This is just the basic concept of “economy of scale”. The fact that you don’t understand how this works is concerning.
Easy to lay blame on something like a large company, harder to adapt to changes in consumer base.
Unfortunately, since the market has always been dominated by low price point SKU’s, those companies with lower overhead have the distinct competitive advantage. That is not the case with Mattel/FP because of their exorbitant overhead. Asking designers to innovate with less and remain competitive has become unattainable. To consider this reality a coping mechanism, is to admit one’s own ignorance as to what is actually going on. Rather than blaming designers for not doing their jobs, which they are, perhaps those in charge can do their jobs and figure out realistic strategies to improve Mattel’s obvious competitive disadvantage. Innovation alone no longer makes up for that reality…simple as that.
A toy designer’s job is to come up with fun and unique toys that offer a good price value for consumers and engaging play patterns for kids.
Toys have always been a market dominated by low price point SKUs, this is nothing new and not unique to Mattel. It’s highly competitive. Consumers are extremely price sensitive. There is very little brand loyalty, especially in baby and toddler categories. If the toy seems lame or overpriced they’ll buy something else.
If you can’t make a compelling toy within the cost structure perimeters, you’re failing to do your job. This is the fundamental role of a toy designer. Complaining about this reality is a waste of time and a coping mechanism. Simple as that.
In answer to the last posters question, there is more than enough talent at FP. The comparison was before vs after Mattel acquired FP and how costs increased significantly after the acquisition because of Mattel’s increased overhead. So, what FP became is exactly what Mattel has always been, a toy company spewing out cost reduced cr-p for toys. It doesn’t matter how much talent you employ, the results will always be the same.
So the last poster agrees that the talent at EA is lacking, or that they cannot come up with anything creative unless they are allowed to spend of ton of cash on a project? That sounds like a copout to me. It's been years since FP has had an actual hit "must have" toy. Stop looking for scapegoats and start designing. Earn your keep or go work at the five and dime on main street.
Actually, last poster, the slow demise of creativity at FP had nothing to do with its lack of talent, but rather the burden Mattel placed on it since it’s acquisition. Mattels high overhead turned a once highly creative profitable company into what we have today. FP Is full of talent and it is unfortunate how destructive Mattel’s influence has been on this once great company.
This so called cost reduced junk is the result of being burdened by Mattel’s excessive cost structure.
wah wah wah. Get over it already. The inbred designers in EA have been regurgitating the same cost reduced junk for the last 25 years. All of the good innovative designers have moved on or passed on. The current crop is lame.
It's been thirty, but your point stands.
It's been forty years, time will heal