Spotted Online – The New Yorker Looks at “The Trouble With Toys”
In late 2012 I posted a graph taken from Google Trends in which I tried to demonstrate that the action figure market is declining. And reports from Hasbro and Mattel have shown that the boys’ toys category are definitely shrinking. Multiple reports, store shelves, and announced new releases have all touched on the change in the market.
And now The New Yorker is in on the discussion with “The Trouble With Toys” where they state:
“In 2013, U.S. toy sales fell by about one per cent, according to the market-research firm NPD, helped along by a six-per-cent drop in sales of action figures.”
One percent isn’t terrible, but the majority of that decline was boys’ toys (see the six percent drop mentioned for action figures alone). And even The Motley Fool is weighing in with:
“During 2013, toy maker Hasbro (NASDAQ: HAS ) saw a $339 million decrease in its boys category that was a result of a strong 2012 for entertainment.”
The argument in The Motley Fool post is that Hasbro didn’t have the movies to support their toys in 2013, while The New Yorker article points the finger at growing electronic gaming as murdering the sales of traditional toys. Basically, everything I can find indicates that sales of boys’ toys are down . . . and there seems to be no agreement on what’s wrong.
There is one sentence in The New Yorker post that I feel gets things wrong and demonstrates that Hasbro and Mattel both haven’t done a great job of promoting their various clubs and online sales. Ted Trautman, New Yorker author, states:
“The only major traditional toy maker to seriously explore the adult market is Lego, which has an enthusiastic following of Adult Fans of Lego, or AFOLs, a community I’ve gradually waded into.”
I can agree that in the retail market LEGO has done a much better job of reaching out to adult collectors than either Hasbro or Mattel, but when we step back and look at the Transformers Club, G.I. Joe Club, and the Matty Collector website, I feel Hasbro and Mattel are doing better than the article suggests.
What’s all this mean? How would I know? I’m just directing you guys at some interesting reading I found. Reading that anyone interested in action figures should probably scan over . . . if only to get a feel for what’s happening when it comes to the decline of the boys’ toys market.
Related articles
- Spotted Online – The Economist on Hasbro and Mattel’s Decline (battlegrip.com)
- Should You Buy Mattel or Hasbro After Weak Earnings? (fool.com)
- Which Dividend Rules the Toy Store — Disney, Hasbro, or Mattel? (fool.com)
As far as I’m concerned, there’s one reason why LEGO does so well over Mattel and Hasbro: they actually have stuff on the shelves to buy. Virtually every time I go to buy GI Joe or Marvel Universe toys or some DC figures (and I’m talking entire waves here, not rare or even specific figures) I find NOTHING on the shelves. Yet when it comes to LEGO, I don’t think I’ve ever gone looking for a specific set and not found it with ease.
Know what would maybe help? Not pushing Girls away from action Figures. Promote action figures to girls. There is a market there for them. Have commercials and ads with Girls playing with GI Joes and Bayblade and TMNT and you might see a shift to the positive side.
I feel like all I’ve ever heard from Hasbro about adult collectors is that we “don’t really matter; it’s not for us.” Maybe they didn’t say that exactly, but I seem to recall getting that impression from them.