“Robot takeover gives parents a headache”
This 1986 newspaper article, found in the Glasgow Herald, makes me ask: Why didn’t Hasbro just come out and state that stories influence toys, and when you’re in the business of selling toys you use the story to sell more toys? The article, written by Maurice Smith, touches on the transition from Optimus Prime to Ultra Magnus, but the message is muddied with information that runs counter to what we’ve all seen.
“Young TV viewers will not know about the fate of Optimus Prime until January, although readers of Marvel’s cartoon series know already that he has been replaced. The Autobots regularly do battle with the Decepticons, who also have a new leader, Galvatron, who is expected to sell well this Christmas.
Hasbro denies that the move is designed to milk more toy sales out of the phenomenally successful range.”
Why deny what’s an obvious move to sell more toys? Hasbro exists today, as it existed three decades ago, to sell toys, so shifting storylines and introducing new characters should be seen as smart marketing and not some act of commercial evil. It’s business, world, and denying it’s business strikes me as a poor choice.
