Continuing in a series of conversations with major toy industry insiders, we examine why G.I. Joe is gone from shelves and what it means for other brands.
To read the first part in this series, click here.
The following article is taken verbatim from three industry insiders at a very high level within partner companies of The Walt Disney Company. Together they have more than a half-century of experience.
At least as of 12 months ago or so, Joe’s longer term path was still being discussed – and you can’t turn a toy line on a dime – with no firm call yet made for the late 2024, early 2025 and forward window. Though there are many agreements and legal entanglements & commits in place that limit certain things, overall, the regular blue sky strategic discussions on “where to next” include the main following options being looked at:
Option 1, Steady as she goes: Currently Joe is a solid on the business plan where the volume is generated mainly, but not only, by profitable comparatively low risk sales to Joe/militaria collectors (including more international than most might think). Sales to men 40-60 years old who have money and are emotionally invested in the brand. If you are willing to be there for them, they will be there for you. Important though: they’ve got the money and they are willing to spend, yes, but their standards are high so be very very careful on those oh so tempting product compromises (including packaging and documentation!)
Yes, Joe has been showing regular, steady growth (in the often-uncertain world of Toy, that’s really nice for a manager who has a “beat last year” and is putting together his numbers). The collector segment in general is growing notably along with the solidifying and wider and wider acceptance of the low risk DTC
Some might call this model “small is beautiful”, but this is not small, at all at all – especially considering the low risk involved. Incidentally, the ”mass” segment of the Joe line, is where you can find most spots of red ink.
However, no matter if the finances are solid, nobody can stand up in front of shareholders and say Joe is at full potential. Sorry. As a matter of fact the line and balance sheet being healthy at current scale just begs the question about a real, true ramp up. You know, corporate speak of “underused assets” … still this more conservative option has quite a few VIP adherents including some who are painfully aware of the cost-risks of going for fortune and glory and failing. There is also a PR impact, both corporate and personal to failing a high profile launch (trust me, being a proponent of a failed project is not fun). No hiding in the corporate matrix, especially for the marquis-name management who gave final approvals or who are the company interface with the financial sector. Status quo currently lucrative and actually quite satisfying product development-wise (collector products!), but boring and not visionary, and not what we’re paid for; Fortune though without the Glory.
(quick note on HotToys that we discussed a while back – this is absolutely DTC, where while they only do tacit admission, they wait to have x pre-orders before releasing tooling).
Option 2, Back to mass: By this I’m referring to a complete, properly planned and executed multi-year multi-platform approach based largely on the following, in synergy:
- Realization and acceptance that the IPs power are its characters as classically defined & their associated dynamics which reside with Toy who need to lead the toy side but also truly guide Entertainment. Also realize that with respect to “Kid” segment, Joe needs to be resold almost from scratch notably by maximizing the IPs dad legitimacy and support*
*dad support is rarely discussed but he’s key on certain toys, especially military themed toys (ie Joe). In research you learn that in a standard family unit (with or without kids) mom represents 90% of food expenditure decision making (a piece of financial control that dwarfs any of these pop culture nonsense dollars $..) – a notable exception by the way is anything to do with barbecue. That’s Dad’s thing. If the steaks are bought to broil on the oven, then Dad doesn’t care so they are just part of regular grocery buy. But if they’re for the barbecue well then that’s totally different. That they will handle, and buy personally. On toys? about 90% of toy dollars decision making is made by Mom (here Dad may pick up the Lego set, but the purchase has been previously vetted and approved by Mom). Here I’m talking about toys for play by kids – not talking about collectors, who are mostly male, buying for themselves.
A key chunk of the exceptions are toys that rub on militaria and some dinosaurs, monsters & robots … but mostly the military toys. Say, uh, GI Joe …
If there is a Joe toy on the Christmas list, Dad will buy it personally and will often go rogue from the list and throw in an extra that he saw on the shelf (“yeah honey I know I was only supposed to pick up the Harrier Jet, but this Abrams Tank is really cool, and even comes with two bonus figures! The Duke one is exclusive!” and his wife, imminently practical will answer that Dad has now put the family unit in jeopardy because he deviated from her plan and now the son has one more gift than then the daughter (a “feature gift” at that!), so what the Hell was he thinking? Don’t worry about Dad though because he’s tuned out by this time and all he’s hearing is “blah, blah” like when adults talk in the old Charlie Brown cartoons. He’s holding that Abrams Tank and thinking “man this is so cool, even the box is sweet …”
Want some more? The Jet/Tank will often be the only Christmas gift Dad wraps himself – “is this the only paper we have? Why is this the only paper we have? Do we have anything with the flag on it? No? How come? … after giving his AAA game to that one gift he will bail and hit the couch, answering the call of football. And you know what? If Jr doesn’t like the Jet/Tank and play with it – no problem! It will just end up in Dad’s office, which could be just as good because there is always the chance that in the future his wife might come to him questioning a strange charge on the family credit card from a certain “Haslab” for a thing called a “HISS”? What’s that she asks? A charge for weird German porn might be easier to explain … a little humor there, but that’s a real research-validated IP merch purchase dynamic: Dad’s buying toys for their kids can trigger dad’s evolution to consumer; creating a collector.
Ok, a huge detour to present an important point: Yes, family dynamics almost inevitably evolve to a point where mom decides or approves the majority of family habitual spends, including most toys. Men usually are not only fine with that but also encourage it because she does most of the work associated and, boy, there’s a lot of football to watch, beer to drink, cards to play, etc. No problem for Mom to handle so much of the money. Unless of course, Dad decides otherwise, often on some niche, but as far as he’s concerned game changing purchase. Those steaks mentioned earlier? Those that Dad picks up for the BBQ will cost three times as much as those mom would have bought. The ribs? The salmon? Dad’s going rogue again! … while all members of the family have purchases and purchase categories for which they don’t make the decision using their regular filters, Dads buying toys is one that is fascinating.
I could go on about Dads actually buying for themselves, with their sons in this case really becoming their avatars – you should witness dads in focus groups talk about how their family couldn’t afford Star Wars figures when they were young, so today when their kid wanted an Iron Man or a Captain America and have trouble deciding well, dad gets them both. Oh, and the Spiderman & Hulk that were on the pegs beside them as well. Dad’s buying toys often only look at pricing when they are in line at for the cash.
Sorry for the rabbit hole, but it’s huge: GI Joe for play by kids is a “dad purchase”, he likes buying Joe, makes him feel good, kinda like standing for the anthem at the ball game. Joe IP has that (very few IP do). Dad will need to be mobilized for any true success in the kid-for-play segment. We will come back to this later.
Ok back to what makes Joe: Our combined personal experience was with the final third of the original early 80’s to mid- 90’s runs, and the main creative dynamic of us sending names, designs & accessories to Hama, O’Neil and Shooter at Marvel who would layer the characterization over them was unprecedented. And so smooth, all things considered. The Joe side of the building just crackled.
There is so much that could be said, but we will focus on the following points: If you’ve worked in toys for awhile, especially in the good old days, you will have heard the term “play pattern” come up over and over. This refers to what kids actually do with a toy, how they play with it. In these toy categories (figures/vehicles/playsets) what is of interest is how boys assimilate what you give them – the physical toy(s) and their functional features, the key character traits that you’ve communicated to them in various ways as well all other story elements that you’ve put across. The combination of all of that become triggers for their imagination.
The best, most powerful characterization/world/environment/milieu was by far original Star Wars where boys wanted so badly to have their own adventures in it that they were out of control for the toys – which are in fact no more no less than props through which their imagination took them on their own adventures in a Galaxy Far, Far Away.
Why this Star Wars talk? Well, you have to understand that in the early 80’s juncture Kenner/Hasbro, and pretty much everybody else were looking for the next Star Wars. That meant trying to really understand the general appeal, specific to Hasbro as to what made Star Wars so “toyetic” – another buzz word used a couple different ways. Also, SW wasn’t ours, we didn’t keep all the money…
There have been books written on the toyetic learnings of SW, but I will focus on what for me was one of the majors and that is how SW characterizations were on point, from the heroes to the villains to the vehicles to the settings (yes, vehicles and settings need characterization to make good, unique proprietary toy). Confirmed by experience and consumer research, one of the things that IP that are powerful on the consumer product side have in common is that they have significant, creatively impactful meat on the bone … but at the same time usually without getting too too specific to the point of exclusion. They must generate much more than base interest – at least enough to develop fans and to hook them in – but leave room for (boys) to express their own creativity through play. Paint in specific, yet broad strokes, don’t give everything away. Explain what the universe is, what type of actions are part of it, explain the key characters and main traits and dynamics, but leave much if not most open to kids’ interpretations through play and other outlets of the imagination. Empire told boys that there were bounty hunters in the Star Wars universe, showed em a couple, teased a couple of looks and names, drew the curtain back on their world a little … and that’s all you needed, boom! An extra layer to the SW play pattern to sell to.
Incidentally another of the main SW toy learnings were the villains – without strong, distinct villains and their gear and vehicles an IP’s play pattern is badly hobbled, and indeed may never properly take off. The villains are one of Joes strongest assets – left to their own today’s Entertainment don’t know how to make and story good villains anymore, they just don’t. Without good villains you not only have weak story, but you’ve also made the heroes weak, which leads to boring play … or no play at all because if there is no conflict for kids to interpret through their play patterns, why would they bother – especially today where they grow out of toys earlier, when they’ve got more options than ever before, with video games calling?
Early 80’s breakthrough Joe was consciously designed to have its versions of many of the same triggers as SW: Joes vs Cobra, good vs bad, great protagonist vs antagonist dynamic, well drawn characters weaved together into an in-the-pocket background story, overall narrative. It also obviously has the militaristic element (people tend to forget the War in Star Wars). Military play pattern = $ with boys.
Star Wars went from Entertainment to Toy, but Joe went from Toy to Entertainment. The brand team today is very strong, and are the ones who know not only Joe, who already has all the above-described pillars needed for success, but the Joe fans & consumers – great relationships there by the way. For a larger scale project to work, Toy needs to lead not only toy product, but because Toy is the cannon it also needs to be consistently applied and adhered to by Entertainment. Basically Toy must guide Entertainment (which right there isn’t going to go over well at all – more on that later).
- Deliver uncompromised trifecta of Boys Toys: Figures, Vehicles and Playsets.
The feeling is that the assault on mass needs to be done with a fully supported 3 ¾” line, straight up the middle with complementary secondary lines – multi-phase line-up committed to at initial preview to retail, with strong, but not extreme articulation so as to leave room in cost for a very strong per figure accessory set. Experience and research have all three actually weighing in about equally in a well delivered figure-for-play (figure for display is different): sculpt, articulation + accessories (some think articulation carries the day, but it doesn’t). The accessory set really ads to and extends the play pattern, especially on military-based figures.
3 3/4” also has advantages with respect to the practicality of cost and designs when doing associated-scale vehicles & playsets (full-line vehicles for larger figures aren’t really do-able at mass because of cost/price). One of keys to higher $ sales are these vehicles and playsets because of their pricing, and Joe is the motherload with its land, air & sea armed forces DNA. At 3 ¾” figure size you split the vehicle & playset line between price points for mass and for collectors (we went over the different price points and their importance to toy lines in previous exchanges).
Oh, and incidentally as soon as a new vehicle or playset enters the house it often kickstarts another round of figure purchases linked to the kids allowance/birthday/holiday cycles, goosed by what we like to call the “parents bribery factor” with extra purchases for good report cards, etc. So vehicles and playsets in addition to their own revenue streams are steroids to the figures. Obviously, as you would expect, extra layers get added to the collector side as well. And yes, construction sets are also today much more important then they were back then, so yes the mix has changed.
Too much more to say here – I’m just leaving out so much – but there are takeaways: Firstly Hasbro makes Good Toy. Yes, yes, clunkers and misfires – there always are and they always will be – but it is fair to say the product is good to excellent. Secondly, the product roadmap from conception to production to retail execution is known. Remember that in this case we are potentially looking at going way deeper than the kids product of the last few years (more skus, more toolings, etc), though it hasn’t been done to this extent in awhile, with actually many at Hasbro never having lived through real major launch and life-cycle management of an in-house IP. Thirdly: Inevitably, the business case will be tough to sell internally (more on that below).
We’ll move on, but just to address a question that Joe fans may have, “yeah, but you guys did and have been doing a lot of Joe targeted kids toys in the past few years!” The answer to that is yes, and well, no. Firstly, correct, much has been done “recently” on the mass side – multiple collections, limited lines, one-offs. 100% correct, some great product there. Yes, comic books with Hama as well, vid games, some licensed merchandise, etc. And there is another wave coming up : Yes, ok you’re right from that perspective. But that’s not what is on the table right now with this potential go-forward option. Maybe I’m not explaining it right, but there are multiple levels more that can be done then what’s being done recently, oh so much more, and that’s what I’m talking about. If you’re of a certain age and remember Walmart and Toys R Us Joe store set-ups from say mid-80’s to 90, you know what I’m referring too. Google some pictures they will give you an idea of what I’m talking about – the product, the semi-permanent displays & signage, the in-store events – back then Joe truly helped give life to the stores through their toy sections (we all used to have some of those pictures pinned to our corkboards in the office). And I’m not even talking something big like that, but it gives you the idea.
Oh, and yet another thing which I don’t think is fully appreciated but to get a major launch off the ground and drive it through multiple cycles you need a retail champion that will work the deep line year round, including higher price points. In the past, that was ToysR Us – yes Walmart brought in more money, of course, but TRU was the brand showcase. They were so important to Joe’s success, and not only because of their product exclusives, early launch preview windows, etc – just because of who they were, their retailing approach to category. To my mind, every major retail sector needs at least one true mass retailer solely dedicated to it. Toys no longer has that in the US. So in the case of this proposed launch leading to a 3 to 5 year life cycle minimum, it would have to be either Walmart or Target, with velvet-tongued Walmart being an obvious choice, though their retail culture is admittedly a misfit. Dealing with the devil.
- Entertainment that is in line with Toy, with Toy being the active cannon custodian This is next up…
Stay tuned!
For all the latest news that should be fun, keep reading That Park Place. As always, drop a comment down below and let us know your thoughts!
