Again... There is absolutely no way that Joe has strived as long as it has just on the support of children alone.
If there wasn't a very strong collector it'd have be done w/ by now.
First, I never said "Just" to anything in my justification of why it's a superior toy line to Star Wars... I said they have both a strong adult and kid market.
You may not believe that, but then again I don't think you believe much of anything you're told if you disagree with it so it's turning into a moot point. My last report on the industry had findings that G.I. Joe was a balanced toy line with both adult and youth collectors that supported a line with no multi-media events, films, or anything more than comics really, to supply "interest" from outside demographics.
It was kids and adults combined that supported the line from its very birth in '64 to its current status in 2003. I can tell you till I'm blue in the face that kids like it and you can deny it all day long.
When the annual Joe con is held kids are not the reason behind such an event... that is (more than) a predominant adult convention. Yes, during our younger days (we) the kids were strongly into that line because of the strong backing of the cartoon series... Now realize those kids of yesterday are now todays collectors buying up more Joes than any child anywhere.
The demographic at a convention is one single focus... That's sort of a poor item to use as a basis for who's buying a toy line don't you think?
If I based who goes to sporting events on who I see lined up to get autographs at a team convention I'd have a pretty skewed view of the average "sports fan" for any given team.
They're not the only people interested in the product is the point. Kids aren't at conventions because kids aren't adults... They can't drive. They don't make reservations to meet at the next con. They don't have jobs to buy hotel rooms and airfare...
So that's a very poor analysis tool being used to figure out "who's into G.I. Joe" ya know? Plus, half the guys at Joe conventions don't collect modern or even 1982-present items. Half of them are there for the originals I'd wager... They're not supporting ANYTHING G.I. Joe now, just G.I. Joe then... That's entirely too small an event to gather hardcore Marketing information from.
We also had less choice as children when we were young... and almost none when the line was introduced in '64. These days however there are more toys than we can think of... that are far more technological than we ever had. Kids are into whatever is hot... and in the kid world Joe isn't what I call hot... Not by far...
We did? I don't know about you, but off the top of my head I remember:
If anything, the 80's was considered a toy revolution, and with the help of video game systems becoming more prevelant in the child's home, it made the toy industry more tenacious than it had ever been (And it's only gotten worse in the last decade +).
So far, the fact the sales #'s are so high for G.I. Joe just seems to reinfoce that they've got support from collectors OTHER than adults. That's what logic would tell you. If collectors kept things alive Star Wars would be in far better shape than it is right now itself. It is in a slow/steady decline because of a lack of fresh/new collectors. The films can be partly to blame for that, but the line itself isn't helping when it loses at at POP advertising to other lines that just grab a child's attention.
I won't argue with you that kids are picky and change their mind from day to day, but it doesn't mean they don't stick with some toy lines faithfully either.
For instance, POwer Rangers is STILL a strong toy line at retail. It still makes lots of $, it has a hefty licensing fee, and it is funded almost exclusively by kids. It's also got longevity on its side. Not as long as G.I. Joe, but as long as the modern Star Wars line... That's tough to choke down I'm sure.
As for my comment on Hasbro having a larger market that is meant in other ways than taken obviously.
They make far bigger production runs and much more product in a year than any of the smaller companies...
Does any of the se companies such as Dragon, BBI, etc make 40+ figures a year... not including accessories and other products for the line? I'm 95% sure they do not.
Where's your #'s that Hasbro's production runs are higher than BBI's or some other companies? Just to make back the $ on molds tooled, it takes HUGE production runs for any given toy...
Again, that's very short-sighted and I don't see anything to back this up with credence. If anything, it's likely that these companies have to place orders near what Hasbro does for quantity. 21st Century has had retailers who bought exclusively from them and carried larger #'s of their product, so it seems to support that idea.
These smaller companies have the advantage that they can put a tad bit more time into the pieces they do release in a year span.
BBI's put out (in the last month+) about 16 figures, and 5 vehicles ranging from small to very large. That's one month so far, and the next series is due out fairly soon... So that doesn't really seem to follow this idea that these smaller companies aren't putting out effort to put LOTS of product on the shelves.
Plus, again, you're looking at a company a fraction the size of Hasbro, and who have a LOT less employees. So even if they are putting out less product, on a relative scale they're putting out equal #'s in comparison to Hasbro who have a very large human capital base.
Do you really think their costs are higher? That is absolutely untrue... Their all around overhead is far less than that of Hasbro. Leaving out the expensive license that SW is...
At this point I do... You don't know they don't either, so please stop speaking as if you do Jimmy. You've done NOTHING to prove your point so far.
You don't have to accept the answers as correct, but don't feel it necessary to dismiss them as completely false either till you can scrounge up some information to the contrary besides what you think you know.
This last quote personifies why this is a moot argument and will never be settled till someone can post sales sheets. I can only speak from my experience of research in the industry, and actually being involved in production and the toy industry on some level beyond retail. You can only speak from your experience or opinions as well, so it really renders this dead.
Hasbro has much more to lose money wise when a product fails... That is I think very obvious...
So a large company has more to lose money-wise than a small company? So when the small company loses $ and files for bankruptcy because their profit is turned over into their capital they somehow have lost less than Hasbro would if they have a toy line that "tanks" financially?
Your logic escapes me there.
Star Wars has lost money in the last few years that is the truth... but that was due to a few reasons... Over production, lack of interest, and (yes you may not want to hear it but) the high licensing fees are just a few of those reasons.
I don't doubt it's a partial factor, never said it wasn't, but it's not THE factor which is what you two have been arguing... It's the same old same old from some sources, "The licensing is killing SW".
The licensing is such a small miniscule part of the modern line at this point (It WAS important when the deal was struck so many moons ago, but it's become a small part of the equation now because it's not an annual cost).
I've never said it wasn't, I just said it's not the huge deal you and Nick seem to think it is so that your opinions on how other companies outperform Star Wars can be slightly more validated. Unfortunately, that's not the case... It's even LESS the case since the renegotiation of the contract which was all because the license is a FAILING venture for Hasbro so far because it's not been competing well at retail.
If that means we get better figures, I'm happy as a clam. But it's such a small part of the equation that it's not likely to be the deciding factor in whether or not we see vast improvements to make the line more competitive and do better at retail.
Hasbro paid out close to 600 million until E1 and then a 2.5% royalty and 10% of Hasbro. These numbers were renegotiated w/ the extension but still...
That's quite a taking...
And like I said, licenses aren't anything new to almost every toy company out there. Bandai pays a HUGE price for Power Rangers... The small scale military companies pay out to multiple licenses and likenesses... Even G.I. Joe has had to pay licensing rights and likeness rights over the years (not often, but sometimes... And at the very least, to the toy's creator who made quite a living off the product name). It's nothing new, and Star Wars has even had reductions in their fees.
My point was, and still is, that the licensing issue has such little impact on the cost issues of the line that it's not a valid argument to make as to why Hasbro cannot make Star Wars a more competitive line in quality overall.
Here's a clip from a Reuters article in February of this year:PAWTUCKET, R.I., Feb 13 (Reuters) - Hasbro Inc. (NYSE:HAS), the No. 2 U.S. toymaker, on Thursday said fourth-quarter earnings rose 19 percent, boosted by strong sales of its mainstay toys like GI Joe action figures and Play-doh.
The G.I. Joe line has been carrying a lot of Hasbro's profit increases lately, and it's just continuing as new product comes out. Sad to say Star Wars isn't doing the same... And I somehow doubt the license is all that's holding it back at this point.