Target Exclusive Imperial Shuttle

[Jeff]

But now at Target, $59 is fair and I'll take it.

Man, I never thought I'd be able to see you put "Target" and "fair" in the same sentence when talking about one of their exclusives.   

[Dressel Rebel]

But now at Target, $59 is fair and I'll take it.

Man, I never thought I'd be able to see you put "Target" and "fair" in the same sentence when talking about one of their exclusives.   

This is true.  But when you are comparing a Target exclusive to an FAO price, it makes it all that much easier for me to break down and give Target props.

I still wouldn't pay $12.99 for a 3 3/4" basic figure though 

[Matt]

He can't be the mole.  Because I'm pretty sure he's already Larry David.  It'd be hard to pull both jobs off at the same time.

Pretty good!  Pretty good!  Pret-ty. . .  pret-ty. . .  pret-ty. . .  pret-ty good.

[Darth_Anton]

The lower price that's throwing Ruiner off my be related to the fact that Target is a larger distributer than FAO. I'm sure FAO could only order so many since they have/had less than a third of the number of stores than Target, therefore Hasbro had to charge more to make a real profit.

[efranks]

Target also has more stores than TRU.  Target has about 1300 US stores while TRU is down to 587.  According to Hasbro's 2005 numbers they sell 24% of their goods to Wal-Mart and TRU and Target are tied for second at 12% each.

It's possible that, just based on the number of retail outlets, Target can move more of an exclusive than TRU can.  That lowers the price. 

The other thing about the AT-AT, for comparison, is that that vehicle still has the sound feature, has more moving parts and comes with 2 figures now as well.  I'd think that the Falcon is a better comparison and that sells for the same or a little less than what the Shuttle will be this time around.

I don't know if this will be a Black Friday item but I found it odd that Hasbro didn't take the opportunity to announce it this week when they started pimping out all the other Target exclusives for this fall.  A Black Friday sale was the only thing I could come up with for it's absence from that list.  If Matt's saying no, then it probably won't be released then.  I just can't explain why Hasbro isn't shouting about it.  Especially when they could use it in a Friday Q&A; "See, we do make vehicles.  Here's a great big ship for $60.  So, quit-yer-bitchin'!"

  E...

[Matt]

If Matt's saying no, then it probably won't be released then.

I hope you're joking about that, because I certainly don't know any more about this thing than anybody else does--just making an educated guess based on previous Black Fridays usually being busts when it comes to Star Wars junk.

But I agree that their coyness about it is a bit befuddling.  With the packaged samples showing up, it'd be a great time for a follow-up question to them--maybe they could expand on that "no comment" just a little bit. . .

[ruiner]

The lower price that's throwing Ruiner off my be related to the fact that Target is a larger distributer than FAO. I'm sure FAO could only order so many since they have/had less than a third of the number of stores than Target, therefore Hasbro had to charge more to make a real profit.

Oh, I'm fully aware of the store count difference between FAO and Target which of course affects volume.  The volume difference would have to be exponential to reduce the retail price by more than half. 

And let us not forget about the two additional pack in figures - at today's rates, that's a $14 value right there!

[Darth_Anton]

The lower price that's throwing Ruiner off my be related to the fact that Target is a larger distributer than FAO. I'm sure FAO could only order so many since they have/had less than a third of the number of stores than Target, therefore Hasbro had to charge more to make a real profit.

Oh, I'm fully aware of the store count difference between FAO and Target which of course affects volume.  The volume difference would have to be exponential to reduce the retail price by more than half. 

And let us not forget about the two additional pack in figures - at today's rates, that's a $14 value right there!

Good point.

Perhaps, in the end, the MSRP is really arbitrary. I know the At-AT has sound and more moving parts, but, I'm willing to bet that the actual cost different between making an At-At and a Jedi Starfighter is only a dollar or two.

[ruiner]

Don't forget, the size of the box has a lot to do with a company's cost.  It's not cheap to ship a container from China to the States - the smaller the box, the better.  That's why so many ships require some form of assembly on the consumers' end.

BTW - retail price IS NOT arbitrary - all retailers have margin requirements that they must meet (depending on their department). 

I would bet that the AT-AT (because of size, pack ins, and extra parts) costs Hasbro 4-5X the cost of a standard starfighter.

[Darth_Anton]

Of course retailers have a profit margin, I'm not twelve.   

What I meant by arbitrary is that there's a certain point where a standard profit is made and then everything after that is just gravy.  I think a lot of gravy gets made on exclusives. How else can you explain WM charging the same amount as a basic figure for their exclusive twin figures when Target charges 2 and 1/2 times that amount for their exclusives with the same run?

Hasbro's greatest expense in producing anything is in development, after that, getting the product to the shelves is dirt cheep per unit. I'm talking pennies per figure and a few dollars per ship, no matter what the size or amount of parts. So the question becomes this, how is the cost of development paid for? It has to be in one of two ways, A) it either gets added to the cost of the item in question, or, B) it's part of Hasbro's general overhead.

If A, then the cost of re-releasing an At-At or a shuttle should cost FAR less than it's initial run or, if B, the development cost that Hasbro constantly sites as a cause for expense is irrelevant.

Shipping certainly does play a major factor, but it costs the same amount to ship a pallet of At-At's as it does a pallet of Basic figures. Certainly it costs more per At-At to ship, but I wonder how much of an impact this does have on the over all price. Think about it. Ten years ago when we first got the At-At, it was the same price as today, but basic figures have gone up $2. Logically, the At-At price should have gone up as well given the increased fuel costs and the fact that it's an exclusive.

I think we all can agree that something doesn't make sense and that I've put far too much thought into it.

[ruiner]

I didn't mean to offend you - I thought about my response after I typed it and realized that I might have come off as "talking down." 

But I do have some additional comments on your points:

How else can you explain WM charging the same amount as a basic figure for their exclusive twin figures when Target charges 2 and 1/2 times that amount for their exclusives with the same run?

Target believes that they attract a different consumer than WM.  Packaging and retailer strategies (margins) have a lot to do with price variances on similar products.  VTSC was the same way. 

Hasbro's greatest expense in producing anything is in development,

Development, including investment (tooling).

I'm talking pennies per figure and a few dollars per ship, no matter what the size or amount of parts.

Actually, the number (and size of the parts) adds cost(s) to the item.  More parts = more material, more assembly time and more paint operations.  More parts also means more molds, which is the expensive part of the process.  Believe it or not, as China grows, so does the cost of doing business there.  Labor is still cheap, but things are changing. 

Shipping certainly does play a major factor, but it costs the same amount to ship a pallet of At-At's as it does a pallet of Basic figures.

True, but I think it would be easier to "ammortize" the cost of shipping a pallet of 500 figures vs. 75 AT-ATs. 
 

Ten years ago when we first got the At-At, it was the same price as today, but basic figures have gone up $2.

Was the AT-AT $90 back in the POTF2 days?  I thought it was closer to $79...?

I think we all can agree that something doesn't make sense and that I've put far too much thought into it.

Agreed.  But there's nothing wrong with trying to figure it out!

[Darth_Anton]

It's all cool. I didn't take any offence.

Your points are well taken to, and I think you're right about the At-At.

[JACKOFTRADZE]

To help enlighten everyone on manufacturers profit margins vs. what a retailer makes there is a general rule of dividing the retail cost by 4.
If Hasbro wants to retail this for $90 the need to have a Exfactory cost (What is costs hasbro to make) of $23. In turn they would sell the item to TRU for around $55. TRU would need to make at minimum around 40-45% on the item and retail it for $90. There is a little give or take but it will be very close if you divide by 4.

This was the basic formula at Mattel and my current company. (I have over 6years of Toy design under my belt so I can back up what I say). I do not work at Hasbro by the way.

Hope that helps in future threads.

[Dressel Rebel]

To help enlighten everyone on manufacturers profit margins vs. what a retailer makes there is a general rule of dividing the retail cost by 4.
If Hasbro wants to retail this for $90 the need to have a Exfactory cost (What is costs hasbro to make) of $2. In turn they would sell the item to TRU for around $55. TRU would need to make at minimum around 40-45% on the item and retail it for $90. There is a little give or take but it will be very close if you divide by 4.

If you divide $90 by 4 you get $22.50, so does that mean if the retailer sells it for $90, their profit should be $22.50?

Because in your example their profit is $45, rendering the formula irrelevant.

[Darth Slothus]

Yeah but he said There is a little give or take but it will be very close if you divide by 4...so maybe that's the 'little' difference here ?

Seriously, I think Jack was just trying to help out with folks understanding it