worldwaЯRior
Mid-Carder
Joined on: Jul 9, 2010 13:39:02 GMT -5
Posts: 215
|
Post by worldwaЯRior on Jul 27, 2011 7:39:48 GMT -5
Im going to say im against this idea because not only am i not going to buy them, i also want Mattel to just focus on the existing lines.
|
|
|
Post by Next Man’s No 503K on Jul 27, 2011 8:46:11 GMT -5
I would love to know how old you are that you continue to refer to everyone as child and kid. Old enough that I see the folly of the "lol they shud put da money into elitez instead lolz" nonsense. I apologise if my use of "child" or "kid" in a derogatory fashion has offended any kids on here that do have some sense, though. But I can only assume the "lol they shud put da money into elitez instead lolz" people are very young, as the alternative is that they're... Well, not very bright. Irrelevant -- retail price is bumped up from Mattel's wholesale prices, which are dictated by their costs (both production and marketing) and the volume they sell. Do you honestly not understand this? Now if Mattel did have research that supported that theory, why wouldn't they be doing it already? Their data obviously suggests that they need to maintain or cut costs on each figure, not raise them. Hence we no longer get stands, they're sculpting more shirts, etc. Why would you assume it made sense to do so, when Mattel's own business moves clearly indicate it doesn't? Do you seriously think Target are going to go "Whoa! This basic WWE Randy Orton has all his tattoos coloured in now! We'll take eight million"? 1. Why would retailers suddenly spend an extra 20% on buying the stock (at $6 instead of $5) and not increase their prices? 2. Why would Mattel suddenly lump all the budget for the other lines into that one figure, and decide $6 for a basic figure is better than $5 for a basic figure, $5 for a Flexforce figure and $3 for a Rumblers two-pack? They'd be spending the same amount in production costs and making less than half the revenue. Someone has to add a little thought into proceedings, to counterbalance all the "I collect basic and elite, therefore Mattel should put all the budgets of the other lines into those while magically keeping prices the same and retaining profit margins" idiocy.
|
|
|
Post by saynotonoobs on Jul 27, 2011 9:02:13 GMT -5
same here
|
|
|
Post by plastictaxicab on Jul 27, 2011 9:23:30 GMT -5
CAN SOMEONE PLEASE GIVE ME A LINK TO WHERE I CAN VOTE FOR THE LEGENDS!? I've searched Matty Collector-can't find it any where! Can anyone provide a link!? Thanks you, thank you, thank you, X ;D Seriously? It's right in the middle of the first page when you first go on mattycollector.com. Anyway, here is the direct link: www.mattycollector.com/store/matty/ContentTheme/pbPage.WWE_Poll
|
|
E N I G M A
Main Eventer
Joined on: Jul 4, 2010 5:21:31 GMT -5
Posts: 2,633
|
Post by E N I G M A on Jul 27, 2011 9:48:47 GMT -5
I would like to see sth like the Unmatched Fury, or BnB
|
|
thereisnoart
Mid-Carder
Choke him in the neck!
Joined on: Sept 9, 2009 9:28:22 GMT -5
Posts: 191
|
Post by thereisnoart on Jul 27, 2011 10:05:56 GMT -5
It's kind of hard to say whether I'd be in for a smaller scale without seeing an example first. It could be really cool, and I trust Mattel enough to know that whatever it is, it'd be quality. At the same time, I don't need yet another toy line to spend money on.
If they launched a smaller scale line, I would probably get figures of my faves or ones that jumped out at me (because of deco, accessories (if any), etc.), but I don't think I'd go out of my way to collect the entire line.
|
|
chriskay18
Mid-Carder
Joined on: Jul 12, 2011 11:35:27 GMT -5
Posts: 450
|
Post by chriskay18 on Jul 27, 2011 11:15:28 GMT -5
i like the idea, i was a fan of the BnB, hopefully they will tune them p and add the mattel touch to them. i think its a great idea!
|
|
|
Post by The Silent Flute (joepetree) on Jul 27, 2011 11:35:03 GMT -5
yeah ..... Im good with Just Elites and Legends/ Defining Moments Style if they make figs in bigger or smaller styles i will spend my money on those styles
|
|
VinMan
Main Eventer
Joined on: Aug 7, 2002 20:09:36 GMT -5
Posts: 1,398
|
Post by VinMan on Jul 27, 2011 12:57:01 GMT -5
Stay with the current scale of figures. Jakks had way too many scales and lot of it started to pile up with Build N Brawl, RA, Deluxe RA, Unchained Fury, Bone Crunching, Maximum Aggressions, and so on. Just way too many. The current scale of Mattel figures is the way to go.
|
|
|
Post by steel on Jul 27, 2011 13:14:21 GMT -5
NO THANK YOU, very happy with the current scale.
|
|
|
Post by AlexWestCollects on Jul 27, 2011 13:55:34 GMT -5
i personally hate the idea. Focus on basics and legends and keep funds there.
|
|
|
Post by Glorydaysofwrestling on Jul 27, 2011 15:32:40 GMT -5
No thanks.....sticking to the current scale
|
|
|
Post by Next Man’s No 503K on Jul 27, 2011 16:39:20 GMT -5
i personally hate the idea. Focus on basics and legends and keep funds there. A new line wouldn't be taking funds away from existing lines. Shelf space, maybe, but not funds.
|
|
Deja Voodoo
Superstar
Yup, it's Mike Haggar piledriving a Shark!!
Joined on: Oct 23, 2009 10:30:25 GMT -5
Posts: 536
|
Post by Deja Voodoo on Jul 27, 2011 17:27:28 GMT -5
I may pick a few up but nothing overboard.
|
|
|
Post by King Silva on Jul 27, 2011 19:29:18 GMT -5
I don't really want anything smaller or bigger atm so this wouldn't be for me likely.
|
|
bigbrobuff
Mid-Carder
Joined on: Aug 1, 2007 5:08:30 GMT -5
Posts: 74
|
Post by bigbrobuff on Jul 27, 2011 19:39:40 GMT -5
They're not going to listen to any of you. Maybe the line needs someone new to run it. I know everyone likes Bill, but he's shown me that he really doesn't have his finger on the pulse of what people want. Decisions like this are silly at best. Focus on what you have right now. Fix your distribution issues and work to get retailers to see what people want. LISTEN to your collectors and don't make stupid "executive decisions".
|
|
RVDIsTheBestEver
Main Eventer
WF 19 Year Member!
Joined on: Aug 17, 2005 21:19:58 GMT -5
Posts: 1,111
|
Post by RVDIsTheBestEver on Jul 27, 2011 19:59:33 GMT -5
I would love 12 inch elite style figures. The line doesn't need to have four or five figures, maybe one or two. I get that JAKKS at them and sold like crap. I don't mind deluxe aggression, but they were just ugly in 12 inch form.
|
|
jasonphoenix1
Main Eventer
Just when you think you know the answers. I change the questions!
Joined on: Feb 16, 2011 2:37:31 GMT -5
Posts: 2,377
|
Post by jasonphoenix1 on Jul 27, 2011 22:19:45 GMT -5
Unless they are going to make each individual person to scale with the lines that are out right now they need to just keep them the way they are.
|
|
|
Post by THE *Legendary* STINGER on Jul 28, 2011 0:02:16 GMT -5
MICRO'S PLEASE!! I've wanted newer micros for ever... I think im not the only one on here.
|
|
|
Post by punksnotdead on Jul 28, 2011 0:31:06 GMT -5
I would love to know how old you are that you continue to refer to everyone as child and kid. Old enough that I see the folly of the "lol they shud put da money into elitez instead lolz" nonsense. I apologise if my use of "child" or "kid" in a derogatory fashion has offended any kids on here that do have some sense, though. But I can only assume the "lol they shud put da money into elitez instead lolz" people are very young, as the alternative is that they're... Well, not very bright. Irrelevant -- retail price is bumped up from Mattel's wholesale prices, which are dictated by their costs (both production and marketing) and the volume they sell. Do you honestly not understand this? Now if Mattel did have research that supported that theory, why wouldn't they be doing it already? Their data obviously suggests that they need to maintain or cut costs on each figure, not raise them. Hence we no longer get stands, they're sculpting more shirts, etc. Why would you assume it made sense to do so, when Mattel's own business moves clearly indicate it doesn't? Do you seriously think Target are going to go "Whoa! This basic WWE Randy Orton has all his tattoos coloured in now! We'll take eight million"? 1. Why would retailers suddenly spend an extra 20% on buying the stock (at $6 instead of $5) and not increase their prices? 2. Why would Mattel suddenly lump all the budget for the other lines into that one figure, and decide $6 for a basic figure is better than $5 for a basic figure, $5 for a Flexforce figure and $3 for a Rumblers two-pack? They'd be spending the same amount in production costs and making less than half the revenue. Someone has to add a little thought into proceedings, to counterbalance all the "I collect basic and elite, therefore Mattel should put all the budgets of the other lines into those while magically keeping prices the same and retaining profit margins" idiocy. First of all, touche. At points of that I was playing devils advocate and your broke down all of it. Not something I was prepared for but ok. MSRP is determined by the markup value that the store wants to make, which includes flexibility for sales. That margin can be anywhere from 50-70%. But take into consideration that 1. MSRP can turn the consumer off (see TRU) when they try to take too much, and 2. can be controlled by the manufacturers ability to explain the price increase. Again, this is theoretical, because as I said I was more or less playing devils advocate with you, but if Mattel could show that an increased amount of detail could significantly increase the amount of volume pushed at the retail level, but the MSRP needs to hold steady, due to lets say the backlash from the TRU pricing, then Target (just an example) is going to go, that makes sense, we will try it. So over the long run, paying an extra dollar per figure could be the difference of them making hundreds of thousands of dollars due to the increase in volume. Now why wouldn't Mattel already be doing this? Maybe they have already done the research and it shows that increased detail doesn't mean anything to the majority of end consumers, probably likely, or they have budget restraints that won't even allow them to try the approach, also very likely. Which is why we saw them lose the stands and change the packaging. Again, I'm with you. It's a lot easier to allocate money to a new line with lower production costs and an easier profit margin, than it is to do the product and consumer research and take the risk with your buyers. It's just not very likely, but it's not impossible and it does happen where the manufactures have justifiable cause to increase wholesale pricing and it isn't necessarily reflected at the retail level. I work in a field where we have various price points for very similar items. It's not really the same as what Mattel does because it's not a set price for line x, y, z. But what happens, and I'll use Mattel WWE terms, is we sell a Daniel Bryan for $6 a CM Punk for $8 and lets say a John Cena with title for $9. However, lets say I can add a shirt to John Cena but the price goes up to $10. We still may suggest to the retailer to keep the MSRP at $21, even though it would mean eating the extra dollar. Why? Because we may be competing with other similar products near or around the same price point, and if we have reason to believe that the extra shirt will in fact sell more John Cena's in totality, then the retailer ends up making more money over the course of the year. I've done it, it happens. I'm not saying it works for Mattel or even that Mattel does this but I know that it happens. I get your frustration, but chastising the "kids" is just going to conjure up even more stupid responses. Which in turn would probably frustrate you even more, I would save my energy.
|
|