powerfred3k
Main Eventer
Joined on: Aug 12, 2012 22:12:11 GMT -5
Posts: 3,757
|
Post by powerfred3k on Jan 21, 2020 17:49:39 GMT -5
CM PoorMattel is losing money every year and replacing ceo's what seems like every other year. Its not 1985 anymore, so they better figure out how to at least break even year over year. Walmart and target stores are not putting there product on the shelves. In particular target seems to be doing a really awful job. Mattel keeps going on this route there are 2 options, being bought out (hasbro most likely) or bankruptcy. Either of these 2 options means a lot of people losing there jobs because mattel is not adapting to the environment. So please present a better idea than going the vendor route ??
|
|
|
Post by CM Poor on Jan 21, 2020 19:27:01 GMT -5
CM PoorMattel is losing money every year and replacing ceo's what seems like every other year. Its not 1985 anymore, so they better figure out how to at least break even year over year. Walmart and target stores are not putting there product on the shelves. In particular target seems to be doing a really awful job. Mattel keeps going on this route there are 2 options, being bought out (hasbro most likely) or bankruptcy. Either of these 2 options means a lot of people losing there jobs because mattel is not adapting to the environment. So please present a better idea than going the vendor route ?? "Please present a better idea"? GTFO. I'm not a business consultant, and clearly, neither are you. If Mattel is facing certain bankruptcy, a multi-million dollar dismantling of their entire business model from the ground up isn't going to save them, especially when it's being posited on the back of four feet of retail space, and they're certainly not going to run that sort of endeavor through a one year pilot program. The retailers almost certainly would shut them down before they got in the door. Your conclusions are being drawn from the assumption that the issues that plague the line that holds your interest must be the same across the board, which simply isn't true. There is no market shortage of available product in regard to Mattel's power brands, because that is what's going to reliably generate the most revenue.
|
|
|
Post by CM Poor on Jan 21, 2020 19:28:22 GMT -5
Except you've gone so far outside of the box that you're proposing a massive operations overhaul with high stakes implications on Mattel's operating budget and financial statements, vastly reshaping the very manner in which 35%+ of the entire U.S. market share of toy retail is distributed, to resolve an issue with a partner brand that is such a relative drop in the bucket to Mattel's annual stream of revenue that it doesn't even warrant its own line item on their annual financial statements. Even when you consider only two major retailers, the undertaking you're proposing is astronomical. Wal-Mart has 4,700+ stores in the US alone. Target has over 1,800. The average outside vendor sales rep in my state (a notoriously low wage state) makes $58,000 a year, and we're not talking about a simple fifty state initiative here, either. In theory, one sales rep could feasibly cover all 26 Wal-Mart stores in my area. The two furthest stores from one another are separated by 90 miles, but on paper, it can be done. I also live in a small state. One overworked Mattel sales rep might be able to cut the mustard in my state (but probably wouldn't). Your Texas and California stores are going to need to be fed by multiple reps. This is just to illustrate salaries...beyond that, you're talking modular consignment, vendor replenishment to ensure that your reps have the product to distribute evenly across their entire area of coverage, move-to-clear schedules because modular space is in a perpetual state of flux in retail stores...all over a line that takes up eight square feet of space in your average 179,000 square foot SuperCenter. TL;DR - Mattel isn't going to switch to a representative distribution model in a million years solely to correct an issue in a line that likely accounts for a single digit (or less) percentage of their annual profit. I can’t respond to that because by reading that you are probably infinitely more knowledgeable about this stuff than I am BUT We aren’t just talking Mattel WWE here. When it says toys are down so and so %, it has to be a problem across all brands (girls, boys, maybe toddlers, idk). But clearly the big 2 don’t give a damn about restocking and keeping shelves healthy looking in what we concentrate on here on this forum (WWE). It’s probably safe to say they don’t care about the entire department. That’s got to count for something to corporate at Target or Wal Mart. I’m not sure the solution, but it’s a shame to see all these companies stepping their game up, and producing great lines and product, and retail, be it one way or another, just keeps dropping the ball left and right I'm not sure where you're going with this. Your entire response all but spells out that the onus lies on the retailers. What do you want the manufacturers to do about that?
|
|
taserface
Superstar
Joined on: Oct 28, 2017 16:10:39 GMT -5
Posts: 890
|
Post by taserface on Jan 21, 2020 20:37:22 GMT -5
I can’t respond to that because by reading that you are probably infinitely more knowledgeable about this stuff than I am BUT We aren’t just talking Mattel WWE here. When it says toys are down so and so %, it has to be a problem across all brands (girls, boys, maybe toddlers, idk). But clearly the big 2 don’t give a damn about restocking and keeping shelves healthy looking in what we concentrate on here on this forum (WWE). It’s probably safe to say they don’t care about the entire department. That’s got to count for something to corporate at Target or Wal Mart. I’m not sure the solution, but it’s a shame to see all these companies stepping their game up, and producing great lines and product, and retail, be it one way or another, just keeps dropping the ball left and right I'm not sure where you're going with this. Your entire response all but spells out that the onus lies on the retailers. What do you want the manufacturers to do about that? I don’t have a fix for it. I was referring to the other guy talking about Mattel reps stocking their products. I was just saying overall it’s probably an issue with all the major companies in this toy sales falling and the stores not stocking products But seeing your info you put into post, and why it’s probably not feasible Overall just saying it sucks
|
|
powerfred3k
Main Eventer
Joined on: Aug 12, 2012 22:12:11 GMT -5
Posts: 3,757
|
Post by powerfred3k on Jan 21, 2020 22:25:13 GMT -5
I can’t respond to that because by reading that you are probably infinitely more knowledgeable about this stuff than I am BUT We aren’t just talking Mattel WWE here. When it says toys are down so and so %, it has to be a problem across all brands (girls, boys, maybe toddlers, idk). But clearly the big 2 don’t give a damn about restocking and keeping shelves healthy looking in what we concentrate on here on this forum (WWE). It’s probably safe to say they don’t care about the entire department. That’s got to count for something to corporate at Target or Wal Mart. I’m not sure the solution, but it’s a shame to see all these companies stepping their game up, and producing great lines and product, and retail, be it one way or another, just keeps dropping the ball left and right I'm not sure where you're going with this. Your entire response all but spells out that the onus lies on the retailers. What do you want the manufacturers to do about that? "Reported Operating Loss of $131.0 million, an improvement of $145.6 million; Adjusted Operating Loss of $100.4 million, an improvement of $146.9 million." news.mattel.com/news/mattel-reports-first-quarter-2019-financial-results"Reported Operating Loss of $51.4 million, an improvement of $137.8 million; Adjusted Operating Loss of $30.4 million, an improvement of $103.9 million." news.mattel.com/news/mattel-reports-second-quarter-2019-financial-results" Reported Operating Loss was $28.3 million, an improvement of $311.6 million, and Adjusted Operating Income was $46.9 million, an improvement of $271.5 million." news.mattel.com/news/mattel-reports-third-quarter-2019-financial-results"Mattel to Host Conference Call to Address Accounting Questions Related to the Conclusions of Independent Investigation" mattel.gcs-web.com/news-releases/news-release-details/mattel-host-conference-call-address-accounting-questions-relatedThoughts ? Hasbro quarterly results to compare. Q1- "Operating profit increased to $36.1 million" Q2- "Operating profit increased 47% to $128.3 million" Q3- "Operating profit of $193.7 Million"
|
|
|
Post by RuthlessFigs on Jan 21, 2020 22:27:30 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by LA Times on Jan 22, 2020 8:56:14 GMT -5
If Mattel brought back the WWE Legends line and matty collector, that would turn their whole business around 😄😆😅😂
|
|
|
Post by CM Poor on Jan 22, 2020 9:18:35 GMT -5
On the surface? I'm not sure why you're trying to convince me that Mattel's financials are down. Those facts aren't going to do anything to sway my opinion that retail is a primary driving force behind a toy manufacturer's ability to operate at a profit. You're still trying to peg these massive shifts in margin on a phenomenon that simply isn't as widely spread as you're purporting it to be. I don't know who else you're regularly buying toys for, but for the eight thousandth time, the issues with distribution and store stock availability are not affecting Mattel's power brands, which are the driving force behind their net income. It would be patently foolish for a company in dire financial straits to roll the dice on a multi-million dollar upheaval of their operating model, driving a massive, annual increase into their operating expenses over one guy's theory that the reason Mattel's margins are hurting as badly as they are is because of the lack of availability of WWE action figures. Business is an organic food chain. Consumer habits are going to drive retailers' assortments, which is, in turn, going to drive manufacturers' sales. You and I aren't Mattel's customer base - Wal-Mart and Target are. Every toy manufacturer's margins took a dramatic spike in 2018, and nobody here needs more than one guess as to why.
|
|
|
Post by Next Man’s Knowing Rock on Jan 22, 2020 10:16:06 GMT -5
Every toy manufacturer's margins took a dramatic spike in 2018, and nobody here needs more than one guess as to why. Don’t act like you know what you’re talking about. I, an intellectual (and child), know that all of the problems in the world are obviously caused by the specific issues that I complain about in my hobby. How do I know this, you ask? Because I’m a narcissist with no sense of perspective, so I cannot even perceive the notion that anything happens for any other reason than whatever me wanty or me hatey at any given moment. You need to start looking at things from other people’s perspectives, okay? Because I lack the ability to do that.
|
|
|
Post by The Madness on Jan 22, 2020 10:42:38 GMT -5
I work for a Children's charity that shops for hundreds of kids each Christmas. Believe me, it wasn't just WWE - everything from LOL Dolls to Hatchimals to Barbie was incredibly poorly stocked and hard to find.
Doing that kind of shopping without Toys R Us is much, much harder.
|
|
|
Post by LA Times on Jan 22, 2020 11:42:27 GMT -5
On the surface? I'm not sure why you're trying to convince me that Mattel's financials are down. Those facts aren't going to do anything to sway my opinion that retail is a primary driving force behind a toy manufacturer's ability to operate at a profit. You're still trying to peg these massive shifts in margin on a phenomenon that simply isn't as widely spread as you're purporting it to be. I don't know who else you're regularly buying toys for, but for the eight thousandth time, the issues with distribution and store stock availability are not affecting Mattel's power brands, which are the driving force behind their net income. It would be patently foolish for a company in dire financial straits to roll the dice on a multi-million dollar upheaval of their operating model, driving a massive, annual increase into their operating expenses over one guy's theory that the reason Mattel's margins are hurting as badly as they are is because of the lack of availability of WWE action figures. Business is an organic food chain. Consumer habits are going to drive retailers' assortments, which is, in turn, going to drive manufacturers' sales. You and I aren't Mattel's customer base - Wal-Mart and Target are. Every toy manufacturer's margins took a dramatic spike in 2018, and nobody here needs more than one guess as to why.And it was widely predicted that toymakers and consumers would suffer as a result.
|
|
|
Post by CM Poor on Jan 22, 2020 11:57:34 GMT -5
On the surface? I'm not sure why you're trying to convince me that Mattel's financials are down. Those facts aren't going to do anything to sway my opinion that retail is a primary driving force behind a toy manufacturer's ability to operate at a profit. You're still trying to peg these massive shifts in margin on a phenomenon that simply isn't as widely spread as you're purporting it to be. I don't know who else you're regularly buying toys for, but for the eight thousandth time, the issues with distribution and store stock availability are not affecting Mattel's power brands, which are the driving force behind their net income. It would be patently foolish for a company in dire financial straits to roll the dice on a multi-million dollar upheaval of their operating model, driving a massive, annual increase into their operating expenses over one guy's theory that the reason Mattel's margins are hurting as badly as they are is because of the lack of availability of WWE action figures. Business is an organic food chain. Consumer habits are going to drive retailers' assortments, which is, in turn, going to drive manufacturers' sales. You and I aren't Mattel's customer base - Wal-Mart and Target are. Every toy manufacturer's margins took a dramatic spike in 2018, and nobody here needs more than one guess as to why.And it was widely predicted that toymakers and consumers would suffer as a result. Yup, surprisingly (almost) nobody. TRU's business was toys, categorized from the top down into subcategories, but still retaining that common denominator. When TRU disappeared, it generated a vacuum, as there was no major toy retailer to scoop up that business. Wal-Mart and Target are general merchandise retailers. Toys constitute a percentage of a percentage of their sales categories (hardlines at Target, general merchandise at Wal-Mart). Anyone exhibiting any sort of shock that the driven sales of TRU didn't make a ten to five and five shift to Wal-Mart and Target is only kidding themselves. The two of them combined just simply don't possess the capacity to absorb that sort of specific business category. Anyone wanna guess which major retailer is already hinting at a self-record breaking holiday season in the toy division?
|
|
powerfred3k
Main Eventer
Joined on: Aug 12, 2012 22:12:11 GMT -5
Posts: 3,757
|
Post by powerfred3k on Jan 22, 2020 12:26:56 GMT -5
LA Times CM PoorSo mattel loses 210 million dollars in 3 quarters and hasbro makes 358 million and your saying no changes need to be made. Even if you don't like my vendor idea you can't keep losing money like that and expect to survive. So the point is they need to do something or they are just gonna slow burn to bankruptcy or being bought out or both. Also hasbro seems to be doing just fine without toysrus.
|
|
|
Post by CM Poor on Jan 22, 2020 12:43:44 GMT -5
LA Times CM PoorSo mattel loses 210 million dollars in 3 quarters and hasbro makes 358 million and your saying no changes need to be made. Even if you don't like my vendor idea you can't keep losing money like that and expect to survive. So the point is they need to do something or they are just gonna slow burn to bankruptcy or being bought out or both. Also hasbro seems to be doing just fine without toysrus. You're over elaborating my points for me. I'm not suggesting they make no changes. I'm specifically poking holes in your outlandish suggestion, and pointing out the very real shift in consumer habits and the retail landscape that is contributing to manufacturer woes. I've actually not denied Mattel's overall financial position at all - I've just been pointing out that it's more complex than people here want to give it credit for. And FWIW, Hasbro has many more, much larger streams of alternative revenue outside the toy category.
|
|
powerfred3k
Main Eventer
Joined on: Aug 12, 2012 22:12:11 GMT -5
Posts: 3,757
|
Post by powerfred3k on Jan 22, 2020 12:53:36 GMT -5
LA Times CM PoorSo mattel loses 210 million dollars in 3 quarters and hasbro makes 358 million and your saying no changes need to be made. Even if you don't like my vendor idea you can't keep losing money like that and expect to survive. So the point is they need to do something or they are just gonna slow burn to bankruptcy or being bought out or both. Also hasbro seems to be doing just fine without toysrus. You're over elaborating my points for me. I'm not suggesting they make no changes. I'm specifically poking holes in your outlandish suggestion, and pointing out the very real shift in consumer habits and the retail landscape that is contributing to manufacturer woes. I've actually not denied Mattel's overall financial position at all - I've just been pointing out that it's more complex than people here want to give it credit for. And FWIW, Hasbro has many more, much larger streams of alternative revenue outside the toy category. So are trying to say mattel put all there eggs into the toysrus basket and they are losing tons of money because of it ? That is a terrible business decision. You can't tell me mattel did not know toysrus was on real shakey ground there last 2-3 years.
|
|
|
Post by CM Poor on Jan 22, 2020 13:12:51 GMT -5
You're over elaborating my points for me. I'm not suggesting they make no changes. I'm specifically poking holes in your outlandish suggestion, and pointing out the very real shift in consumer habits and the retail landscape that is contributing to manufacturer woes. I've actually not denied Mattel's overall financial position at all - I've just been pointing out that it's more complex than people here want to give it credit for. And FWIW, Hasbro has many more, much larger streams of alternative revenue outside the toy category. So are trying to say mattel put all there eggs into the toysrus basket and they are losing tons of money because of it ? That is a terrible business decision. You can't tell me mattel did not know toysrus was on real shakey ground there last 2-3 years. No, I didn't say that. You did. You're either over simplifying the points I'm offering, or over hyperbolizing them to offer yourself your next talking point. At this point, in essence, you're arguing with yourself. To suggest that Mattel and Hasbro didn't experience overtly similar dips in their operating margins in 2018 is just willful denial because you want one party to come out ahead of the other in your narrative. Their curves ( Mattel's) ( Hasbro's) follow the same expected downward arc. Nobody, other than the words you're trying to stick to others, is denying baseline facts that you keep throwing out, but the overall landscape of any manufacturer of goods to be sold in a retail environment is exponentially more complex that you're giving it credit for by dwindling the "obvious solution" down to the means in which the product is delivered to the stores. It can't be said enough - even in that scenario, Mattel's customer is still the retailer, and no consumer on earth is going to have their hand forced into purchasing x amount of goods solely because of how it makes its way from the assembly line to the shelf.
|
|
|
Post by Mongo Bears on Jan 22, 2020 13:48:57 GMT -5
I’m just starting to not give a I can’t find the products Im after and now I’m starting to just not even want them anyways.
|
|
powerfred3k
Main Eventer
Joined on: Aug 12, 2012 22:12:11 GMT -5
Posts: 3,757
|
Post by powerfred3k on Jan 22, 2020 14:24:57 GMT -5
ok CM PoorI have presented my idea for mattel which you disagree with. Ok that is great, again give a better one. Here is another idea, have dedicated mattel sections in walmart and target stores with dedicated mattel employees. Store within a store might work. Mattel should at least consider either of those options to improve the situation. Or they could just ignore everything and die a slow death like kmart/sears is doing right now.
|
|
|
Post by CM Poor on Jan 22, 2020 14:36:14 GMT -5
ok CM PoorI have presented my idea for mattel which you disagree with. Ok that is great, again give a better one. Here is another idea, have dedicated mattel sections in walmart and target stores with dedicated mattel employees. Store within a store might work. Mattel should at least consider either of those options to improve the situation. Or they could just ignore everything and die a slow death like kmart/sears is doing right now. LOL Procedural disagreement doesn't require an alternative to be presented in order to question the validity of an idea. All of your ideas hinge upon acceptance on the part of the retailer, but you continue to willfully ignore their role in the matter. Also, Target test drove the store-within-a-store concept this past fall/winter. The result? This thread. And comparing SHC to Mattel isn't even apples and oranges. That's like apples and Dremel tools.
|
|
|
Post by LA Times on Jan 22, 2020 18:33:22 GMT -5
LA Times CM PoorSo mattel loses 210 million dollars in 3 quarters and hasbro makes 358 million and your saying no changes need to be made. Even if you don't like my vendor idea you can't keep losing money like that and expect to survive. So the point is they need to do something or they are just gonna slow burn to bankruptcy or being bought out or both. Also hasbro seems to be doing just fine without toysrus. Hasbro also took a huge hit when toys r us went out of business. It's called bouncing back.
|
|