Integration

Skoob · 01-26-2015, 03:06 PM

One man stepping down does not address problems of the business or the marketplace. It's a glib Band-Aid intended to placate shareholders and the media, having the sensible effect of drawing more attention.

I pay little attention to Mattel as a collector. They don't produce collector-grade stuff generally, even as that niche continues to grow. What is the condition of the organization and its culture? Where is middle management? Where is R&D? There are creative opportunities that have proven very profitable for smaller, more aggressive outfits in recent years. There is a perception that change has been needed for some time. Middle managers cannot be said to have "just followed orders" even in the worst top-down, control-freakish, dysfunctional organization.

There are broader socio-economic issues that should be well known to product developers. 'Barbie' is a product from a different time, representing a feminine ideal marketed to girls by a more comparatively patriarchal (man-oriented) society during a time of general prosperity, with a strong productive economy, and when it was fashionable for people with considerable disposable income to surround themselves with 'accessories' like motorhomes, sports cars, big houses, et cetera. Nowadays, Barbie's 'accessorization' seems out of touch. A population that has a debt-to-income of 110% (worse in Canada, ~164%) is struggling to pay bills and groceries. So one understands why Barbie has undergone changes and upgrades in an attempt to make her seem less stereotypically feminine and more in touch with modern culture in troubled times, as Forbes reports, but it also seems clear why any move was likely to fall short of straight-line sales projections.

I wonder if Mattel faces legacy pension issues. I haven't looked up their financials, but know that a lot of companies have that sword hanging over their heads.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steevy Maximus

Making products better and keeping the price reasonable can often be contradictory goals.

Tough. That's exactly what they need to do. But look at the shares of MAT on the NASDAQ. The technicals (tea leaves) are ugly. The market is not smelling success. If I still traded American symbols, I'd short it.

01-26-2015, 03:06 PM	#10
Skoob Join Date: Jul 2014 Posts: 2,461	One man stepping down does not address problems of the business or the marketplace. It's a glib Band-Aid intended to placate shareholders and the media, having the sensible effect of drawing more attention. I pay little attention to Mattel as a collector. They don't produce collector-grade stuff generally, even as that niche continues to grow. What is the condition of the organization and its culture? Where is middle management? Where is R&D? There are creative opportunities that have proven very profitable for smaller, more aggressive outfits in recent years. There is a perception that change has been needed for some time. Middle managers cannot be said to have "just followed orders" even in the worst top-down, control-freakish, dysfunctional organization. There are broader socio-economic issues that should be well known to product developers. 'Barbie' is a product from a different time, representing a feminine ideal marketed to girls by a more comparatively patriarchal (man-oriented) society during a time of general prosperity, with a strong productive economy, and when it was fashionable for people with considerable disposable income to surround themselves with 'accessories' like motorhomes, sports cars, big houses, et cetera. Nowadays, Barbie's 'accessorization' seems out of touch. A population that has a debt-to-income of 110% (worse in Canada, ~164%) is struggling to pay bills and groceries. So one understands why Barbie has undergone changes and upgrades in an attempt to make her seem less stereotypically feminine and more in touch with modern culture in troubled times, as Forbes reports, but it also seems clear why any move was likely to fall short of straight-line sales projections. I wonder if Mattel faces legacy pension issues. I haven't looked up their financials, but know that a lot of companies have that sword hanging over their heads. Quote: Originally Posted by Steevy Maximus Making products better and keeping the price reasonable can often be contradictory goals. Tough. That's exactly what they need to do. But look at the shares of MAT on the NASDAQ. The technicals (tea leaves) are ugly. The market is not smelling success. If I still traded American symbols, I'd short it. Last edited by Skoob; 01-26-2015 at 03:12 PM..