Page 84 of 127 FirstFirst ... 3474828384858694 ... LastLast
Results 831 to 840 of 1265

Thread: Is SW 3.75" collecting Dead and Buried?

  1. #831
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicklab View Post
    Dictated DIRECTLY by Disney? I don't think that Disney would micromanage things to that extent. But for Hasbro to pay out some $225 million more to Disney to retain the rights? I see a correlation between the timing of that deal and Hasbro scaling back tooling and articulation as a means of improving their profit margins.

    Hasbro pays ZERO royalties on G.I. Joe since they own the G.I. Joe intellectual property. Comparing Star Wars and G.I. Joe is an apples / oranges argument given the different ownership arrangements.
    That's the point. Hasbro tried to cut articulation to both Gi Joe and Star Wars around 2012, and only one (Star Wars) had anything to do with Disney. Marvel universe, a toy line that Disney owns most of the rights to, kept it's articulation. This points to a decision on Hasbro's part rather than something forced on them by Disney, either through hi licensing fees or contract stipulations.

  2. #832
    The master toy license for Star Wars is worth significantly more money than that of Marvel. Hence Hasbro paid significantly more for the Star Wars license than that of Marvel. Between 1995 and 2011 Hasbro had $5.5 billion in sales of their Star Wars merchandise. That averages out to some $340 million per year during that period. The duration of the new licensing agreement isn't exactly clear. But at a cost of $225 million? That's not cheap. And that eats into Hasbro's profit margins.

    And again, GI Joe is not an appropriate comparison given it's ownership.

  3. #833
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicklab View Post
    The master toy license for Star Wars is worth significantly more money than that of Marvel. Hence Hasbro paid significantly more for the Star Wars license than that of Marvel. Between 1995 and 2011 Hasbro had $5.5 billion in sales of their Star Wars merchandise. That averages out to some $340 million per year during that period. The duration of the new licensing agreement isn't exactly clear. But at a cost of $225 million? That's not cheap. And that eats into Hasbro's profit margins.

    And again, GI Joe is not an appropriate comparison given it's ownership.
    What part are you having problems with Gi Joe is an appropriate comparison precisely because of its ownership. The deal between Disney and Lucas was announced in October 2012. The first 5 poa Star Wars and Gi Joe also came out in 2012 meaning development for both started in 2011 long before Disney purchased Star Wars. So, if they started work on reduced articulation figures BEFORE Disney purchased Star Wars, and on a brand that was not in the purchase (Gi Joe) it probably wasn't because of Disney.

  4. #834
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicklab View Post
    I certainly get the frustration that's been expressed here. And when people compare something like the Biggs Darklighter TVC X-wing to something like the TFA X-wings based on both design and price, there does seem to be a significant degree of disparity in terms of quality for the money. And there are similar criticisms on the 3.75" figure front. We've heard a lot about existing molds, tooling costs and the like in past conversations on these topics. So I decided to do a little bit of digging on this topic from the business end.

    This Variety article seems to cite a major change that appears to have had a major impact:
    http://variety.com/2013/biz/news/has...es-1200566115/



    Look at the timing of how the line has changed. This article came out in 2013, and the timeline of the change in quality of Star Wars product seems to line up with this extension in the merchandising agreement between Disney and Hasbro. One can only speculate without knowing Hasbro's inner financials positions. But that $225 million extra Hasbro paid to Disney for the extension of their license seems like it may be one of determining reasons why the Star Wars line has changed so significantly since that time. Is this the indication that we've been looking for? Perhaps. I've had a feeling for some time that the change in product quality had something to do with the purchase of Lucasfilm by Disney. And I suspect there is a significant correlation between this change in the merchandising license between Disney and Hasbro and the quality of product we're now seeing in the Star Wars line.

    So will Hasbro continue with this strategy? I don't know. But looking at more financial reporting, it appears that Star Wars sales were slightly down in 2016:

    http://fortune.com/2017/02/06/hasbro-disney-holiday-sales/


    I think the net effect is that we're dealing with is that products with higher costs and lower profit margins wound up falling victim to cuts. And Hasbro is pushing the lower cost product with higher margins because they have to factor in the higher royalties that now have to be paid to Disney.


    Speaking to that, "if" Hasbro needed to make their money back, all they had to do is give us the right product, right on time. Hasbro went all over the place trying to figure out the magic formula to get their money back on their investment and it did not pay off. If Money is the reason why Hasbro is in schizophrenic mode trying to figure things out then they need new leadership. TVC was the right product and people were eating it off the shelves. I know i was and i was not even a collector before. The TVC gimmick attracted a ton of collectors back in buying toys and they were just pushed away with different scales, different qualities and Hasbro is still doing the same thing with different stuff that don't work. Simple they are not giving us what we want.


    Why is Lego "seemingly" succeeding with their Star Wars high priced stuff when Hasbro seems to be not be able to find the right formula. The answer is that Lego is on time, has quality and quantity with their product... that's why...

  5. #835
    and i am sure that Lego is paying thru the nose to be able to sell their Star Wars toys...

  6. #836
    Quote Originally Posted by somelikeithoth View Post
    What part are you having problems with Gi Joe is an appropriate comparison precisely because of its ownership. The deal between Disney and Lucas was announced in October 2012. The first 5 poa Star Wars and Gi Joe also came out in 2012 meaning development for both started in 2011 long before Disney purchased Star Wars. So, if they started work on reduced articulation figures BEFORE Disney purchased Star Wars, and on a brand that was not in the purchase (Gi Joe) it probably wasn't because of Disney.

    BECAUSE G.I. JOE IS A WHOLLY OWNED PROPERTY OF HASBRO, WITH NO LICENSING ROYALTIES TO SPEAK OF. It has never been and never will be an appropriate comparison in terms of the business model because those royalties will NEVER be factored into the cost structure, and corresponding price structure of G.I. Joe. Star Wars has a significant licensing royalty built into the cost and price structure of every product sold. That makes the profit margins on Star Wars significantly tighter.

    Your analogy only goes so far as to address 5 POA figures in one license compared to 5 POA figures in another license. If we're to stick to the analogy, the only thing they have in common is that they're both fruit. That's where the similarities end.

    BTW, in a recent interview, someone seemed to opine that Star Wars 3.75" SA figures might find some sort of salvation via a direct to market model. Like G.I. Joe. Guess what? It didn't really work. Mattel has tried something similar. Didn't work in the long run.

  7. #837
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicklab View Post
    BECAUSE G.I. JOE IS A WHOLLY OWNED PROPERTY OF HASBRO, WITH NO LICENSING ROYALTIES TO SPEAK OF. It has never been and never will be an appropriate comparison in terms of the business model because those royalties will NEVER be factored into the cost structure, and corresponding price structure of G.I. Joe. Star Wars has a significant licensing royalty built into the cost and price structure of every product sold. That makes the profit margins on Star Wars significantly tighter.
    Seriously? If the decision to go 5 poa was Disney's through a contract clause or the like, Gi Joe would not have reduced articulation at the same time.
    The fact that they are owned by different companies is EXACTLY why the decision appears to be Hasbro's not Disney's. Disney has no say in Gi Joe. Yet both Star Wars and Gi Joe reduced articulation in 2012, pointing towards the idea it wasn't something Disney asked for, such as a contract stipulation but rather a decision on Hasbro's part.
    The company that owns the license is the variable here.

  8. #838
    Quote Originally Posted by somelikeithoth View Post
    Seriously? If the decision to go 5 poa was Disney's through a contract clause or the like, Gi Joe would not have reduced articulation at the same time.
    The fact that they are owned by different companies is EXACTLY why the decision appears to be Hasbro's not Disney's. Disney has no say in Gi Joe. Yet both Star Wars and Gi Joe reduced articulation in 2012, pointing towards the idea it wasn't something Disney asked for, such as a contract stipulation but rather a decision on Hasbro's part.
    The company that owns the license is the variable here.
    THE COST OF THE LICENSE IS THE VARIABLE.

    Hasbro has far greater overhead with Star Wars and the associated licensing fees before they make any money. You seem to be mistaking WHO made the decision to reduce articulation in an action figure range as opposed to looking at WHY that was done. A decision like that appears to have been Hasbro's. But why? To cut costs. However, that decision seems to have been influenced greatly by the financial conditions of the new deal with Disney. The most recent licensing deal with Disney, to the tune of $225 million through 2020, is greatly impacting Hasbro's decision making process here. So they are looking to cut costs on the product line, and push for higher volume sales in these movie years.

    So did the people running the G.I. Joe brand want to cut costs by moving towards a figure that's simpler and cheaper to produce? That may very well be the case. But other than an effective cost cutting move and also being produced by Hasbro, that is where the similarities end.

  9. #839
    Quote Originally Posted by somelikeithoth View Post
    Seriously? If the decision to go 5 poa was Disney's through a contract clause or the like, Gi Joe would not have reduced articulation at the same time.
    The fact that they are owned by different companies is EXACTLY why the decision appears to be Hasbro's not Disney's. Disney has no say in Gi Joe. Yet both Star Wars and Gi Joe reduced articulation in 2012, pointing towards the idea it wasn't something Disney asked for, such as a contract stipulation but rather a decision on Hasbro's part.
    The company that owns the license is the variable here.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicklab View Post
    THE COST OF THE LICENSE IS THE VARIABLE.

    Hasbro has far greater overhead with Star Wars and the associated licensing fees before they make any money. You seem to be mistaking WHO made the decision to reduce articulation in an action figure range as opposed to looking at WHY that was done. A decision like that appears to have been Hasbro's. But why? To cut costs. However, that decision seems to have been influenced greatly by the financial conditions of the new deal with Disney. The most recent licensing deal with Disney, to the tune of $225 million through 2020, is greatly impacting Hasbro's decision making process here. So they are looking to cut costs on the product line, and push for higher volume sales in these movie years.

    So did the people running the G.I. Joe brand want to cut costs by moving towards a figure that's simpler and cheaper to produce? That may very well be the case. But other than an effective cost cutting move and also being produced by Hasbro, that is where the similarities end.
    I would totally agree with Nicklab here. Hasbro chooses how to manufacture these toys! Sure they would get approval from LFL but they don't get into the semantics of action figure manufacturing, that's Hasbros expertise! Hasbro is choosing to make the figures 5POA for costing reasons. From a business point of view it's a no brainier, costs are cut with no downside (that they care about). With or without the deal with Disney, I am sure this is how Hasbro would choose to make these figures in the current economical climate.
    Most wanted figures: Vedain, Luke Bespin (Beatup version), Fozec, Taym Dren Garen, Sim Aloo

  10. #840
    I'm not sure how much the royalties to Disney for the property cost Hasbro or influence the decision making ability between SA or 5POA, however some ppl keep trying to justify the different lines example:

    GI Joe: the line is dead at retail, only Toys R Us sold a few during last year, very small shipment, however the exclusives/convention action figures are super expensive (between 40 to 50 dollars each) and on top of that they used almost the same molds previously used, with some new gear or weapons, you can't compared SW with GI Joes.

    Marvel 3.75 line: they used almost the same molds too, however the line for kids was 5POA.

    most companies have change to the new standard 6", Marvel Legends, BvS, Power Rangers, Ghostbusters, TMNT, Dragonball Z (the new collection from Bandai America coming up soon at retail), suicide squad, Halo, He-Man, thundercats, etc...

    Hasbro have to make new molds for each character, they can't reused existing molds (maybe they can used same molds for imperials and troopers).

    collectors still complaining they don't get what they want, however looking at the pegs at retail (Walmarts) most are going on clearance (THEY DON'T SELL), however the 5POA are selling good (at least on my area of Jacksonville NC).

    Maybe Hasbro should explain all the decision making and revenues from the line for collectors to understand better, since most of the blame gets pushed on them, however I'm sure they want to make money and support the fans, why else will they be making SW figures if the company is not making money and making some ppl happy.

    For the record, I like better SA 3.75 than any other offering from SW, but at the same time I do like the 6" BS and 5POA, but on the flip side I'm more selective on the ones I get.

Page 84 of 127 FirstFirst ... 3474828384858694 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •