Thread regarding Mattel Inc. layoffs

Reality check? I'm more interested in a pay check (which I will have and you won't) :)

they should make you the CEO since you're so smart. LOL... and apparently in need of a reality check.

If you owned a calculator and knew how to use it, you wouldn't post these inane ramblings. The stock plummeted because Mattel didn't deliver on its plans. Here's why:

1) Mattel is dependent on fashion dolls to survive - Barbie being the largest and most profitable.

2) When fashion dolls are up, we have a good year - when it's down we have a bad year

3) When Barbie is failing the company takes marketing and advertising $$$ from all the other brands and put them to work for Barbie. Result: Barbie gets propped up artificially and all other brands suffer

4) Barbie artificially props up the revenue, but not the profit - no profit means the stock price drops

5) The company pays out an unreasonably high dividend to prop up the stock price so that the price doesn't fall

Its in a hole the company cannot get out of. We're in essence taking the marketing and R+D $$ that should go into the brands and paying shareholders to beg them not to drop the stock. It's not a position of strength and we won't have a majority of fashion dolls again until we go back to the days of having Barbie, Monster High, Frozen and Disney Princesses. Monster High is dead, Barbie is artificially propped up and both Frozen and Disney Princesses are with Hasbro.

The rest of our brands American Girl, Thomas, FP and HotWheels ALL TOGETHER, can't make up the profit that Barbie had or what was lost from the Disney licenses. We were supposed to have contingency plans from the ToyBox to close the gap, but SL doesn't understand how a P+L works so she gave away the farm on all these opportunistic licenses to just get revenue and so they are ALL either breakeven or losses at the net margin level.

Now do you understand, Junior, why the company is in trouble?

Looks like the low margin toys brought down the stock value huh? So much for things that don't matter. Guess the grand plans weren't enough...

Hey, Check-In: The market doesn't believe that the company can continue to survive paying out huge dividends and still prop up Barbie at the cost of all other brands. It ain't working. The only choice is to go private.

Just wanted to check in on how the market is believing your self deluded BS.

What a pile of crap! "The market cares nothing for grandiose plans" - are you serious?! The market ONLY cares about the grandiose plans, you putz. Especially when your stock is trading at $30. C'mon, you can't be this dumb - do you own ANY stock? Do you know how business functions?!

Why relegate yourself to a low margin business like toys, when you could be so much more with a shift in mentality? This is how both Hasbro and Lego transformed their business and how companies like Spinmaster are attempting to change theirs. READ THE ARTICLES and be informed.

You myopic view of the world is shocking and your insistence that Mattel be just a toy company is exactly what is holding us back. ANYONE can make toys, but only a few can create brands from toys and then turn them into franchises. This is where the VALUE of the company is. If you don't understand it, then take a class. If you don't believe it, then keep your fat head in the sand, and go work for other workshops like JustPlay and Moose Toys.

Ok you're obviously management or one who aspires to be. Your unshakable belief in your own propaganda is appalling.

There's what is fact today and there's your pipe dream.

As you brown nose your way for scraps espousing the vision of your overlords time will be the judge of your naïveté. The market cares nothing for grandiose plans. And you may find the harsh reality of economics pushing its boot heel against the neck of your precious delusions.

Hey, Smacky - check your facts. BG came from Bandai (a toy company), and while the Hub didn't work for the long haul, just take a look at the stock prices vs. size of company:

Mattel = $5.5B in revenue vs. $30 per share

Hasbro = $4.4B in revenue vs. $78 per share

It ain't because of plastic toys that the stock price is so much higher - it's because the work they do with their brands reaches beyond just toys. Stop being naïve - it's insulting.

we're all glad that you are in touch with reality sir.

what you think is obviously not a view shared by most people outside of that company. Hasbro invested in a lot of entertainment. BGoldner is a hollywood man that had a different vision and it took a long time. we all fondly think of the hub. you sir are no BGoldner. cue laugh track.

Hey, Bonehead - Mattel had better NOT be just a toy company, because if it is it means:

Hasbro used to be just a toy company, but has evolved into an entertainment company - they don't actually MAKE the movies you idiot, but that doesn't mean they aren't an Entertainment Brand power house. It DOES mean that they have the ambition, and wherewithal to reach beyond just toy and realize that they have valuable brands that can exist in many lines of business.

Mattel knows this and wants to be it - but when you keep toy-only people like SL around for 18 years, and then make the silly move to promote them to EVP, then you deserve the myopic perspective you enjoy now.

The toy business is for chumps because its so narrow - while an Entertainment Brand business has so much more scope and potential. Even you, my dimwitted friend, can clearly see the potential of thinking bigger than your own small little pond. Being a toy company used to be cute, but being a big toy company is dangerous because there's so much more at stake and so much farther to fall when you inevitably don't have the big hit toys each year (no one does).

However, if your small mind can't fathom this, might I suggest you practice your whittling elsewhere. I hear there's lots of jobs make corn cob dolls down south. :)

Genius- if that's the case then why is Mattel a toy company and not a studio? If it was so profitable same question. Still doesn't change the equation. And if you start saying that Mattel is about creating BRANDS then you're smoking your own stash and buying your own BS.

TOY.COMPANY.

it's like saying Barbie is a fashion brand.

What a couple of numb nuts. If you really understood the math you'd realize the margin from a Barbie segment has to then net down to pay for the over 20% A/S ratio spent against it, then all the retailer discounts and then all the markdown. It doesn't make as much as you think. Oh and then there's the cost of all the marketing, design and engineering folk needed to generate the plastic dolls.

However the royalties from content distribution are pure profit. There's just a small staff to charge as overhead and the rest is just cash. You need to consider the WHOLE picture, not just the one you see. BTW - Mattel doesn't make movies except for Max Steele in Latin America. What it does make, though, are animated 44 minute films, shorts and series. In the new structure, the co-production partners actually make all the content, and Mattel manages it.

Any live action movie other than Max Steele are created by the movie studios (Paramount, Sony, Warner Bros., etc.) that holds the rights. So stop complaining about something you know little to nothing of and start doing your jobs.

Net profits from an average Barbie segment on an average year is double or triple the gross from any DVD or movie made by this company. I may not be able to draw pretty pictures but I'm pretty sure my math is solid. Last time I looked investors weren't beating down Mattel's doors to make a movie.

But you know I'm pretty sure that nomination is coming in the mail at any moment.

Didn't realize Mattel movies were so profitable. Perhaps Mattel should stop manufacturing and become a studio since there are a bunch of budding buttheimers there. Max Steel movie was a resounding success. Team Hot wheels series, every Barbie movie and on and on. Award winning. I am expecting another blockbuster to come out soon to overflow the Mattel coffers.

Hey, brainchild:

Do you really have such little understanding of business?! It's shocking.

All the profits from ALL the activities that Mattel engages in, including the selling of DVDs and Netflix deals goes into the company's profits and ends up in your paycheck. Stop being so naïve drawing pretty pictures and wake up. We can't afford you to be this clueless.

Cheap or not cheap if you work at Mattel your paycheck still comes from the sales of these toys. Not dvds or Netflix deals.

correction: we make cheap plastic toys that have lost touch with our consumer base. we are behind the curve when it comes to real life innovation. conceptual videos are all good and purdy, but they're not tangible products. we're a dividend paying ponzi scheme.

Disney and WB are media companies. Mattel will always be seen by retailers and consumers as a toy company first.

Believing that Mattel will be a fountain of fantastic content and licensed products before toys will be like Nestle one day making cars. Whatever lies and fantasies you have to tell yourselves on the incontinent team to get you through your next failed project is fine. Don't expect people to believe your BS.

We'll never be a Disney. We make toys. We have to make content that supports toys first. Licensing nets you an average of 12 - 16%. Hardly sustainable if you're relying on some t-shirts and coloring books. We don't make money off online games or content. We will never have that competency because we will not invest in that. Please don't bring up fuhu or nabi or whatever that is. The average person has no idea what that is. Just stop. Until Mattel dedicates long term investment into other categories of business we will always be in toys. We make plastic - plain and simple.

Oh, now I see. It's so easy. Just develop, out of thin air, multi-platform Brands that will produce hit major motion pictures, toy of the year candidates, and licensing up the wazoo. Gee, why haven't we been doing this all along? Better yet, why haven't YOU been doing this?

Let's just drop making stupid toys like Barbie and get right on that.

Last poster - you are seriously mentally definient.

You DO NOT have a valuable brand that has the ability to rival Disney. Barbie is tired and pretty much out; no little girl cares about it and the feeble attemps to re-energize it are going to fall short. Russia and China may have propped the demand for aged inventory for a minute while their large non-urban population still thinks Barbie is hip, but it won't last much loner. Monster High is a pretty good blueprint on where Barbie is going to eventually end up.

Thomas has been lingering; Trains will not help. And Hot Wheels dont have the strong brand cache/identity to carry the company.

Mattel needs to come up with new exciting brands and develop/sustain/support them actively in creative ways. CREATIVE is the key word. No matter how you are trying to promote JC (won't speculate the reasons...), she has zero experience relevant to the task ahead. Selling cereal is NOT relevant to creating brands.

My lord you make no sense.

Let me get this right. You plan is to have some wannabes in El Segundo come up with BRANDS that don't exist and will lead to major motion pictures and all the licensing that goes with it? Then maybe we can make the toys to support the BRAND, or even farm that out to someone like HASBRO?

What will these brands be based on? Some superhero we design in house? A story about some space wars that you are writing in the DC?

Why hasn't this happened yet?

The Barbie Doll existed before the BRAND. Hot Wheels cars and tracks existed before the BRAND. We just don't have the right people to develop those brands to their fullest potential. Yet these same people who can't develop our existing BRANDs are going to come up with some new thing out of thin air that isn't based on a toy line?

Star Wars the movie existed before the BRAND. Marvel Comics existed before the BRAND. DC Comics existed before the BRAND. It all has to start with your core competency. Ours happens to be Toys. Develop a great, evergreen toy line and you can build a BRAND off of it.

Hey Stupid:

Know your facts - Disney and Warner Bros, DO have divisions that make toys:

1) ALL DISNEY plush is done by Disney - not an outside licensee

2) Warner Bros. has an entire division handling all their collectible actions figures and they sell to all the majors

Barbie can't make her numbers without syphoning advertising $$$ from all the other brands

HotWheels is now completely reliant on: Licenses, and Basic cars that only make .07 profit per car - all shameful

Just the licensing revenue from Thomas is second to Barbie and 10x that of HotWheels, never mind the profit % - It's higher than both Barbie and HotWheels due to Barbie's over-reliance on advertising $$$ and HotWheels overall poor profitability.

The toys are just a derivative of a higher level - which is BRAND. The BRAND existed before the toys ever did, you monkey. How in the heck do you think the toys got created?! Such a moron......

Stay home with your coloring books, Gepetto - the big time is too much for your small minded thinking and this company HAS to flush people like you out of the ranks. I thought we were done with that, but you prove me wrong... :)

You are a dummy, obviously a shill for our failed management.

Of course it is BRAND. We happen to have a couple that are much more valuable than Thomas or My Little Pony: Barbie and Hot Wheels. OUR BRANDS are based on OUR TOYS. The cart comes before the horse.

But our management hasn't been able to leverage OUR BRANDS. Failed strategy after failed strategy.

Disney and Warner are Studios, and license out the retail stuff. They don't have divisions that produce the toys and other merch. They hire the professionals in those arenas (like Hasbro and US). Just as WE should not be trying to make our own movies, we should be licensing our Brands to the major players. But we have delusions of grandeur, untalented idiots writing script treatments.

Batman v Superman underperformed badly. It was slated to do $400MM domestically at the low end, and $750MM at the upper end. It did $330MM. Compare to the recent Avengers and Captain America films for reference. The toy line suffered because of the joke the movie was. Someone chose that property to build a licensed line for. Do they still have a job?

Dopey, I guess you didn't get the message. It's not the Movie Studios, it's the OWNERS OF THE BRAND that make the money. Disney and Warner Bros. have movie divisions, sure, but they also have CPG and Retail divisions, too. Stop being so naïve and shallow - Disney ISN'T a movie studio, it's a BRAND OWNER - it has a movie division, sure, but it's just a part of the whole.

As for Thomas movies, there hasn't been a failed one yet - they've all made more money than they cost to make and distribute and they, along with show, bouy the brand. As for Trains, I'm not worried - Planes was a disaster as was Cars 2. Cars 3 needs be a lot better if there is to EVER be another anthropomorphic vehicle movie from them again.

As for Dopey 2, Batman vs. Superman was a big success for Warner Bros.. - read the financials, not your insignificant millennial blog reviews. As for the toys, it wasn't a big line and it did well - again check your facts, not your opinion. Thomas, by the way, is double the size it was when we acquired it - partly due to the expansion of the brand to new territories and partly because of new products. Licensing has dipped but that's because we didn't focus on it - but that's now changed.

You really scare me with your inability to understand the relatively simple math of the business:

1) Toys brings in about 10% net revenues after all the costs of tooling, advertising and overhead are accounted for

2) Licensing brings in nearly 95% net revenues because we're managing other companies using our IP.

3) Entertainment brings in nearly 50% net revenues from distribution and increases in rates of sale

Of the total $$$$ amount brought in for Thomas, Barbie and Monster High (when it was hot) was 50/50 between toy and licensing. This means licensing retail $$$ was at least twice the size of the toy retail $$$. Toys is just a part of the whole - it will never be more than that, nor should, in a successful kids brand.

Grow up - I'm getting tired of schooling you.

How many failed thomas movies did we attempt? Wait until Diney's Trains hits and Thomas is completely devalued and worthless and cripples half the company, that will be the start of the take over and us no longer being employees, but cast members.

We ARE in the Toy Business. I really hope you aren't in Management here.

Look at your Star Wars and Batman examples. Yes, they are multi-faceted properties. But a Movie Studio makes the movies and reaps those profits. The comic book publisher makes the comics and reaps those profits. A Toy Company makes the toys and reaps those profits. It is nice to be the owner of the property and get a residual from each revenue stream.

You may recall the recent Batman vs Superman fiasco. A Movie Studio made the crappy movie no one wanted to see, and ahem a Toy Company made the crappy toys that no one bought. Separate entities that specialize.

When MH was peaking we should have found a way to partner with a great writer and studio, to leverage that property. That way we could have been getting the licensing fee for once. But somehow our wannabe filmmakers couldn't pull that off.

How is that multi-faceted Thomas property doing since we acquired it?

Hey Dopey - if you think we're in the toy business, then we've already lost! The toy business is a s--- business - but developing a brand to go beyond toys (and still include them) is the only place the future resides. Think Star Wars, My Little Pony, Batman, Thomas, etc.. These brands have many facets and business lines to them - not just toys. If Mattel were just a toy company, it would be dependent on the latest fad (like Spinmaster is) which isn't a sustainable business model. Even Spin knows this which is why they are developing content and CPG plans co-producing brands with Nickelodeon.

JC is the only one with the breadth of knowledge and experience to do this. JL is just a toy monkey - no more or less.

You gotta be sh*tting me. The Seed Chugger as CEO? Based on what? Her experience in selling cereal? She knows little to nothing about the toy biz. She should never have been hired at all!

What great biz decisions has she made since she was gifted a position she isn't qualified for?

The only thing about the one of the past responses is about Juliana: Make her CEO and get rid of RD - but I want a film of her canning SL and seeing it posted on facebook. Let's see the 18 year veteran of a toy company go trying to get the job at Spin she leveraged to oust TK. She's a no talent big mouth who's got no depth to her experience or her personality.

to the two Einsteins who think they know what Content is - please shut up - you know nothing. That group, and now better known as Mattel Creations, is part of the future - not your stupid, basic toys. It's about the entire BRAND, not your toy piece, simpletons (can't believe we hire infants like this). The Content group doesn't aspire to make blockbuster movies - the movie studios we have deals with do (please understand how the business works, idiots). The content team is there to help create the Tv shows, mobile app content, guidance for the Co-production partners we have with both animated and live action deals and to make sure their is enough consistency to remain grounded in the brand AND enough creativity to push the envelope. Hasbro does it all the same way, and they've had some success (not everything though) over the past few years.

What's laughable is that you're probably a couple of these "sensitive types" who can't speak up for themselves in the real world, but get awful load on the internet. Guess what? The real world is where life is - not on the internet where you can live your fantasies.

The Incontinent Team are not Hollywood rejects. they are Hollywood wanna bes.

Nevertheless, you are right. They have no hope of making a decent movie. It's just a huge waste of corporate funds.

Just make JChugg the CEO and let RD go and a lot of the other useless SVPs that are s---ing up all that money and put it back into advertising, marketing and personnel. And to the mattel content team that thinks they are a bunch of actual filmmakers please slap some sense into them. Content team:

YOU. WILL.NEVER.MAKE.A.BLOCKBUSTER.

End of story. Stop wasting the company's money you hollywood rejects.

I'm riding this flaming death horse all the way to perdition! Wahoo!

y'know they were talking about this back when the stock was only $18. i'm calling shenanigans on this whole stock dividend. we all know this is going to crash and burn like a madoff ponzi scheme. don't get me wrong i'm going to take my .38 dividend and reinvest it, but eventually the bottom is going to fall out unless god forbid there's a bonafide hit and we all know that's not going to happen this 4th quarter with our mediocre offerings. What i love is the turds on investment sites like seeking alpha that wet themselves over the dividends and gloss over the utter garbage we produce.

Mattel WOULD invest in advertising if it had the money, but because it MUST deliver a dividend to it's shareholders in order to artificially prop up the stock price, it can't. Only by going private can Mattel stop paying out the dividend and investing in it's brands again.

The problem: In order for someone to buy Mattel and take it private, they'd have to pay 6-8 times the stock price for each share. Because the stock is already inflated, no one can see how there would be value in paying that kind of multiple for a company that can't figure out how to do business.

shopkins puts money in advertising. mattel thinks it can sell toys without marketing money. no one buys a great toy if no one knows about it. expecting to compete without putting money into a product is banking on hope.

rd is out, we all know that. you can't ask for innovation and keep cutting corners at the same time. sorry it just doesnt work that way. in the meantime geofw is trying to carve out his own little kingdom of crazy.

sigh

To the last respondent:

Clearly you only have the capability to focus on one element of the business: Design. While Design is vital, it ISN'T the business. The business is the combination of all the various elements molded into a Brand that has value outside of the toy aisle - this is where the real money lies and it pains me that Design folks just don't seem to have the capacity to understand this.

Shopkins is popular because of it's collectability, distribution, price point and cuteness - it's not because it's got a great Design or is even all that innovative - they're slug figurines for god's sake! But the positioning and theming of them is what's connected with kids and low price point, high collectability when executed well prints $$$$.

What my point is and continues to be is why Designers choose to whine and lament about their work and lack of appreciation, and b--ch about it here, rather than fight for it (tooth and nail if need be) at every line review and presentation. If you have a reason of why you're right, then say it and make sure you're heard. However, many designers just limp off into the corner because someone doesn't accept their design "as is". Get over yourselves - either defend it with sound logic or change it. It's totally up to you - but don't blame everything on management. They can be convinced and coerced just like anyone else.

Is management great at Mattel - No, it's not - but they are temporary (always have and always will be), so know that "this too shall pass".

Hey! Both of you quiet down and play nice or momma will spank!

Who hasn't seen toys regress in articulation and quality to the point that they look like they were made in the late 70's yet have an extremely high modern price point? Fact is Hasbro has the hot properties and we have Warner Bros. second tier super hero garbage that is destined for an early death in the discount aisles and a pittance of Disney licenses that look great on shelves but never seem to leave said shelves. There was a time when we had competent people sourcing the next hot license and designers pushing the envelope to keep the creativity alive but let's face the cold hard facts here: We have become complacent and reliant on HK to pick up our slack, and do our heavy lifting from design to packaging for the sake of saving money through cheap labor. I'm not saying that their work is bad. There are some seriously talent folks over there, but they've made us lazy, soft, complacent and weak and it shows in our products and lack of innovation. We tend to do our jobs halfway then pass it on.

We have no one to blame but ourselves for allowing leadership to take away our drive for the sake of getting in some more "work/life balance."

Now go stand in the god damn corner until I tell you to come out!

Huh? So which is - "..One day, investors will realize that they (Hasbro) don't actually own Star Wars and Marvel, and then the stock will be hit", or "The extended revenue that comes from content, licensing and live events can be as valuable as the toy line itself."??

As far as I am concerned, MAT is desperately trying to copy Hasbro success in licensing by pushing into the space, except they end up bidding and meaningfully overpaying for mediocre licenses. Or begging to license their old tired brands for a song to anyone who would express even a passing interest.

To the "stop being NAIVE, we can't afford your simple minded thinking. This isn't the 80's - it's 2016 and the business has already changed and you still have your head in the sand like an ostrich." Yeah, the ThingMaker or ThinkBox TV show ideas are along the lines of the top brass' attempts to be relevant. While we are at it, would you please explain how we are not allowed to blame the management for the direction that the company has taken (and continues to take), since the leadership and the direction comes from the top? We will work, create and help move the company forward IF the direction set by the leadership makes sense. Well, it definitely doesn't here.

Toy design does not matter? Tell it to Shopkins who are eating out lunch, dinner and midnight snack... while all we can do it come up with another American Girl movie. And unload that old fashioned expensive junk onto Amazon and ToysRuS.

And excuse my thick skull, but how is this comment relevant to anything? "What I can't fathom is that you design monkeys all pay taxes, buy groceries and go on vacation and act like you don't have to work." Where did the idea that designers do not think they have to work come from?

Anyway, I digress. You are clearly desperate to defend JC and would throw any senseless argument into a pile. Good luck with continuing to run a good company into the ground.