
The Man Who Became a Billionaire Through His Fight to the Death With Barbie - 001sky
http://www.forbes.com/sites/abrambrown/2013/10/30/the-toy-mogul-who-became-a-billionaire-through-his-fight-to-the-death-with-barbie/
======
acchow
> "I have a passion for making things that kids want, and I have a passion for
> winning" \- Isaac Larian

Are you kidding me? You exploited these kids' minds and brainwashed them into
wanting your product which has dealt irreparable harm to their self image.

I can't read the rest of the article; I'm too upset by his self delusion.

~~~
thaumasiotes
It is, in general, much easier to sell a person something they already want
than to convince them that they really want the thing you happen to have on
hand; the article notes explicitly that the guy was convinced he should make
Bratz after his daughter liked a prototype.

Chimpanzee girls play with dolls (chimp technology isn't quite at our levels,
so their dolls are just sticks they found).

As a side note, one thing that somehow saddens me is modern Chinese
terminology for dolls. 娃娃[wa wa] is a word for "baby" (how they got the idea
to refer to babies as "wa wa", we may never know ;) ), and is also the
standard word for "doll". A traditional doll is referred to most explicitly as
布娃娃[bu wa wa], "cloth doll"; it's the kind of doll a little girl might make
for herself out of some spare material.

The term for a nice doll, the kind you'd buy in a store? 洋娃娃[yang wa wa].

"Foreign doll".

~~~
yen223
I don't think I've ever heard people using 娃娃 to refer to anything other than
dolls. Is it just me?

~~~
thaumasiotes
Well, without asking for help from an actual Chinese person, I can say the
following:

\- my dictionary includes several words where 娃娃 seems to refer to a child and
not a doll, e.g. 抱娃娃 娃娃兵 娃娃车. It's conceivable that they're all metaphors, I
guess.

\- I tried once to refer to a doll as 娃, mirroring an actual usage I'd seen,
and my then tutor (from Guangzhou) complained that with just one 娃 you're
referring to a human.

Having become ashamed of my lazy answer, I just asked a college student in
Shanghai; she informs me "you can call a baby 娃娃".

------
thaumasiotes
> Mattel, the world’s largest toymaker, fired the first salvo, suing MGA in
> 2004 . It alleged that designer Bryant had conceived of Bratz while on its
> payroll and accused MGA of bribing and secretly hiring Mattel employees for
> projects on the side. MGA hit back, claiming that Mattel spied on its
> salesmen by masquerading as toy buyers, rearranged Barbie and Bratz displays
> at Wal-Mart and other stores and paid off retailers to favor Barbie over
> Bratz.

Is it too much to wonder "why is any of that described conduct even legally
questionable?"?

I mean, say you're Mattel and you have a nasty, exclusive, NDA-ridden contract
with some key employees. MGA surreptitiously hires those employees for side
projects. Obviously, you can have a cause of action against the employees. But
against MGA?

~~~
byoung2
_I mean, say you 're Mattel and you have a nasty, exclusive, NDA-ridden
contract with some key employees. MGA surreptitiously hires those employees
for side projects. Obviously, you can have a cause of action against the
employees. But against MGA?_

Mattel believed that it owned the rights to designs created by its employees,
and Carter Bryant was an employee. Another company profits from the design
Mattel believes it owns, so they sue the company.

Mattel produced evidence that Bryant used Mattel resources and time, and even
got other employees to help with the design.

~~~
thaumasiotes
Urgh... I could grudgingly accept that that argument could be a legal reason
for MGA to turn over the design to Mattel. I see no reason for Mattel to be
able to recover damages from MGA, who didn't do anything wrong, rather than
from Bryant.

The counterclaims are even worse.

------
omonra
I really wish articles like these would spend more time on how the poor
immigrant went from 0 to first 10 million, then from 10m to 1bio (of course I
realize the author only has what his subject would tell him - so it's only a
wish).

Here we have 'In the early 1980s they moved on to consumer electronics,
repackaging Nintendo's GameBoy forerunner, the Game & Watch, pulling in $21
million in sales the first year. That fad passed after a couple of years but
left Larian with an appetite for the toy business. When a struggling inventor
in 1996 brought him a design for a talking doll already passed over by Mattel
and others, Larian pounced. Singing Bouncy Baby was the surprise runaway hit
of 1997.'

So by '96 he was in position to talk to with inventors and bring their ideas
to be 'runaway hits' (which I understand is largely about marketing). To me
(personally) the path from nothing to someone who can bring runaway toy to
market is more interesting than how they build the business beyond that point.

~~~
thaumasiotes
Well, there's a suggestion in the article, and it's not surprising it's not
particularly detailed... it sounds like he first went into business as a way
of laundering money.

> Larian and his brother went into business as importer-exporters in 1979,
> selling schlocky brass figurines from South Korea. (They were also
> maneuvering their parents’ money out of Iran.)

For that purpose, it's not really necessary to do especially well, since
profits aren't what you're looking for (if you can turn $20,000,000 locked in
Iran into $14,000,000 in the US, that could be a win!). But they seem to have
discovered that they could generate profits anyway, and things took off from
there.

~~~
judk
Any indication that the scale was $20M, and not $0.5M?

I have no idea.

~~~
thaumasiotes
No, I made those numbers up.

------
chris_wot
This is the guy who invented Bratz? Bratz are fucking evil, my little girl
doesn't need a sexy doll. I refuse to buy her one.

~~~
schaub435
How dare they provide something girls want. How DARE them!

~~~
vidarh
Without taking a stance on Bratz: Do you have a child? Do you realize how much
stuff children wants or want to do that is bad for them?

~~~
dopamean
He obviously doesn't have a child and likely is one.

~~~
a3n
He may well have a child. He may also, or not, deal with the world and his
childrens' needs and play differently than you. He may even not be a child.

------
reginaldjcooper
Why does all integrity fly out the window when it comes time to write the
title?

He didn't become a billionaire through his fight with Mattel, he became one in
spite of it.

Or did I read the article wrong?

~~~
chris_wot
It's not just referring to the court battle, he competed with Mattel in the
market also.

------
rayiner
> The court wound up ruling in MGA’s favor and last January awarded it $137
> million for legal fees. But the judge left the door open for Larian to
> refile his suit against Mattel. Larian vows he won’t let the matter drop
> until Mattel comes crawling to him: “If those guys want me out of their
> hair, they’ll apologize.”

Sounds like the best client ever.

~~~
oijaf888
You mean for the law firm? I would guess he has in house counsel for that
lawsuit.

~~~
harryh
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe handled most of the work.

------
hobs
This guy sounds like the worst boss ever to work for, a man who just wants
robots to fulfill his goals. That is besides his terrible product that I
remember my kid sister begging, screaming, and crying for in a shop until my
(broke) dad finally broke down and bought her one. Disgusting!

~~~
judk
So something kids want is a terrible product?

~~~
hobs
The argument that if someone wants it, it must be good is clearly not a viable
one.

Hyperbolic Examples: So something drug addicts want is a terrible product? So
something murderers want is a terrible product?

I would say that it is a terrible product because it promotes a self image
that is over sexualized to young children.

