> "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.
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].
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".
If anything, the products that seemed so cool to me on TV in my childhood taught me that most of it is crap and can be ignored. The kids in the commercials had so much fun with the toy and then when you get it home and out of the box... it may well disappoint.
Sounds like a great lesson to teach. The younger, the better.
At least the guy is just selling toys. Beats the heck out of a politician trying to force his grand schemes on everyone in society.
Why don't you read the article, and learn something from a person, an immigrant, who became a billionaire? FYI, no one can become a billionaire without delivering value.
Their product had "value" in the sense that somebody was willing to pay for it, but clearly it's possible to become a billionaire while having a net negative effect on society.
I desire many things due to external influences which aren't harmful to me. A doll with a 18 inch waste and impossibly large breasts doesn't fall under this category.
The food you choose to eat is influenced by your surrounding society. I'm glad you drink lots of water :-) but the shelter you live in, and your idea if attraction is also influenced by society!
Do you really think a fat muffin top doll with no makeup or sexy miniskirt would have sold? Consumers at large don't want to buy reminders of their own rotten, overweight, barely getting by reality.
Children aren't "consumers." They're not adults capable of properly evaluating things and making informed buying choices. Products marketed at children carry a special moral consideration that products marketed at adults do not.
If we're going that way, what about adults who have below 100 IQ? Or people suffering some mental disorder -- eating disorder, drug addiction, depression, impulse control disorder, poor memory, etc. They're not capable of properly evaluating things and making informed buying choices either.
I can assure you that my 11 year old niece will make better buying decisions that benefit her in all sorts of ways, than the homeless guy down the street, who I suspect is under a serious bout of depression.
I'm not being flippant, I'm interested in reading the logic you're operating on. I don't see how you can argue that there are moral considerations when advertising to children, but then ignore a really significant part of the population that is also being exploited in pretty much the same way. Either advertising has moral hazards all around for everyone of impaired and/or undeveloped intelligence -- young and old, or it doesn't. I don't see how you can pick and choose.
Yes, if you're marketing something specifically targeted at people with an "eating disorder, drug addiction, depression, impulse control disorder, poor memory, etc." than you have moral considerations above and beyond products targeted at regular adults.
Consider what's being advertised to people who have the aforementioned mental disorders:
Eating disorder = fast foods of all sorts, Mcdonald's, KFC, Burger King, etc. ice cream, chips, candies. None of this is extremely "healthy". Conversely on the other side, in which people avoid food, there is diet pills, weight loss through questionable means, etc.
Drug addiction = alcohol, tobacco (though there is less of this now)
Depression, impulse control disorder, and poor memory are conditions that affect buying decisions on a wide array of things, sort of catch-all conditions.
A lot of people have these disorders. But there's been no effort made to do anything about this, with respect to how advertisements affect these folk. I would also like to point out something about the power of the two types of things sold here -- things that are definitely bad for you (alcohol, unhealthy food, expensive toys (because they leave you with less money to buy good food)), and dolls. I think one can reasonably defend the point that things being marketed to adults with poor decision-making skills harm them more than little girls being shown advertisements of dolls or whatever.
Fast food (to pick your first example) is marketed to basically everyone not specifically to people that have eating disorders.
But this isn't black & white. Many people do, in fact, have moral problems with the marketing techniques of the fast food/junk food industry despite that fact that most of their customers are fully capable adults. These people have made efforts to limit what they can do, and I think most reasonable people would at least agree that their proposals are worth considering.
Finally, I'm not sure about your last point about "more harm." Doll marketing is a part of a very serious sexism we have in our country. Surely it's only a small part, but it's a very serious problem. It's hard to quantify these things to make comparisons.
Before we get farther into this, consider the results of the two. What's the worst that will happen if kids are being advertised toys? They'll ask their parents to buy them? Maybe buy them themselves? Okay. Maybe not a prudent choice, time is wasted, a little bit of money is wasted... but the trajectory of life is very rarely totally devastated because of this. This is unlikely to happen anyway, considering there are already safeguard measures set up in society to prevent things going wrong: kids can't buy Mature-rated game, they typically don't have money anyway... parents have to make decisions for them. Mentally challenged adults have very little, if any, resources and safeguards to save them from making poor decisions.
I accept that it's only a certain part of the market in which participating adults are not mentally intelligent enough to make informed decisions. You (apparently) accept that only a small part of marketing (dolls) to children is a problem (though rayiner seems to be totally against marketing to children altogether -- and it was to that point that my original reply was to).
It would seem that we two should agree on a conclusion: advertising for all needs to be re-thought fundamentally. Cut out sexism, racism, sexual appeals in ads, as well as the wide variety of carefully, psychologically constructed ads in adult market, and cut out advertising highly sexualized dolls.
I want to make a note that only these sexualized dolls are problematic. If you have a daughter you know that girls just prefer dolls and other girly things in an innate way (I'm practically a daddy of two, and despite all my trying to get them hooked on cars, action heroes, computers, they just always opt for the dolls when given the choice). There's nothing wrong with girls having dolls of all sorts, just that they shouldn't be sexualized.
Hi, you appear to be new here. These sort of uncivil comments are largely frowned on. Please take the time to review the site guidelines, it makes it much more pleasant if you follow them!
> 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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.”
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!
Working for a guy like that can be the best career move you'll ever make. He's a bastard, sure, but he's a bastard that built a billion-dollar business. There are many paths to mastery, but learning directly from one is among the quicker ones.
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.