Analysis Of The Toy Industry, Making The Threat Of New Entrants

Toy World, Inc. was founded in 1973 by David Dunton & Jack McClintock was a manufacturer of Plastic Toys for children: cars, trucks, rockets, spaceships, etc. Toy World, Inc. was originally a partnership when it was incorporated in 1974. Company had grown rapidly since its founding, with profits increasing every year since 1976. Jack McClintock assumed presidency in 1991. In 1993 David Dunton & Jack McClintock hired Dan Hoffman as the production manager. The context of the case study is early 1994 and Toy World faced a large number of foreign and domestic competitors in its industry especially with low barriers to entry, short product life cycles, and significant price competition. The production and sales at

To achieve its business strategies the LEGO has taken the help of the IT vendors IBM and SAP for the establishment of their IS making it possible to extend more quickly and add capacity and functionality as it was needed. Supporting massive expansion brings its own challenges, one of which is to ensure that the underlying systems can scale reliably and effectively. The main issues with the supply chain management, end customer feedbacks, product profit accountability, spread its market and the various unit functioning etc. had been addressed completely by the advent and the establishment of the efficient IS for the business.

Toys R Us is the world's largest children's specialty retailer. The company operates toy stores throughout the world and is publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange. In this paper I will give a brief company history, cite where the competitive environment is coming from, strategies that were attempted, and where they stand today.

On one hand, partnering with such supplier has offered the company the greatest freedom to operate. One the other hand, technological spillover and inventions came up from the developmental stage are also likely to occur. The worst case is that competitor might protect those inventions which prevent the LEGO Group form using their own innovation. Protection of those inventions is deemed necessary to the growth of the

Team 2 has researched and completed a comparative analysis of Mattel’s supply chain design and related costs with that of its major competitor Hasbro and the toy industry. What follows, is a brief background of Mattel’s traditional (non-electronic game) sector, its key competitors and Mattel’s use of supply chain management concepts in addressing the competitive landscape to gain a competitive advantage. The global toy and game market grew by 7.2% in 2007 with a value of $106.1 billion and by 2012, is forecasted to have a value of $126.2 billion, an increase of 18.9% over 2007. The toy market is divided into three primary sectors, namely game consoles, game software and traditional toys and games. Traditional toys and

Mattel is the world’s #1 toy maker with more than 30,000 employees and more than $4 billion in sales. A well-established core product portfolio has set Mattel’s established position in the toy market much higher than their competitors. Its products include Barbie, Fisher-Price toys, Hot Wheels and Matchbox Cars, American Girl dolls books, and licensed Disney and Sesame Street products are just a few that have helped them reach such great profits throughout the world. Although Mattel leads the industry, it recognizes the complexity of staying on top in a highly competitive and shifting business. While keeping their sales outlets current, toy companies must constantly seek to achieve the next big hit. In

1. From early 1990s to 2004, the Lego Group, a long successful toymaker with a world-renowned brand, fell into the edge of bankruptcy. Compared with the highest revenue in 1999, the revenue in 2014 decreased by 35.6% while the net profit was negative, seven times less than that in 1999, the lowest in the past ten years. Its net profit margin and ROE were also the lowest. The gross margin and inventory turnover were all lower than its competitors. The strategic moves in the two main periods “growth period that wasn’t” (1993-1998) and the “fix that wasn’t” (1999-2004) lead to its poor performance.

Currently, Hasbro relies on third party suppliers as well as distributors to produce and sell its toy and game products. Consequently, the company should set its own manufacturing plants overseas to increase the company’s control and leverage in sourcing raw materials and production (Hill and Gareth 301). Also, apart from establishing its own retail stores, Hasbro should fully venture into television programming and motion pictures as well as digital gaming to reach more customers and remain profitable in a market that has experienced declining growth and competition from digital alternatives. The company should also continue with the licensing strategy as it enables the company to constantly develop the latest

Toy Industry Association, Toy Industry Association and Hobby Manufacturers Association Collaborate to Broaden Market Opportunities for Crossover Products. (2011). .

Industry leaders Mattel and Hasbro have recently implemented similar strategies that involve selling unprofitable businesses such as the sale of each company’s software division in the same year (2000).11,13 Predicting they would not be able to directly compete with the software entertainment industry, both companies began focusing on their core brands to gain efficiencies in more areas of the value chain and exploit the total profit-pool. The focus on core brands that have already proven to have sustainable advantages will show steady returns and improve sales to total assets, which is a discouraging number for both companies being in the bottom 25% of the industry in generating sales from assets. Focusing on a few core products increases efficiencies throughout the value chain from the experience of doing similar activities. Products that have already stood the test of time allow the corporation to cut costs normally associated with new products such as R&D and advertising. The enormous R&D cost

After Knudstorp changed Lego’s business strategy changed, Lego changes its organization structure. They encourage product innovation and sales by offering incentives. They decrease coast by move manufacturing factories to cheaper

Ever since LEGO started experiencing double digit annual sales growth, (by launching new toy games, branded theme parks, entering the video game sector, introducing mobile applications, introducing toys for girls, etc.) they realized they needed a model that was standardized, modular and scalable. Hence, allowing them to expand to new markets in a less amount of time. They already had a decently established market in USA and UK; they were looking for an expansion in other countries as well. This model had to tackle major issues like scalability challenges, employee

1. What led the LEGO group to the edge of bankruptcy by 2004? Please focus on the management moves during “the growth period that wasn’t” (1993-98) and “the fix that wasn’t” (1999-2004).

As their name and ideal, Lego has been beloved by the children as well as the parents for decades. Not only as plastic toy bricks, but also effective educational tools, the LEGO Company enjoyed continuous growth and broaden the global brand value. The LEGO brand moved to third place in 2002/2003 with only Coca-cola and Kellogg having greater respect among families with children. Even though as the overall toy market faces challenges, LEGO’s revenue and profits are increasing rapidly, especially since 2005. This profitability didn’t change even in the current recession in the global market. The LEGO Group achieved record-breaking profits in

Lego has many diversified products, but the base of all of them are the plastic Bricks, which actually makes the company successful as the result of the possibility of rebuilt the