Monster High dolls’ Reboot: “How Do You Boo?”

‘How Do You Boo?’ This is the new slogan for the new Monster High reboot. It doesn’t make much sense to me now…Let’s see if we can make sense of it later…

As of summer 2016, following the Welcome To Monster High movie, Mattel (the company that produces Monster High) decided to give the go and have the MH franchise rebranded, rebooted, revamped (however you want to call it).  The new “reboot” also comes with a brand new story retelling the origins of the MH series with a few new characters and some returning ones.  In particular, the main crew, except Ghoulia and Deuce, returned upon launch of the new reboot with new face molds, brand new fashions, and other characterizations.

The biggest question many Monster High fans have is: Why try to reboot an already successful brand after only SIX YEARS? It is the question that plays on my mind as well. It baffles me how Mattel, when the brand is at its height, in such a short time frame, even thought this would be a prosperous business idea. What demographic research have they been studying?

Despite the fact that I couldn’t fathom the idea of a reboot at this point, I still took my time creating this review of the product, thinking maybe I should give this a chance. I gave it a chance, and so far, this reboot fails to impress me.

So, right now, I’m going to let Mattel have a voice. Apparently, Mattel had these things to say:

“A bona fide pop culture phenomenon and a massive global franchise in over 60 countries Monster High is ranked as the third biggest fashion doll brand a $1 billion franchise annually and a top 5 global property for girls! Monster High empowers girls to express their individuality and form friendships that last beyond a lifetime.”

Great, we know this, and this is why we’re confused about the necessity for a reboot…

Now entering its 6th year in the market, in 2016 the brand will embark on an exciting new chapter to maintain its relevance to the ever changing consumer. As an exciting disruptive everygreen brand Monster High will continue to represent via the monster metaphor what it means to be different, unique and empowering girls to be themselves as Mattel leads the way in creating, maintaining and driving strong girl empowerment brands.

“exciting disruptive”…Hey, that sounds just like the Bratz’s producers (MGA) at relaunch….right before they failed to be disruptive…

Apparently, Mattel’s reason for changing the new Monster High dolls was so the brand can be “relevant to the ever-changing consumer”. This could mean two things.

First, it could mean they want to appeal to a new generation. In my opinion, it wouldn’t make much sense to reboot the brand just to appeal to the next generation as the old Monster High is still pretty relevant to kids today…After all, this brand is just six years old…But maybe they see the brand as having a different meaning than it did in 2010 at launch…

Second, it could mean that much of the Monster High fan base have been expressing their boredom with the line and Mattel wants to make it “relevant” to these “ever-changing” consumers.

I’m likened to believe that the real story is that they started Monster High to be a competitor to the Bratz dolls and capture the tween audience when Bratz were removed from shelves. Now that the edgy trend is dying, and Bratz became a thing of the past, Monster High’s old image and story is no longer “relevant”. But that is just my theory…

The key elements that make the brand disruptive will remain but now infused with more play in the product whilst adding renewed focus on the core characters and stories as well as marketing what the brand stands for. The brand will have a fresh new look with new contemporary colours and graphics whilst still incorporating the iconic signatures that make the brand unique and relatable to the core audience of 6-10 year olds.

Supposedly, they said they wanted to keep “key elements that make the brand disruptive”. So far, I don’t understand what they are talking about. Are they talking about the fact that at least they will keep them monsters?…That’s the only thing that makes this brand disruptive anymore.

Monster High was originally designed to capture the tween audience. After all, Garrett Sanders made the doll franchise after observing tweens and teens shopping at Hot Topic. And it has been popular among girls 10 to 14. It’s pretty obvious that Mattel has shifted their demographic focus from the tween audience to the kids with this reboot (the same mistake their competitors at MGA made). This is probably why so many people are complaining. There are many Monster High fans that are over the age of 10! It’s almost as if Mattel forgot who they directed this brand to in the first place. The new reboot looks like it’s made for kids.

They also claimed to focus on the core characters, but they didn’t relaunch Ghoulia as one of the main core characters…In the original, she was one of the core characters. Her name is even in the original theme song.

If they mostly focus on the core characters, it also means they don’t really plan to bring any extra character stories to the table. It’s probably because fans have been complaining about Mattel regurgitating new monsters all the time without focusing on the dolls they already have within unique doll lines…

The brand will also launch an exciting new multiyear brand campaign and new consumer rallying cry “How Do You Boo” encouraging consumers to embrace what makes them unique and share how they Boo. Working with celebrities and brands spokespeople the campaign will communicate what it means to boo, to be yourself and start a movement encourage girls to do the same.

So, Mattel explains that the new slogan “How Do You Boo?” is supposed to encourage us to embrace what makes us all unique and to share that. But Monster High always encouraged people to embrace what made them unique before they changed to this cheesy slogan. So why this slogan? Still no answers. I don’t get what this slogan is supposed to mean..How is “Boo” relevant to embracing what makes us unique? Are they asking how we scare people? Are they asking about our own special “scare”?

Maybe it’s supposed to go over well on Twitter…

So far, you can already tell where this reboot is headed and you probably can guess I’m not a fan of it.

Upon rebooting, the MH look very different from their original counterparts.  The Monster High dolls are no longer the glossy eyed freaks of nature that haunted the shelves of every store…No…They are now doe-eyed little monsters that hardly seem as if they could haunt anything.  In fact, to refer to them as haunting is laughable…

Let me compare the old dolls to the new to show you all the unique differences between them. Let me know if what I’m seeing is just my imagination. In my opinion, the Monster High dolls look more like Elementary School kids now instead of saucy teenagers…

Some people like the cute look better, just like they liked that “anime” that came out.

Let me just be honest: this reboot smells like a failure to me.  I’m pretty sure it’s a failed attempt at competing with the Disney Princess line. With their old Bratz competitors out of the way, I’m sure Mattel is less interested in keeping up with the outdated edgy trend and more interested in keeping up with the Disney Princess/Frozen/Descendants franchise that is getting the attention of consumers these days.  Keeping that in mind, while I find the reboot to be laughable…I’m not at all surprised that the reboot happened this way and so soon.  In fact, I predicted that Mattel would eventually run out of a way to keep MH interesting and would maybe have to reboot the whole thing eventually.

Monster High: The Halloween Trend

And considering how Mattel is not the kind of company that cares about originality, diversity, or anything else unless it is a selling trend (which is also something I had mentioned at this article 14 Ways Mattel Can Screw Up A Doll Line), it also does not surprise me that the Monster High dolls look more like little monster Barbies. After all, the same producers of Barbie created the Monster High. I’m surprised anyone is surprised about the outcome of this reboot, considering this fact.

I want to talk about which parts of the reboot I liked and which part I didn’t…

But I’m going to be honest with you…I haven’t quite found a whole lot of things to like about this reboot.

Monster High’s Doll Features

Monster High’s newest dolls, as I’ve explained before have changed…Honestly to the point that it seems like a totally different line from Monster High.  It is hard to believe they are called Monster High. When I look at these dolls, none of them actually look like Monsters. Seriously, they look like…well…normal little girls.  Seriously, Mattel? The one thing that made MH unique, you take it away? What business sense does that make, exactly?

I guess freaky is no longer fabulous…but at least they’re cute right?…(*puke*)

One of the features that are distinctively different (and disgusting) is their eyes. Their new eyes give no sense of personality or attitude. They just look like a bunch of goo-goo-eyed girly girls made only to stand there and look cute. There is no message behind them; no depth or mystery.  Just enlarged eye pupils that scream “we’re kid friendly”.

Other parts of the new features of MH that seem to be lacking are the details and quality.  Let me use Frankie as an example. Frankie had one of the most detailed bodies, with the various stitches made to seem patched to her skin and the bolts aligned with the detailed patch work right on her neck…But now the patchwork that was so nicely constructed on Frankie’s neck looks like someone put a bunch of stickers together. It hardly looks like patch work. And poor Lagoona Blue.  Her old doll had webbed hands to represent her water monster greatness, but now her fingers are just your average fingers with no distinction from any of the other dolls.   Skelita Calaveras’s new look is what troubles me the most. For a skeleton…she seems to have a very fleshly face in comparison to her old look which maintained a bony structure. Observe.

Old Skelita: Absolutely flawless design capturing a skeleton with such style and grace. Too bad, this version no longer exists.

New Skelita: Someone on the design team apparently failed anatomy because last time I checked skeletons do not have noses as noses do not have bones. SMH Be honest, does she seriously look like a skeleton?

What really takes away from MH’s monstrous look is the articulation of the dolls; they hardly have the monstrous body articulation the originals had, neither are the articulations distinct from one another.

Maybe this all has to do with budget cuts? Quality sometimes decreases when a company is struggling with a line. But seriously…The big doe-eyes were quite unnecessary.

Can I also mention how all the dolls upon reboot have pink lips now? Thank goodness Deuce is supposed to be a guy who is uninterested in make-up, otherwise he also would have pink lips like all the rest of them.

What message is Monster High trying to send by making the monsters look “normal”? Well considering the slogan is no longer “Be yourself, be unique, be a Monster” or “Freaky Just Got Fabulous”, I guess Mattel no longer cares to promote such values any longer. They care more about how someone “boos”…whatever that means.

I got the hint from reader discontinuedtoylines regarding why they made such drastic changes to these features. And it was just as I feared: the soccer moms have struck again.

Apparently, monster high was too “scary” for children (though the original target demographic should’ve been old enough to understand how harmless these dolls are). Some parents really thought this doll was designed for their 8 year old child, when the original target age was 10 to 14. That being said, Mattel couldn’t risk getting on parents’ bad side, not in this declining market. I guess they had to sacrifice a quality doll line just to stay in parents’ good graces.

Monster High’s Doll Clothing And Accessories

The main appeal of Monster High was their freaky fabulous fashions that were made to accentuate the monsters in various unique ways.  The outfits usually had just as much details as the body, and the accessories are always to die for.  With the reboot, while the outfits are not typically hideous, they are simply uninspired and ordinary compared to the original outfits for most of the lines. There’s no pizzazz and the detail has been downgraded, especially when it comes to the accessories.

Let’s compare the relaunch with the original launch, shall we?

Original Launch

In the original launch, each of the girls have their own style and flair. They have accessories that simply bring out the best in each outfit. Not one part of their outfit resembles the other, which shows that the monsters are very different from one another both by personality and monster hybrid.  The patterns do a good job in captivating each monster, letting us know which monster they are while still making them look fabulous. Now let’s look at the new monster high reboot.

Relaunch

The new monster high dolls for the 1st wave of the reboot have a lack of interesting and diverse clothing accessories in comparison to their original dolls. To add, look at the patterns. They do not give me any indication as to which monster any of them are. For example, Cleo looks like a tree monster to be sure.  Clawdeen looks like a leopard or a cheetah. Seriously, look at her pants. Leopard/Cheetah print? I thought she was a werewolf…or is she now a werecat?  Of all the outfits presented, Draculaura (who usually had one of the most adorable pieces in the line) has the ugliest outfits in this reboot. Compared to her original look which was just spooktacularly vampirous and cute at the same time, the way her outfits are put together now are simply just tacky.  I should also mention that Draculaura and Frankie have basically the same shoes on in different colors with the first wave of the reboot.

Most of the other lines (besides Shriek Wreck) resemble this 1st wave reboot.  Most of them are boring enough to literally make me yawn. I think the most disappointing of all of the MH reboot doll lines was Monster High’s Electrified line. You would think that more would be electrifying about these dolls besides their hair…

Of course, there was one line that stood out from the rest. Of all the lines set to be released for the MH reboot, Shriek Wrecked has given some good fashion details…

In comparison to MH’s past lines, however, it lacks a lot of sass. The fashions are really girly, lacking the edge that MH’s past lines had.

Compare Skull Shores, a past line, to Shriek Wreck: 

As you can see in the above Skull Shores line, the original MH looked sassier and more grown up in the past. While in the Shriek Wreck line, they look much younger. And don’t get me started on the quality; painted on gloves for Lagoona is not a good sign.

And for crying out loud, will Mattel just cool it with the pink?! JEEZ! Monster High has gotten so pink, it’s sickening!

Still, Shriek Wreck is the best to date. It’s just not interesting enough to turn my head. I’m just not interested in buying any of the dolls (I would’ve gotten Rochelle had they not given her painted on gloves).

The lack of sassiness and diversity in the new dolls’ appearances could have something to do with the “feminist” movement. On Bit**Media, a feminist website, an article was written by feminist Deb Jannerson about how much she disliked the Monster High’s makeup and clothing, claiming they were “hypersexualized, heavily made-up dolls with über-Barbie proportions”. I’m sure there are more feminists out there who think the same way.

Feminists tend to hate anything that appears to them to be overly “sexualized”.  They don’t often see how an empowering female can appear in diverse ways. It’s gotten to the point they seem to lack an imagination entirely and can’t see how the dolls resemble “cartoons” rather than real humans. And they aren’t even MEANT to be human!

Seriously, hasn’t anyone else noticed how long the skirts are in comparison to the originals? That smells like the feminist agenda written all over it. It’s that “agenda” that encourages doll companies to make their dolls look more like “normal” girls. But for fans, who fell in love with monster high because they were NOT normal, because of their short skirts, the make-up, the glossy eyes, the things these feminists call “hypersexualized” and “heavily made-up”, the details are what made Monster High an edgy and scary cool work of art. With this reboot, all of that has been taken from Monster High, making them look more like scared little girls. I’m not going to say all feminists feel this way. But even a small group of feminists who feel this way have a way of forcing their beliefs on various doll companies, television or movie industries, and book publishers.  Do not underestimate the damage the feminist movement can do.

Now, I know what you guys are thinking. ‘Well, they might give more detailed fashion lines in the future like Shriek Wreck, so let’s not jump to conclusions’, right? You’re probably right. There are other lines that have to be seen. But so far, even some of the other future releases that I have seen after Shriek Wreck left me unimpressed. Nothing has motivated me to want to buy any of the new MH releases this year or next year. Absolutely nothing.

Monster High Story: New Story And Characters

So aside from the doll relaunch, a brand new Monster High story was born.  Meaning the story that was once Monster High is no longer its story.  Remember when Frankie was the new girl at Monster High after being born just a few days before attending the school? Well, yeah, that story no longer exists in this new reboot.  All the movies and TV specials that came out, fleshing out the monster high characters, you might as well toss them because none of the relationships and situations that were in the original stories are relevant now.

In the old story, Monster High was an already established school. Mistress Headmistress was the strong empowering female leader of the school in the original story.  In the original story, it was a normal school like ours, except everyone who attended were monsters. But now that story has been changed. In the new story, it is Draculaura and her father who turn their home into what we know as Monster High. Mistress Headmistress has been replaced with Draculaura’s father, a male figure (How peculiar for Mattel to do this during a modern era for women. And what this also means is that Mistress Headmistress may no longer be a character or doll in the future MH series). Anyway, the school is now a boarding school and all the ghouls live with each other in this school. Yep, no one has unique houses that they go home to. They just all come to this one school and live(I wonder how the playsets will look…).

Also, in this new reboot, Mistress Headmistress is not the only character that has failed to be apart of the new series reboot. In the original series, Clawdeen had two sisters and an older brother (along with a few other siblings). In this reboot, however, she only has little brothers. What does this mean for the future of Clawd, Howleen, and Clawdia (Clawdeen’s siblings in the original story)? It may mean that we may never see these characters or dolls in the future.

And with this reboot, Ghoulia is replaced by a new zombie character known as Moanica D’Kay. Unlike Ghoulia (who speaks zombie language), apparently Moanica speaks like a “normal” person (I guess Mattel really wants to put more emphasis on being “normal” and how great it is).  And with an added touch,  this new character’s signature color is none other than the color PINK…

Also new to the stage of new characters, Spectra is replaced with the character Ari Hauntington (which I’m pretty sure is Ariana Grande in monster form). It’s quite interesting because Spectra’s name was going to be Von Hauntington originally.

Check it out: Spectra-Von Hauntington

Ari is a typical Mattel character. She’s girly, shy, and she sings.  Typical recipe for selling points, right? Not to mention she can also solidify herself into a popstar named Tash. And let me say that her other form looks just like Barbie.  (I predict that Ari Hauntington’s human form may also have a doll…she looks like a “seller”).  There are also some new characters that were introduced in the Welcome To Monster High movie such as Raythe and the Skeleton Boys, Skelly and Bonesy.

“She’s a Barbie girl, in a Barbie wooorrrlldd”…That should definitely be her theme song.

So, what do I think of the story change? I personally don’t see why it was necessary.  Sure the movie animation was nice, but the new story feels less relatable compared to the original story.  To add, I hate how the story butchered Clawdeen’s family…

Did anyone else notice that the males in this series seem even less relevant than they did before?

And it isn’t just the story, but the look of the webisodes that have had a change.  Normally, I typically like stop motion and Monster High’s stop motion would actually be pretty good. If only the characters had their original face molds…  To add, when I compare stop motion webisodes with MH’s cartoon web series, I honestly like the cartoon web series better.

One reason I prefer the animated web series is because the stop motions only make use of the characters that have dolls.  Therefore, there is limited characterization within the web series. That also means most of the characters will be females (because naturally most of MH dolls are female), most of them will consist of the main characters without showing their interactions with other characters, and there may not be much story in each episode in comparison to the former webisodes.

So, the new webisodes will not do much as far as fleshing out the characters’ personalities and relationships.  This bothers me a bit because the webisodes were originally really good at showcasing Monster High’s diversity. Even though not all of the characters had dolls from the web series, they were still very entertaining to watch.  After the first few watches of the stop motion series, I honestly lost interest in watching anymore. Its only entertainment value lies in the fact that it is stop-motion, a cool way to bring animation to inanimate objects. But it is not something I would enjoy following for the next few years to come.

What bugs me even more is the change they made to the webisode animation style, which caused Mattel to cancel “The Lost Movie”, the movie that was supposed to be an animated crossover between the Monster High Characters and the Ever After High characters.

To see what “The Lost Movie” looked like in its early stages:

It’s ironic that they used the same marketing tools that competitors MGA used for the relaunched Bratz. The Bratz flopped after such awful marketing strategies. Mattel is following them right into the fire.

Overall, the new Monster High reboot may be perfect for children 8 years and younger. After all, the girls look like cute little 7 year olds, the clothing is age-appropriate, and the web series totally relates to little kids (including a webisode in which the girls in stop motion learn how to ride a bike for the first time. EVERY kid can relate to that)! Best of all, none of the girls have icky boyfriends (little kids hate that stuff, right?). And at last, parents may be pleased to see that Monster High looks “normal” and feminists will be pleased to see that MH dolls no longer objectify them by wearing too much make-up and almost all the skirts go to the knees…There is absolutely nothing daring about what they wear, which is a win for both parents and feminists alike, right?

But for some people who are tweens, teenagers, and adult collectors(the actual consumers), this reboot may be seen as a serious joke. I’m one of those collectors who find this reboot to be one of the most laughable doll reboots in history.

Leave a comment in the comments’ section below and let me know what YOU think about the new Monster High reboot. Do you love it or is it going in your failed reboot archives, like it is going in mine?

 

Betty Spaghetty Makes A Return in 2016

Artwork by Jordanswintart @ deviantart

Betty Spaghetty is due to return this August, just in time for the fall quarter. The newer, re-vamped version has appeared at the Toy Fair and it seems a few people were able to share their findings on Youtube.

For those of you who don’t know who (or rather what) Betty Spaghetty is (probably those of you who were not ’90s kids), Betty Spaghetty was a line of bendable, stretchy dolls meant to look spaghetti-like, only with funky, colorful clothes and various facial expressions. It was a way to play on the fact that kids often ‘play with their food’. You know how kids add “faces” with different food items onto their sandwiches? Or maybe play “Godzilla” with their dinosaur crackers? Yeah, same concept, only this time manufactured into a toy line.

Elonne Dantzer was the genius who brought these dolls to life. Her real inspiration behind Betty Spaghetty was Lego toys. She wanted to create a “girls’ Lego” (before Lego Friends came to stores), playing on the fact that you can put Legos together and take them apart to create things. The character was meant to be “cartoonish” in style, with a very expressive face and bendable body, something little kids could really enjoy. She was originally supposed to be “Bendy Boop”, but after a test session with a little girl, she became who we know today.

Ms. Dantzer explains more about it at The Blade.

The Ohio Art Company, the company who took on the idea, first brought these dolls to stores in 1998. The main ‘Betty Spaghetty’ character was a blonde, perky teenager who loved fashion (Hey, this was the 1990’s, okay? You can only expect the stereotype), but she came with friends and a little sister. The dolls were rubbery, including the hair, which was fun for kids who loved to style hair. The hands and feet were removable. They had various accessories as well. In each box, Betty had a new facial expression, which was always my favorite part of the doll line.

Betty Spaghetty was discontinued in 2004. Back then, there was strong competition in the doll market (With a strong push by most toy manufacturers to appeal to the tween market at this time, Betty, targeted to kids as young as four, didn’t stand a chance).

Betty tried to make a comeback in 2007, but she had no luck with sales. I guess the world wasn’t ready for her return just yet. And of course, the internet didn’t create much of the sensations it does today.

Now, the dolls are slated to make another return. Let’s see what’s happening now.

My first thought was…Lalaloopsy Girls anyone?

I watched the Toy Fair video, saw pictures of the dolls, watched the commercial, and visited the official website. I’m still certain that this revamp is a new product with the Betty Spaghetty brand stamped on it for press coverage.

First off, the new dolls are no longer created by Ohio Art. Moose Toys is now in charge. They created the Shopkins and there is a striking resemblance between the Shopkins and the new Betty dolls. I guess that’s why they took over the Spaghetty dolls. They’re a company known for putting “faces” on normal grocery items…

Now that there’s a new company involved, there are several differences between the original Betty Spaghetty and the newer dolls. The differences I see really take away the charm the brand once had. I have a problem with companies that try to revive something without really understanding the essence of what they are bringing back into the world.

There is only one pro that I see: Betty is more diverse in her presentation. And it’s not like the original Betty Spaghetty didn’t have many friends with different ethnic backgrounds and shades. But they were clearly sidekicks. Originally, blonde “Betty” got all the attention. Now, Betty is mostly customizable and she often has different hair colors, like blue hair. This relates to a wider audience.

Of course, I’m only looking from an early perspective. When they arrive on shelves, I may have better opinions about them.

The real problem is that not only am I unimpressed, I’m simply not feeling nostalgic with this release, either. So, who are they literally trying to appeal to here? I don’t understand who would want these dolls with so many other more interesting ones floating around and with the original Betty Spaghetty floating around on the second market.

These dolls just don’t feel “Betty” enough. They literally seem to be reaching with this comeback. Let me just run down the significant differences for you.

1) She’s Not Truly Bendable Anymore

Yes, these dolls are not truly bendable. Even in the video above, the commercial, and several pictures, it seems like the presenters struggle to bend their arms and legs for an easy bendable pose. Betty Spaghetty is supposed to be tall and lanky and spaghetti-like. She’s supposed to be noodle-skinny. She was so thin, you could add beads to her arms and legs. These girls are short, with big heads and a body proportion that rivals Monster High, Ever After High, or the re-vamped Bratz dolls.

Really, the presenter showed no effort in demonstrating Betty’s bendable poses. It’s probably because that was the last thing considered when making this doll. They clearly wanted to emphasize the fact that these dolls have a ‘mix-and-match’ function. The only thing noodly about these girls is their rubber hair. Whoopie.

The arms and legs on these dolls only manage simple poses. The only thing familiar about the body is the rubbery feeling.

 2) The Doll Clothing Lacks Funk

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Update: Originally, I wasn’t fond of the clothes because I thought they were boring. I mean, can you blame me? That Toy Fair did nothing to boost Betty’s reputation.

However, I’m not excited about the new dolls either. They aren’t as boring as they once looked, but they are still more boring than Betty originally was. They just lack funk.

The 1990s is over, I know. But I think the funky style suited Betty well. Betty Spaghetty dolls are supposed to be teenagers. These new dolls’ outfits look made for little girls. They’re colorful, but not cool. I absolutely dislike blonde Betty in a “princess” costume. Ugh.

These outfits are just too typical.

On the main website, it looks like they have 12 dolls released so far: Chef Betty, Cupcake Betty, Princess Betty, Fairy Betty, Popstar Betty, Cafe Lucy, Skate Lucy, Beach Zoey, Hula Zoey, Ballet Betty, Pink Ski Betty, and Blue Ski Betty.

A sister brand to the Shopkins for sure…

Though they revamped some of Betty’s older lines, like the ski line, it lacks all the flavor of the original. Blonde Betty herself is super “feminine” and is not the fashionista she once was.

They still don’t have tons of jewelry or the make-up that Betty had, which made all of her clothes pop, made her colorful, and even more FUNKY.

Betty always reminded me of Claudia from the Babysitters Club, if any of you all remember the series…Her style was just so original and cool.

The new Betty Spaghetty dolls aren’t ugly, just too sweet and childish for my tastes.

 

Even the first revamp had a better selection. I’m sick that it didn’t take off the ground like it should’ve…Especially after seeing these new dolls.

3) Their Faces Lack Expression

Betty Spaghetty had many different facial expressions in every release. Sometimes she would look surprised or excited or happy, and other times she would look solemn or even scared. She seemed to have a little personality all her own. Her lips weren’t the only things that GAVE her personality. Her EYES even gave her personality.

The new dolls? Not so much. First off, they have noses. The original Betty was cartoonish, as intended, and didn’t have a nose on her roundish, shiny face. The new “Betty” seems like an attempt at a CGI cartoon.

The new dolls’ expressions are all pretty much the SAME. There seem to mostly be three types of faces: solemn smile, regular smile or chipper wide grin. The eyes are all the SAME. They lack color as well. Betty and her friends used to have individual expressions and often those expressions were related to the line they were released in. The new Betty dolls all look…the same.

They’re not wearing make-up, so they don’t have any extra art or color to their faces, aside from some blush to make their cheeks rosy. And it’s not bad to be fresh-faced, but the new dolls don’t look as funky, colorful, or creative as the original Betty.

Panda17188 @deviantart.com

4) They Don’t Look Like Teenagers

Betty Spaghetty was tall, wore makeup, and shopped. She looked like a teenager. Her clothing lines reflected a teenager. The new Betty Spaghetty dolls look like kids. I’m not going to say all teenagers should be tall and lanky, but the clothing and lines for the new Betty dolls (like the hula outfit, the inline skating one, etc) look like something a child would wear. At least bring back Betty’s essence. Being a teenager is far more glamorous for kids. Why? Because it’s something they can…IMAGINE. They can’t imagine being who they already are. That’s the problem with toys like this. They lack imagination. They lack vision. They lack creativity.

Do you really expect me to believe that “ballet-princess-fairy” Betty is a teenager? XD I don’t think so.

I know Betty Spaghetty was always directed to children 4 years old and older, but these dolls don’t seem ready for playtime no matter the age. The only things kids can do with these dolls are braid the hair and change the clothes. The accessories are not ugly, but most of them are common in any toy line. The bodies aren’t even bendable. It’s not like you can put beads on the arms. They are too thick and don’t bend. Boring. I can’t see any kids wanting to play with these toys for long.

5) Betty is not Really Blonde Anymore

It looks like one blonde doll is still in the line as Betty, but according to the main website, there are TWO types of “Bettys”. One has blonde hair, the other has blue hair.

This is kind of confusing and I think this is bad. People will be looking for blonde Betty which will take away sales from the blue-haired doll. Why didn’t they give her a new name instead of making two Betty dolls? They have Lucy and Zoey. I just don’t understand why there needs to be two dolls named Betty.

The sad part is blue-haired Betty has better clothes than “princess-ballet-cupcake-chef” Betty. The new blonde Betty is girlish and childish, while blue-haired Betty is a “popstar” (though gag me with the fairy one) and takes on Betty’s “ski line”.

I understand the diversity thing, but Betty was known as blonde. Even in the commercial, I saw blonde Betty getting the shine among the other dolls, but then at the end, I see the blue-haired doll…

Maybe they want Betty to have diverse hair colors? Which is cool and all, but the problem is the dolls’ facial expressions and skin are not that diverse. Most people will decifer the differences by hair color, and most people assume blonde Betty is Betty…

It seems like companies are out to revive the 1990’s. Companies are out to revive old products in general because lately only popular brands sell well in the toy market (and just about every market today). But I feel if these companies lose the heart of the brand, there’s no way they can truly revive a product the way they wish.

Perhaps Moose recognized that Ohio Art had been unsuccessful with the original re-vamp and felt that they should try to design and market Betty dolls differently. But I doubt these will do any better.

I’m also considering the fact that Moose couldn’t make their new dolls like the original Betty. If Ohio Art still kept the copyrights to the original design or the original creator pulled the original designs, that would mean Moose had to start their designs from scratch and would have to make their Betty dolls look different. I feel that if they couldn’t get hold of the original designs, why make these dolls?

I think it’s just time to hang up on Betty Spaghetty. The new generation hardly plays with dolls, but the dolls they do enjoy have an even bigger brand name in the toy market with the proper marketing tools. If Moose Toys make Youtube videos for Betty like they do for Shopkins, maybe they will reap some success. It already seems set up for a CGI release or something like that. But I doubt it will stay popular for long.

Visit their website www.bettyspaghetty.com

As more information is revealed, I will be updating this article.

What are your thoughts readers? Leave me a comment and let me know what you think!

The New Ever After High Interactive Music Video…Is…Dope…

I’ve just got wind of the new interactive Ever After High Music Video. It is SO DOPE. It is way ahead of it’s time, and in fact, the start of something revolutionary! Imagine all of our music videos interactive like this! On Vevo! On Youtube!

Sure, it’s a music video for a doll brand, but that’s usually where all of the most innovative ideas come from: TOYS! Technology starts with the kids, right?

So, I think you guys should check it out. It’s pretty cool.

I wish Monster High had something this cool…

Check it out!

http://spellbind.in/16zyEFo

 

14 Ways Mattel Can Screw Up a Doll Line

I have been a fan of Mattel products since I was a little girl. At the age of six, I enjoyed endless hours of “Barbie Time” on Saturday mornings when I didn’t have to go to school.  I have been a supporter of them for YEARS. Even as an adult, I still collect their products.

I have been a collector of the Barbie doll, Generation Girl Barbie, Diva Starz, Polly Pocket, What’s Her Face, Flavas, Myscene, American Girl/Girls of Many Lands, Monster High, and now Ever After High. I’ve always been swept up in Mattel’s products immediately. They always have captivating ideas to work with when they first release a doll line.

But while I am a fan of Mattel’s doll lines, I have slowly but surely come to be frustrated with the ACTUAL company. I am not a fan of Mattel. I love their ideas, but I hate their maintenance practices. I collect many other dolls, like Liv, Ever Girl, Lisa Frank, Magic Attic Club, Global Friends, etc. Though many of those dolls weren’t as commercially successful as Mattel’s dolls, their companies have been much more decent. Sure, many of their doll lines didn’t last, but many times they never came back making the same mistakes over and over…

I also collect Bratz. Bratz have something that the other doll lines don’t have. MGA used to be that top-notch company that would listen to fans and implement change without destroying their doll franchise. Though lately, they’ve been headed down the same road…once they got a new team on board…

With Mattel, despite the many cool ideas they come up with, in the long run, Mattel follows one similar pattern that ends up destroying many of the beautiful lines they make.

On a positive note, unlike other companies who fail and give up, I admire the fact that Mattel doesn’t give up after they fail. They may lose one doll line, sure, but they always come up with new lines, and just try it all over again. And I always get sucked up one more time.

But then, the results always turn out the same. Why? Well, while Mattel is always making superficial changes and inventing new ideas, they never really change the CORE issues before they move on to new lines. The core issues may never be present from the beginning, but oh boy, I always start to hear the same complaints from fans later down the line. Many of these fans are not usually familiar with Mattel’s tactics and don’t often recognize why things are going so sour. But people who have been fans of all of their doll lines always know what to expect from this company.

It’s even more evident when Mattel’s sales have dropped. They have these “fail-safe” tactics that they feel will get them quick money, even if the ideas end up destroying the line in the long run. I call this moment the “Panic Strategy”. They come in 14 different forms.

To me, they are 14 ways Mattel Can Screw up a perfect doll line.

Attack of the Pink
Attack of the Blondes
Our Main Character is a Loser, so they’re Fired
Attack of the Tacky
Books and Blogs, Who Cares if they don’t add up?
Retirement and Poor Replacements
Inaccuracy, When Nothing Makes Sense
Failing Up-Grades
Flunk the Boys
The Red-Headed Curse
Everybody Sings and Dances
We’ll Never Be Rebels
Cheap Quality
Mattel Doesn’t Listen To You

1) Attack of the Pink

This is one of Mattel’s iconic “Panic Strategies”. Since their success of “pink” Barbie, they have deduced from Barbie’s “pink” success that girls must love pink an awful lot. It must be true for Mattel because all of their most successful dolls wear an awful lot of pink. The problem is that Mattel may see the success of ONE doll and apply that same color to the WHOLE LINE.

Though “pink” is a popular color among girls, I’m not going to say that every doll who wears pink will sell. This is where the strategy fails every time.

There is only so much pink a company can do before it gets redundant and sickening. Pastel Pink is a very frilly color that is hard to keep clean. Even though girls like it, it always ends up in the trash bin. The over-emphasized pink stamps out individuality and variety. It also sends out the message that everything “girl” should be one “pretty” color that identifies a gender, though we all know that “pink” began as a boy’s color…

I’m going to show you how often this happens using five examples: Diva Starz, Myscene, Monster High, American Girl, and the Barbie doll herself.

The Diva Starz line began as one of the first “diverse” lines that Mattel ever came out with. At the time when Diva Starz arrived on the scene, many companies wanted to make dolls that celebrated diversity instead of dolls that celebrated “white supremacy”. Mattel, unfortunately, had the reputation of highlighting blonde white dolls over ethnically diverse dolls. Diva Starz was their original plan to rid itself of that reputation. They were inspired from the Spice Girls, a very diverse pop music group.

Diva Starz began with each girl wearing their own unique color. The only girl who wore a whole lot of pink was Alexa. The other girls wore their own signature colors. Mattel usually starts off this way.

Unfortunately, I suppose, the signature color thing “limits” the company’s creativity, so this ends up changing in the end all the time…

And what color did it change to? Well, the moment the Diva Starz’s sells started plummeting, what did they release? Another doll in pink! In fact, they translated pink to all their characters, no longer displaying the same diversity they began with! Instead of succeeding, however, it just made sales plummet faster until Diva Starz was a thing of the past. I am so happy that Diva Starz didn’t continue with Mattel because the pink would never end! I enjoy finding even more diverse clothes for them.

Myscene was another doll line that followed Diva Starz in the same tracks. Myscene began as a competitor to the popular Bratz dolls in 2002. Again, Mattel was still trying to remove their reputation of being a “white supremacy” doll company by creating another diverse line of dolls. This time, however, many little girls had stopped playing with dolls much sooner than generations before. Many little girls were more interested in pop singers. Barbie was getting too “babyish” with all of the pink. The Bratz related to modern girls. So Mattel came with their “mature” doll line, Myscene. Myscene were prettier versions of the Bratz and more stylish versions of Barbie. They were very multi-faceted and not stereotypical at all. They had their own diverse personalities and interests. Their fashion styles had many urban details. They were meant to portray New York styles, which they did quite well. Even though they were still Barbies and Barbie was still the lead character, they almost didn’t feel or look like Barbies. Barbie didn’t wear pink. She wore many various colors, most of which were not pink.

But then the lawsuits came from MGA. This put a damper on the doll line. Mattel was losing money from these court cases and sales began to plummet. What was Mattel’s solution? To replace Barbie with Kennedy. Now, they thought this was a good idea. Their logic was that Myscene was still too “connected with Barbie”, which they thought was the reason behind Myscene’s plummeting sales. So they decided to get rid of the lead character, Barbie. And who did they replace Barbie with? Someone who had a different name, but was MORE BARBIE-like than the original Barbie! Kennedy wore a heavy dosage of pink! Next thing we know, the Myscene line is re-vamped to include this heavy dosage of pink, destroying the mature and urban feeling of this line. They really missed the point entirely.

I know, she looks like Barbie

Monster High is another good example. Monster High began as a freaky cool line. It took off unexpectedly a few years back. It began as a diverse ghoul line. What made this line so unique was that no one was human. This line didn’t have the same “cultural” problems the other lines had. No one was Caucasian, African American, Asian, Hispanic/Latino, Native American, or anything else. This line avoided the same cultural pitfalls many doll lines have. Each doll had their own signature colors. And the best part? The lead character, Frankie, did not wear PINK! It appealed to “darker” people, those attracted to “darker” themes. It was fitting for Halloween. Halloween colors don’t tend to be pink…

Frankie USED to be the main character. Now it appears the pink-fluff vampire character, Draculaura, is the main character. I mean, she was the lead in almost every movie. Frankie almost seems like an obsolete member. After the popularity of Draculaura, because suddenly everyone is obsessed with vampires, PINK became the new “it” color. And it seemed like every character that came after sported more and more pink.

Fairy-tale dolls, particularly Disney’s dolls, are heavily cutting into the Monster High market. With that, Mattel has once again used its tactic of Attack of the Pink.

While GiGi Grant’s sister looked more original and cool, she never got a doll. But here comes Miss Pink GiGi with her boring and unoriginal doll.

Not that Monster High doesn’t have enough Were-Cats, but one of their additions to the line also sports pink.

They even thought they could get away with making a serpent’s hair PINK! What snake in the world is pink?

They have so many dolls sporting pink more than any other color, this line is hardly feeling like a “dark” and “edgy” ghoul line anymore. But what really makes the whole thing obvious is the complete change they made to characters that were never originally “pink”. One character: Howleen

Howleen’s original hair color was orange. She was meant to be original and spunky-not like the other girls. She had the edge that made her stand out. But no. They had to go and turn her into a less original character by changing her hair PINK! They took the original detail, the thing that made this doll stand out, and threw it away.

Before

After

It’s a bit sad. I really thought Monster High would be the line that would break the pink mold. I guess not, since apparently that’s all girls seem to like nowadays, according to Mattel’s demographic research.

American Girl has even jumped on the trend. American Girl is supposed to be a doll line focusing on bringing timeless stories about girls from the past to the future and relating it to girls of today. These stories are better highlighted with matching dolls. The doll line used to be filled with authentic and period-accurate clothing that could impress even the most skeptical historians, such as myself. It came in various colors and fabrics. It expressed the diversity of the characters, as well as educated children about fashion from the past. American Girl also consists of contemporary dolls that represent the girls of today. They also came with an array of clothing and accessories. Girl of the Year was once just as diverse as the historical line.

But suddenly, just recently, American Girl decided to dye everything in pink. From their 2014 Girl of the Year, whose wardrobes are drenched in pink, to over half of their historical dolls, Pink seems to be the signature American Girl color. Even the packaging has been changed from red to PINK. Instead of hitting off the ground, it’s really hurting American Girl. Mattel’s profit reports showed a sharp decline stemming from the re-vamped Historical line. I’ll bet it’s because of the pinkness.

There are so many colors in the rainbow. Many items in the past may have never been pink. And today, we have so many various colors in our stores! So why constantly shoot for pink? They even stuck Kit, a character who supposedly hates pink according to her story, in pink! Girl of the Year 2014 is model pink!

Mattel will do anything to insert its pink paradise. Apparently, they think pink is the only way to make some money. While it may work at first, too much of this kills doll lines. Not everyone relates to the color pink, and no one wants to see everyone wear pink. When they all look alike, no characters stand out.

Finally, I want to talk about Barbie. Many of you probably didn’t know this, but Barbie wasn’t always a pink princess.

Even Barbie had her moments where she suffered in the past. This is the reason Matt and El sold the company in the first place. Still, even after Barbie was sold, everything about her wasn’t pink. I had a Teacher Barbie that wore black.

But the “new” Mattel had this “idea” that pink would sell better. Suddenly, Barbie was transformed out of nowhere into this pink icon. Now, all she wears is pink! And we hardly see any “teacher” Barbies anymore. She’s become this shallow pink princess with no career goals…

I think the Barbie doll has now become the reason many people hate pink.

Back to top

2) Attack of the Blondes

Mattel is very famous for their worship of blondies. In fact, many of Mattel’s leading girls are blonde. From Diva Starz, to Myscene, to Polly Pocket, blondes make up Mattel’s universe. I will admit, blondes can be ticket-selling points. But of course, many times the reason the blonde characters sell so much is because of, not only hair, BUT what’s she’s usually wearing, which is something that is usually prettier than all the other dolls.

Let’s make this clear. Some of Mattel’s blonde dolls sell less than other dolls. American Girl’s Kirsten didn’t sell as much as Samantha, even though she was blonde. Perhaps that’s just it. Mattel usually puts their blondes in all of the pretty girlish outfits and puts their other characters in drab fashions. They usually give their blonde characters unique hairstyles and all of their brunette characters the “normal” looks. Kirsten was the first blonde doll that didn’t look like that…Then again, she wasn’t originally designed by Mattel.

Draculaura isn’t blonde and she sells well…so possibly, it’s not the blonde that does it. It’s the wardrobe you put with the doll.

Mattel doesn’t always see it that way when tackling its “human”dolls.

In Mattel’s universe, blonde hair represents leadership, attention-seeking, fashion, fun, and beauty. The blonde characters always get the attractive qualities. These qualities are never awarded to the African American, Hispanic, or Asian characters. “Sister” was Mattel’s attempt at “segregating” the black dolls from the white dolls so that blonde Barbie wouldn’t outshine “black” Barbie. They have put a stamp on their dolls because of this. We often find Mattel to have a hidden white superiority complex that is so deeply hidden it is difficult to prove.

Many times, Mattel tries to add some diversity, but in the end blondes always rule all. When all fails, we see the truest thoughts behind this company. When Mattel is struggling, you know what they usually pull out of their closet? Not a doll everyone has been asking for. No. They pull out a blonde. Usually, at this pivotal moment, when they pull out the blonde, they already have one successful blonde doll that’s not enough to fill the sale gaps, but is still selling better than the other dolls. So when they add the “new” blonde, they now have an over-abundance of blonde characters and a lack of one or more other ethnic groups/bruns/red heads.

I will share some examples…

American Girl used to be a doll line with many diverse characters. At one time, the historical line’s only blonde character was Kirsten. Then Kit came into the picture. Everything was in balance. But then came that moment when American Girl’s sales fell. Caroline was released.

Girl of the Year has never had an African American character. Many hoped 2014 would be the year. And what did they give us? A blonde character.

This is the exact same problem in Diva Starz. When Diva Starz’s sales were struggling, Mattel got rid of their sweet red-head, and replaced her with, you guessed it, another BLONDE character. Diva Starz then had TWO blonde characters, and two brunette characters, but no red-heads.

It was the same with Myscene. When Myscene was on the brink of collapse, who did they release to replace Barbie? Another blonde!

Ever After High has a really cool brunette character. But NOOO! She couldn’t be Snow White’s daughter (although Snow White has always been depicted as having dark hair). The “blonde” character has to get the shine as a “royal” character, as if all blondes are bubbly, shallow, and “royal”. In fact, why did they have to see Raven as a lead only if she shares the lead WITH the blonde? For once, couldn’t the blonde character have been in a supporting role? Like in Winx?

One of the ideas that could solve this “blonde” problem would be to do what they did to Draculaura and Samantha: Put the brunette and red-haired characters in more appealing fashions with more attractive personalities. Is that so difficult?

Back to top

3) Our Main Character is a Loser, so They’re FIRED

Mattel usually always tries to create a main character with the most attractive qualities and fashion. Usually, their main characters are blonde and/or wear an awful lot of pink. But this doesn’t necessarily make their main characters safe. If Mattel senses that their main characters are not doing a good job, they always seem to think the best idea is to “replace” them or kick them in a corner with very little attention. This usually works AGAINST them. A main character is usually the character that drives the whole line and/or story. Without those key characters, we are missing something, even if they aren’t popular.

Mattel’s strategy, however, is to often get rid of their “loser” main characters and let the popular character take over. Sometimes, a character never even gets a chance. Marie-Grace and Cecile are an example. They’ve only been out two years, and yet were retired, while many of the American Girl characters have been around for seven years or more! They never even got a chance! They were clumped together with the other “Best Friend” dolls,  when they had their own time, era, and complete line! Now, we no longer have dolls from NOLA that cover the Yellow Fever epidemic.

And Mattel is never fair about screen time or promotion. They jacked Josefina so horribly, I’m starting to think she’s falling into the “loser” category.

Mattel is a company that seems to expect immediate results. If they don’t get it, it appears they get rid of characters and over-do the characters that have the potential for popularity.

This happened in Monster High. Draculaura has taken over every line, and the lead character and many other ghouls have been cast aside. Many of the other characters get ignored, even the actual MAIN character! Since when has Frankie been the main character in a movie? Lagoona and Spectra haven’t been in a line in a LOOOONG time.

And it looks like with the new Monster High re-vamp and the Japanese “anime”, Draculaura has truly become the “main character”. Can’t you see I’m not lying with this?

This really happened with the Barbie doll. Mattel has tried to make other diverse Barbies as main characters (like Sister), but it’s always clear that they want Barbie to lead. She is always the first doll to be introduced. She always has the most attractive outfits on. Come on. The other dolls didn’t stand a chance. Barbie’s popularity continues to grow, while all of the others fall behind.

Do I have to re-iterate the fact that they replaced their cutting-edge Barbie in Myscene for the pink-princess doll Kennedy? It basically changed everything. Barbie was Madison’s best friend and River’s girlfriend. Did they really think they could just stick in Kennedy and everything would be okay? Fans hit the roof.

The problem with Mattel is they keep regurgitating dolls so often, they forget how many dolls they have. They end up ignoring the dolls they already have.

Back to top

4) Attack of the Tacky

When Mattel is in “Panic mode”, they are usually at a point where they have run out of fashion ideas. Towards the end of a doll line, or when they are low on sales, Mattel gets really, REALLY tacky. They start just coming up with any random design ideas that can range between original and weird.

What really makes it bad is that they start tacking on a heavy load of pastels, which often makes the outfits less refined.

I can honestly say that there was a huge difference between Myscene in the beginning and how they started looking when things got rough…

American Girl has also gotten tackier lately. American Girl used to have high-quality and valuable outfits, many that could be found on very few dolls in the world. But ever since their Beforever launch, an attempt to appeal more to this new generation, it seems that they have slapped fabrics together. Kit’s new birthday outfit is shameful enough, but they had to go and throw a girl from 1904 in some go-go boots! I know those shoes were popular in 1904, but they weren’t very tasteful. Maybe this is just my opinion…

Even Monster High’s original outfits were much more stylish than many of the outfits now. Freaky Fusion is…a blend of awkward monsters thrown together, and it shows. Flavas was the epitome of tacky, but their last remaining outfits were the tackiest ever. And yes, Flavas was also Mattel’s attempt to make quick money at a time when Bratz was taking over the doll market. See how tacky Mattel gets when they are desperate? They translate all of this into style.

Back to top

5) Books and Blogs: Who Cares If they Don’t Add Up?

American Girl, Monster High, and Generation Girl all had books to accompany their doll lines. Myscene, at one time, had an online blog. I understand that, many times, the books are written by authors that have nothing to do with Mattel. But they are meant to be for Mattel’s products. Mattel should know something about the books and/or blogs that are meant to represent them. Often times, however, I question whether Mattel really reads their own literature.

Often times, Mattel will release books, and then later release merch or promotion that contradicts it. Shouldn’t they at least read it over before releasing it? It might say something foul and they wouldn’t even know it! One thing is for certain, they do not live up to their stories-at all. This is really evident when they are low on money…Let me give some examples.

In the Monster High book series, Spectra and Invisi Billy were said to have been dating. But in the webisodes, here they come with Invisi Billy and Scarah! Say what now? After so many fans were drawn to the first couple, they pulled a switcheru on everybody. It’s almost as if Mattel didn’t care, as long as it could be a good selling point for the doll. They are often too focused on their actual products to notice such inconsistencies…But it’s sort of annoying. Don’t make books if you can’t keep up with them, jeez. As Spectra’s doll popularity decreased, and Scarah’s doll popularity increased, Spectra was simply the love interest that was replaced in the webisodes…Without any nod to the books…And thus, causing a fan war.

Now, Mattel decided they would create a new “backstory” for Monster High with their movie Welcome to Monster High, which completely changes the characters altogether…So I guess all of those books and webisodes were pointless from the beginning.

Generation Girl dolls had a similar issue. Barbie Roberts was said to have come from Malibu, California in the books, Nichelle was from New York City, New York,  Tori was from Melbourne, Australia, and Ana was supposedly from Spanish Harlem, New York, right? But if you buy the boxes of these dolls, they all say completely different cities! Barbie is said to be from Los Angeles, Nichelle is from Harlem, Tori is from Sydney, and Ana is from Mexico City, Mexico! I know many of these cities are all in the same country, but it takes a bolt load of ignorance to think they are the same cities. It wouldn’t have been a problem had there not been confusion with accessories (especially food items meant to represent a particular city), or if the magazine articles the dolls came with didn’t emphasis a completely different place…Considering the books came out the exact time the dolls came out, that was a little awkward. That let the consumers know that it wasn’t just a change of plans down the line, it was an absolute glitch that no one paid attention to before release.

Generation Girl wiki

Finally, I just want to use American Girl’s Kit. The girl is a tomboy and HATES the color pink. She HATES flounces. People who have read Meet Kit know this. So what does Mattel go and do? Stick her in a pink, flouncy dress for Easter. I understand that a Depression-era girl wouldn’t decide these things. But she has other clothes. Couldn’t they have highlighted the dresses Kit actually liked?  Just as they did with Felicity’s Dancing Lesson gown? Or with the red dress Ruthie got for Kit at Christmas? I think that’s pretty careless to create clothes that will bring discomfort to a character in the canon story…unless of course you’re like Mattel and DON’T CARE. They could’ve highlighted actual practical clothing an actual Depression-era girl would’ve worn.

They honestly release those books for extra revenue…But really, they should skip out on literature…

You know what made it really obvious they don’t read their own literature? Conan O’Brian, host of the Conan O’Brian Show, visited American Girl Place in Los Angeles. He was talking to one of the employees there about Kit. Conan asked about her story. You know what story the employee told him about? The story from the Kit Kittredge: An American Girl movie. It became evident that he never read the books. He stated, “In Kit’s story, her father goes away to Chicago to find work.” That never happened in the CORE series! FACEPALM TIME! It’s odd for someone who supposedly knows about American Girl to mention the movie before the book series. Any fan knows that the Kit movie was NOTHING like the book series. In fact, Kit’s movie deviated the most from the main plot out of ALL of the movies! If fans know this, how much more-so should an employee? It was a shame to watch. I can’t even take that worker seriously as an employee. I couldn’t wrap my mind around it. This man has been working for American Girl all this time and doesn’t know the actual story behind Kit?

The plot is deviated the most when Mattel is losing money and fresh out of ideas. They have to swerve around the character traits to pull something new out of their hats.

I don’t even want to get started on Myscene. A long time ago, when Myscene was first released in 2002, it was announced on Barbie’s online “blog” that she was an Aries. The signature color for Aries is usually red. To represent her Zodiac sign, Barbie carried around a cherry-red cell phone and wore a matching cherry-red outfit, as seen at debut.

Eventually, somehow, they switched Barbie into a Libra right under everyone’s noses. Hmm…And they offered no explanation for the cherry-red cell phone and matching outfit…

To this day, there are very few Myscene fans who know this information.

Oh well, I guess since no one questioned it, Mattel got away with it…as usual.

Back to top

6) Retirement and Poor Replacements

This is a little different from #3. #3 wasn’t necessarily about retired dolls, just dolls that have been out-shined by other dolls. This point is literally about retirement. Mattel is ever infamous for their MAJOR retirements when things get a little rough. Many times, Mattel is about retiring an “unpopular” or “unsuccessful character” and replacing that character with someone “better”. But many times, Mattel goes through this period where they retire extremely popular characters and no one can usually understand why. Most assume it’s for the sake of making room and replacements.

I don’t honestly believe they are interested in “replacing” dolls. They just keep making what sells.

Sometimes, during those desperate times, Mattel takes the worse actions.

One example would be their retirement of Summer from the Diva Starz. When they got rid of her, most fans expected a pretty reasonable replacement, like maybe a new Asian doll or something. But we got ANOTHER blonde doll IN pink! They replaced their ONLY red-head with another blonde girl.

Another major retirement fail was of their only Latina character, Ana, in Generation Girl. Why would they do something like that? No idea. And their replacement was a quirky Asian character and ANA‘s boyfriend, Blaine…What’s the point of retiring the doll and then releasing her boyfriend?

And again, in Myscene. They retired the cutting-edge Barbie, for a pink-princess Barbie doll look-alike named “Kennedy”. Wow. So they thought since the name was changed, she would be less “Barbie”? But then you go and make her just like the iconic Barbie…FAILURE.

Mattel retired their best-selling American Girl doll, Samantha! Why? I don’t know. They said they were making room for new characters. But it wasn’t really business savvy, though most were happy they were making room for new characters…The replacement was not enough to bring the money back…

Back to top

7) Inaccuracy: When Nothing Makes Sense…

As mentioned before, Mattel often contradicts itself, which often makes it difficult for their stories to be believable.

But sometimes they are consistent. Yet, even when they are consistent, they have another problem: Inaccuracy.

This mostly applies to their doll lines that are based off of some other idea or concept, like Ever After High, Monster High, and American Girl. Mattel will squeeze anything to make a buck, and sometimes many things they throw together don’t make sense. They make it really hard to be a detail-oriented person and enjoy all of Mattel’s products.

Well, at least they tend to doll details…

Well, at least they tend to the details when they first release a doll line.

Inaccuracy is usually a major sign that Mattel is struggling, and this is how they ruin doll lines in the end.

American Girl’s Beforever is steeped with inaccurate products, which is a shame. The line is meant to inspire girls of today to learn history through a collection of dolls. But many times, they squeeze some modern items in there to sell the doll. For instance, Samantha’s headband.

Ever After High has been slapped with the inaccurate bill, too. While Apple White is supposed to be Snow White’s daughter, and follow the “Snow White” tradition precisely, that’s not technically possible for her. Therefore, she is a rebel without even trying. 1) Snow White has ALWAYS been described to have hair as “black as ebony” since the original German story was published by the Grimm Brothers. But we talked about how Mattel worships blondes…2) The “evil queen” was born WAY before Snow White, and supposedly MARRIED Snow White’s FATHER. So, is Raven Queen going to be Apple White’s new Step-mother? Not possible, because apparently Apple White’s parents are Snow White and her handsome prince…

Unless Snow White dies, and Raven Queen ends up marrying Apple White’s older father, I doubt this could work smoothly. In other words, Apple White is still NOT a royal. She is actually, in fact, a rebel by default, as there is no possible way she can follow her “destiny”, even if Raven Queen WERE to turn out evil. The inaccuracy of the story makes it all a bit amusing, but since it’s so easy for children (and some adults) to overlook such details, you’d all be happy to know that, at least, the dolls are very detailed and beautiful. After all, the story was squeezed a bit to allow a perky blonde to take the lead, and to play on the “victim” heart strings people are pulling with today’s iconic villains.

In the end, however, I can see Ever After High’s story being a big confusing mess. Just buy the doll.

I have one more question. If Raven Queen is supposed to be the “evil queen”, why didn’t SHE inherit the magic mirror instead of Apple White? Raven Queen acts more like Snow White than Apple White…*gasp* Apple White is vain…easily jealous…controlling…acts like a queen…and owns a magic mirror…Perhaps, SHE’LL be the next evil queen! *gasp* There are still many inconsistencies. Apple White’s story seems to even deviate greatly from the original Evil Queen’s story, too. She doesn’t fit with any characters in Snow White, so I don’t understand why she is a “Royal”.

If Raven Queen was born to the Evil Queen, then wouldn’t that make Raven Queen Snow White’s sister? Wouldn’t that make Raven Queen…Apple White’s aunt? In this case, Raven Queen should be older than Apple White.

Don’t think too deep. It’ll ruin everything. Just stay in ignorant bliss so you can enjoy life. Just buy the doll…That’s all Mattel cares about anyway. They will squeeze any attractive story just to sell.

The Story of Snow White<—Click

One last question: Why was the My Scene movie called Myscene Goes Hollywood, when the whole movie takes place in New York? Deceptive…

Back to top

8) Failing Up-Grades

When Mattel is in a pinch, their first instinct is to “upgrade” their lines. Every company does an up-grade. But it seems like Mattel always comes up with the most slap-dash ideas when they are financially in trouble. Their desperation always shows.

American Girl’s Beforever is a prime example. I don’t even know where to begin. They gave their 9 year-old 1970’s doll some platform shoes, their 1904 doll a headband, and modernized all of their historical fashion…

Another example would be when Mattel decided to make the Diva Starz “taller”. I don’t know why they thought it was a good idea. It just made them awkward and hard to carry around. Instead of getting them more money, it became the end of the entire Diva Starz line.

And remember when they made the My Scene dolls SMILE? Those dolls were the worst ideas ever.

Almost looks like a regular Barbie doesn’t it? Why was this a good idea?

Lately, Mattel thought it would be a good idea to “de-scare” their Monster High Dolls by making their faces cuter and their details “painted on” rather than carved. I don’t understand. What’s the point of making monster dolls “cute”? They are MONSTERS. Now, instead of looking like “rad” teenagers, they look like kids who “want to be” teens…

The quality is obviously lower and the fashions are cheesier.

They basically took all the characters’ unique details and threw them out in the trash.

Oh, and they changed the whole story behind them. So now, all of their old books, webisodes, and movies are MEANINGLESS. Now, you have to throw them out. Unless of course, you just bought the dolls…But wait…They changed them, too…

For Mattel, desperate times call for desperate up-grades.

Back to top

9) Flunk the Boys

Boys are a small accessory to girls in the Mattel universe. Of course, the target for most of Mattel’s products are young females. In Mattel’s company mind, this means giving a guy some attention as a love interest until his popularity dwindles. Their next step is to retire him, like all of the other “accessories”. Possibly, they may even try to replace him. Men are thrown around in the Mattel universe and treated poorly.

The Ken doll is a great example of this. He was Barbie’s “boyfriend” since the 1960s. He has had a fantastic line of clothing and accessories. Then, they suddenly tried to retire him in 2004, stating that he and Barbie needed to “spend some time apart”. That was a very bad idea. You know they had to bring him back. Ken never even had a Doll of the World yet! Throughout the years, he was always placed behind Barbie’s world of plastic. His retirement was an all-time low.

It has become the same song and dance with Monster High. The boys are given one outfit a piece, with very few details or accessories, and often seem to wear the exact same outfits as one another with very few distinctions. This gives very shallow ideas to girls, and gives their competition, the Bratz, the upper hand.

Just look at Heath. He literally was only an accessory to Abbey. The boys in Mattel’s universe eventually end up in sets with the girls.

Look at Abbey’s accessories…Wait…where are Heath’s accessories? WOW. He doesn’t really have any but a mitt, does he? -.- They are supposed to “share”.

Heck, by the end of My Scene, the five boys had been reduced down to one: River, Barbie’s “boyfriend”…er, was it Kennedy by then? Who knows…

It’s really no wonder Mattel has a hard time relating to a male audience with their lines. Being targeted for girls is no excuse. Bratz Boyz can do it better:

Two outfits, tons of accessories, a comb, a nice braided hairstyle, two pairs of shoes, and their OWN LINES, separate from the girls, like 1st edition Boyz…

Back to top

10) The Red-Headed Curse

Mattel’s world is blonde. In Mattel’s kingdom, blonde’s natural opposite is “Red Hair”. I’m not going to go as far as to say they have a personal prejudice against red-heads, as they always make dolls with Red hair. BUT when the going gets tough, it’s always a red-head that is on the chopping block.

American Girl has been around for years. Out of all of American Girl’s dolls, only ONE doll has been retired TWICE: Felicity Merriman, their Revolutionary War doll. She has a spunky personality that girls of today appreciate, but she has the hair color that Mattel deems as “hard to sell” for some reason. Though red hair never stopped the sell of Blossom from the Powerpuff Girls or Bloom from Winx, it seems to be the “sign” of poor sells for Mattel…

In Diva Starz, Summer was the only doll retired during the line’s run. The sweet red-head was then replaced with a cutting-edge blonde…Which didn’t appease anyone. Shortly after, the line was retired altogether.

Generation Girl also retired their red-haired doll, Chelsie Peterson. They claimed she “moved”. People were so mad. I mean, she was the most interesting doll in the line. Plus, she was the only doll from England. She was also a singer who came with a guitar. There were so many parts of her doll run still left unattended.

Myscene’s Kenzie was a disappointment. She lasted shorter than any Myscene doll ever sold. They hardly elaborated on her background. And she was a beautiful doll.

As you can see, Mattel has a record. They have never been very nice to their red-haired girls. Many of their lines, like Flavas, didn’t have red-heads at all! Talk about a lack of diversity…

Monster High and Ever After High hardly process red-head characters…

Mattel acts like having red hair is a curse or something…When is the last time they created a red-head for their main Barbie line? I can’t remember.

Back to top

11) Everybody Sings and Dances

Yea, just about any company uses the “arts” gimmick to get little girls to buy their dolls. Every doll line needs a “singing” and/or “dancing” line, where the doll can get fancied up in glitter or pastels and shimmy on a stage.

For Mattel, however, this is one of their “Panic Strategies”. Mattel may already have a singer and dancer, but when they are low on funds or ideas, no worries. They will release ANOTHER singer and dancer.

For instance, Monster High already had Operetta as a singer. But that wasn’t enough. They just had to make one of their popular werecats and their new witch doll, Casta Fierce, singers as well! Why does this line need three singers? I don’t know. Couldn’t they have had other more original interests? Oh wait, this is Mattel we are talking about…

Oh, and a fourth was added to the singing/dancing trio: Ari Hauntington! How many more Mattel before the MH brand becomes a pop girl group?

Double whamy: Pink and a Singer!

American Girl’s Girl of the Year already had a very popular modern-day dancer named Marisol. There were so many modern ideas they could cover. But no. In 2014, they released ANOTHER dancer: Isabelle. I’m still shocked they didn’t try the singer thing…I suppose it’s not as good for the movies…It was good enough for the Saige movie…Even though Saige ISN’T a singer…

Barbie does the singing thing every new decade. She has done every occupation really. But I guarantee you, she’s done teaching much less than singing or dancing.

Polly Pocket, Flavas, I mean really. Singing and Dancing is apart of Mattel’s universe as a doll company. It’s their greatest green ticket, especially when funds are low. So, don’t expect anything original.

Back to top

12) We’ll Never Be Rebels

Mattel is capable of coming up with some pretty rebellious ideas, but Mattel likes to play it safe. While parents may approve, this doesn’t make them necessarily popular among the kids. Parents don’t play with these dolls, but the kids do. Many collectors appreciate detailed dolls. Many times, Mattel will give up good, detailed, and quality dolls for dolls that are cheap and wholesome.

Chelsie Peterson, Tori Burns, and Barbie Roberts from Generation Girl used to get a lot of bashing from “soccer moms”. Chelsie had a nose ring and three piercings in her left ear, Tori did too, and Barbie had a tattoo on her ankle (I’m one of the lucky few to get this one). At the time, that was a “big deal”. They were details that made those dolls unique and appealing. Well, Mattel is such a suck-up, they got rid of those unique details. Now, it’s no longer a big deal. But where is Generation Girl? A thing of the past. They didn’t even realize they were creating a doll trend at the time.

Notice her heart tattoo on her ankle…

Monster High got a lot of stigma for releasing a “spider doll”. Instead of ignoring people by trying to make the doll more appealing, she has only appeared in one line. Spiders may look scary, but at least they are a real part of nature. Oh, but vampires and zombies are okay, huh… -.-

Monster High gets backlash from parents often about how “scary” their Monster High dolls look. And you know Mattel cares what parents (the people that won’t play with the dolls) think. What did they do? They just re-vamped the whole line so the monsters can look sweeter…and younger.

American Girl has gone light on the stories behind their Girl of the Year dolls, too. The last deep story they ever had for modern girls was Chrissa’s story on bullying. The other stories hardly touch on subjects that affect girls. They gloss over a few issues to help sell pretty merchandise. They have the potential to open the minds of girls. Instead, they would rather play it safe and give girls more materialistic values.

Flavas was also a pretty edgy line, but I think a lot more had to do with their retirement. They were just tacky altogether…

Back to top

13) Cheap Quality

Mattel always releases their dolls with the highest quality-in the beginning, during a launch, at debut. But after a while, Mattel gets comfortable. When things get rough, the quality declines. This happens with every company, but a smart company knows how to wheel around this issue. Many times, Mattel cheapens the quality because it’s cheaper to make toys that way. This keeps money in their pockets.

American Girl’s quality has decreased tremendously, and yet the prices have risen! They certainly don’t use the same fine materials, like real wood, real clothing fabric, and tin, like they used to. Everything is plastic-and yet, more expensive than when they used real materials!

Barbie used to be a high-quality doll herself in the 1960’s. Then they started creating her with that cheap hair and face paint. When I was little, I could never pretend she was swimming. Her hair and lipstick would fade!

Yea, her hair seems nicer in the picture, but the actual doll is not the same!

Back to top

14) Mattel Doesn’t Listen to YOU

You would think that when Mattel is on their butt they would listen to fans more. Nope. In fact, the further Mattel is in a slump, the more they ignore fans. Does this sound familiar?

“We do not accept new product ideas.” That’s one of them. “We apologize for your dissatisfaction with our products. We have ___ for you to enjoy. Stay tuned for more updates”.

Mattel is usually at their best when they have competition. When they have competition, they suddenly come up with better quality ideas. Bratz kept Mattel on their toes. Myscene, Monster high, and Girls of Many Lands all came out around the time Bratz was at their height. Those three lines were of high quality at launch. But now that the competition is low, Mattel is getting a little too comfortable. Competition helps Mattel recognize their flaws and weaknesses. Without competition, they don’t see fans going anywhere else, no matter how messed up their tactics are.

No matter how many fans complain about the same things, Mattel continues to send “automated” emails and continues to reject new ideas. Their competitors, MGA, are VERY open to new ideas. This contributed to the success of Bratz and the reason Mattel always struggled all of those years. They still don’t understand what tweens want. They want to be HEARD. Since Mattel usually misses this point miserably, they always lose valuable ideas to their competition.

Back to top

So, now that you are aware of the Mattel pattern, fans shouldn’t be surprised when they see Mattel leaning on an idea that seems to be choking the life out of a doll line. They have a strange tendency of repeating patterns.

Leave me a comment and let me know what you people think! What Mattel dolls do you collect? What products have you purchased? Have you experienced what I have or do you think I’m a load of malarkey?

American Girl dolls and other dolls: Do Blonde dolls sell better?

Looking at Mattel’s recent string of blonde dolls (McKenna, Caroline, Isabelle), and sales statistics in the recent 21st Century, the answer would appear to be yes. Even looking at other doll lines, like Barbie, one can see how blondes sell well in almost every doll brand that exists. Around the world, Barbie is the world’s best-selling doll. Even people in other countries admire this blonde doll.

It has been noted that other countries admire blonde hair in general. Japanese anime tend to have leading female characters with blonde hair, like in Sailor Moon, Mew Mew Power, and Magical Doremi, though none of their females have this natural hair color. Precure has also had its share of blonde lead characters.

Now you can say that this is because blonde whites are the majority in the USA and around the world. You can say it’s because European influence dominates the world. But actually, statistics show that blondes only make up 18 percent of the population in the USA, and only 2 percent around the world, and even the majority of white people are brunette. Many people are artificially blonde. So European-dominated culture is actually made up mostly of dark-haired people.

http://www.historydoctor.net/Advanced%20Placement%20European%20History/Notes/european_migration_and_imperiali.htm

Another thing to note is that the selling of these dolls has nothing to do with the fact that white girls want “dolls that look like them”. Blonde girls are actually more attracted to darker dolls than other girls are!

Girls of other colors and other nationalities are drawn to blonde dolls. One study showed three different dolls: a light haired doll, fair haired doll, and dark-haired doll. When asked which one is the nice one, all of the girls said the blonde was the nice one and the dark-haired girl was the mean one. The girls they brought into this study were of all colors and nationalities in the preschool age range.

This is a reflection of what society has been pushing. Society has always pushed blonde hair since the Ancient Roman Empire. Some theorize that this is because blonde hair is “rare” in the world. The same reaction girls gave to blondes, in another study, girls have the same reaction to strange eye colors, such as hazel eyes.

As we see, American Girl has had the same trend of hazel eyes that seem to fascinate young girls. These rare qualities are fascinating, almost like seeing twins.

And yet, what pushes us to see “rare” as beautiful? If we look at many fairy tales in the old days, we see that the blondes were considered the beautiful princesses, and the brunettes were considered dark and “sinister”. In fact, darkness has always been associated with things that are scary. How many people are afraid to sit in a dark room? Darkness has also been associated with hollowness, emptiness, and evil. Even “This Little Light of Mine” the song discourages darkness. Darkness has even been associated with Hell, though fire and the color red has also had that devilish association as well…

The latest Ever After High dolls have banked on this traditional viewpoint. Apple White, the lead Royal character is a perfect, chipper, outgoing, airy blonde, while the other lead is a dark-haired, gothic, Rebel and “Evil Queen”. Though this story is meant to be satirical in some way, and point out the irony in fairy tales being set up so “perfectly”, kids who buy the dolls may still yet see brunettes as evil, mean, and unfriendly.

http://facts.randomhistory.com/blonde-hair-facts.html

Aren’t these ideas outdated? Modern society hasn’t yet encouraged people to look at brunettes as lovely and kind people, despite how much human kind supposedly has “progressed”?

And yet, I believe that brunette dolls have the ability to sell over blonde dolls if a company takes a chance and uses the right approach. MGA, maker of Bratz, made four diverse dolls with interesting, unique fashions and hair styles. And though the black girl still didn’t sell well over the others, the blonde wasn’t the best-selling either. The highest selling Bratz doll to date is Yasmin, and her hair is of a light brown color! She is also not associated with the Caucasian race, and has often been highlighted as “Mexican” and “Jewish”, as we saw in the live action Bratz movie. The Bratz brand was the first doll brand where brunettes dominated the whole brand, and blondes didn’t! And they still managed to sell to young girls. And because of their diversity, to an older crowd too. How did they do this?

Back to American Girl dolls…

In my opinion, I do believe the blonde dolls at American Girl sell, but I also believe this isn’t only just because little girls like blonde better. I do believe Mattel, the owners of American Girl, has maneuvered it in this way, considering that most of the production team is white. Why do I believe that Mattel has maneuvered it to be this way?

Well, I believe any production team knows what sells to girls, but a production team also knows how to sell a product to girls, too. Since Mattel owns some of the biggest toys running, and has collaborated with major toy companies , to add, they are the maker of the Barbie doll, it’s fitting that they would know the right way to sell more blonde dolls. Mattel is known for using blonde dolls as “fail-safe” dolls. When they are low on money, they tend to release blonde dolls. That’s what they did with Diva Starz, My Scene, and other brands they’ve had. But this is because Mattel knows how to cleverly manipulate the public into believing “blonde dolls sell better”. Even I was caught up in this belief. But lately, as I started reviewing my doll collection and my collection of magazine clips, I realized something. I realized that Mattel has had a high-selling brunette doll before, and I realized how it happened. Let me highlight more about the American Girl company in the past.

American Girl’s Samantha Parkington

American Girl’s best-selling brunette doll!

Before the release of dolls like Julie, Caroline, Isabelle, Kailey, and many other blonde dolls in the American Girl line-ups we know today, there were very few blonde dolls. Back in the 1990s, there were only six dolls, the only blonde being Kirsten. But in the ’90s, Kirsten was one of the lower-selling dolls, while Samantha was the highest selling doll, and still remained the highest selling doll until her retirement! Why was this?

Look at the difference between Samantha and Kirsten. Samantha was the only doll with soft, pretty, curly hair at the time. She was the only doll with lovely clothes and accessories. And unlike most brunettes, she was lively, outgoing, perky, sweet, and kind. And she still sold just as well, if not better, than the blonde American Girl dolls today. Kirsten, on the other hand, had braids and a very practical wardrobe that wasn’t very glamorous to little girls.

Is it safe to say that maybe the reason why blonde dolls have been selling better than brunettes is because they are given more glamorous wardrobes and accessories?

If we look at the recent brunette dolls in the American Girl brand, either their hair is blah or their outfits are blah. For instance, Rebecca has pretty hair, but considering she’s meant to represent a time where most immigrant families were simpler, she has simpler clothing. Even the modern American Girls with brunette hair have had plain fashions and drab accessories. Look at Lindsey Bergman, Jess, and Chrissa. Their wardrobes, hair, and accessories were so plain compared to Isabelle’s glitz and glamour.

Mattel has even given their brunette My American Girls uninteresting hair styles that aren’t stylish or appealing. Samantha was the last of her kind.

But Samantha is living proof that it can be done, even throughout the 21st century. And yet, they retired their last fabulous brunette doll.

I believe the biggest problem with American Girl company and many other doll companies is how they personally view brunettes. I believe because of their deeply-rooted, subconscious biases, they are not giving the same care to brunette dolls that they are blonde dolls. They may not realize this. Sometimes, brunette dolls may help them in conveying an “average girl” kind of message, since the majority of people around the world have dark hair. Still, this encourages girls to “reach for blonde”. It’s no wonder there are so many artificial blondes in the world!

The unwillingness for companies like Mattel to make brunette dolls into feminine, kind, and glamorous characters shows something about their company. It isn’t as if they’ve never sold well from a brunette doll. The fact is they have sold well on Samantha, very well in fact, even with Julie on the scene! But what’s obvious is their approach to the new brunette dolls they’re making today. They are not putting the same effort into the dark-haired dolls.

It is the same way I feel about an African American doll. Cecile is selling better than Addy, sure enough, but her collection is still mediocre compared to that of the blonde girls who, number 1, have their OWN line, and aren’t sharing it with anyone, and number 2, have an array of accessories and playsets. If American Girl takes the ideas they usually have for their blonde characters, and gear them towards their brunettes and minority characters, I’m sure they won’t have to make as many blondes as they are making. They would not only add diversity, but make us “average” girls feel glamorous and special, just like the blonde characters.

I feel other companies have been cheating too. This goes for them: treat your brunette characters like divas too. It CAN be done. The Magic Attic Club doll brand is another good example of how it can be done. The most popular doll in that brand was Heather. Instead of putting the blonde in pink (which they ended up doing eventually with Chloe), they advertised Heather, the brunette with pink. Heather sold better than their blonde doll with the long hair. See? It’s all in how you advertise the doll. There is no excuse. Some of these companies can make successful brunette dolls, they just choose not to. Why not put the blonde in plain pigtails and drab clothes for a change? If you downplay one doll, another doll will stand out. That’s how it works. Why not let the bruns stand out sometimes, huh?

The only company that has done this is MGA with its line of Bratz dolls. Yasmin outsells any of their blonde dolls, and that’s why they keep making replicas of Yasmin. Why? Because they made her glamourous and pretty!

Yasmin-Isn’t she glamorous and pretty?

Other companies can learn from them. Though I forget, Mattel considers them a “rival”.

That’s what I think. Leave me a comment and let me know what you think!

Monster High’s Getting a Theme Song Change: “We Are Monsters”

Rumor has it that Monster High is trading in the original Monster High Theme song Fright Song for the song We Are Monsters. It’s meant to sound like a cheer…

At least the singer is more talented…And I love the style of the song. The meaning is better too!

But the older one is catchier, less…girly. It had much more edge, and it was good for introducing all the characters and the whole line! The new one is kind of generic…particularly the chorus.

Well, so was the original one, but the original was scarier…ya know, more ghoulish. The new one is too…friendly.

So, let me know. Which one do YOU like?

Or

Below are Tutorials for the new We Are Monster dance moves, and behind the scenes with Madison Beer as she records the newest song!

Fame, Entertainment Media, and Children: The Connection?

Children are people who range between the ages of 1 to 17. This is the age most influenced by entertainment. They are also more influential when it comes to entertainment too. The largest consumer demographic consists of children. Those of school age rely on television, music, and fashion to express themselves, and at the same time, rely on it to tell them about the world, as well as provide answers as to how to fit in their social groups. Businesses are quite aware of the power of children. Many famous stars today rose to fame by supporting children’s networks, programs, and other entertainment outlets. If most celebrities were to observe their large following, they would see that the vast majority of fans range from tween to teen.

Children today are exposed to entertainment now more than they’ve ever been. With technology, and internet access, children can find any entertainment they want-as well, as influence what’s trendy and popular today. Blogging and voting polls give children the power to use their “voice” to influence what’s trendy and what’s not. Networks are even airing Kids and Teens Choice Awards because the voice of teens are so powerful today.

The VMAs 2013 were obviously heavily influenced by kids. For over half the nominees, many of them were Disney Channel stars. To add, I could have sworn One Direction was nominated for almost every section…many of those supporting them being from the tween audience.

With children being so exposed to entertainment today, it’s easy to see how it can take over a mind as vulnerable as a child’s. Messages sent through these mediums shape a child’s life. At the same time, entertainment can tell us a lot about children’s mind-set today, as entertainment is really a reflection of the minds of the children and what’s cool to them, right?

Well, as I flip through children’s channels, purchase toys, and read children’s books, I notice that one theme is particularly strong among youth today: Fame. Particularly vulnerable to this are girls.

What is Entertainment Encouraging Our Children to Do?

Disney Channel, a children’s network that gets millions of views from kids everyday, encourages kids to follow “their dreams” through shows like Austin and Ally, A.N.T. Farm , and Hannah Montana. “Following One’s Dream” often involves being a singer, dancer, actress, or fashion designer. But not just any singer, dancer, actress, or fashion designer. A famous one. They also encourage children to even try all of them at once and become an “idol”.

Toys like Bratz often express themselves through fashion, music, and acting. All of the characters in the line strive to be famous at whatever they reach for. Even American Girl’s Girl of the Year Movie, Saige Paints the Sky, couldn’t resist adding music to it’s final scene.

With the rise of Youtube celebrities, ordinary kids realize how easy it is to get famous in today’s society: do something funny, controversial, or sing a catchy song.

Just about every role model for kids today are in the music industry. Children today want to imitate them, and they are told that it’s okay, that there’s nothing wrong with doing something “you love”. And just about every tween walking “loves” to be famous.

The USA is most influenced by entertainment. Test scores in this country have plummeted as compared to several years ago: and they didn’t even have the same technology! http://4brevard.com/choice/international-test-scores.htm

Is it because children spend too much time on entertainment? Or is it that too many children see a future in entertainment, and see no future in education? Especially because anyone can begin a career in these fields these days-even children as young as 5!

That’s the real question: Do children feel they have any other options in the world besides being a singer, model, fashion designer, dancer, or actor/actress? Or maybe a famous sports star?

Why don’t these networks and toy companies, those who have the power to influence children, utilize it to encourage children to be doctors, lawyers, astronauts?

It says something when the number one most searched topic on the internet was Miley Cyrus…while the USA was bubbling over about the Syrian War happening overseas. Are we too concerned with celebrity status, and do we encourage our children to become over-involved with fame?

Fame and it’s Controversies

There’s nothing wrong with singing, dancing, acting, or any performing arts. What could be a problem is fame. Sure, everyone wants respect, to be recognized, to be worshiped to a certain degree…but is that self-entitled behavior something we should encourage in children?

To add, the world of fame hasn’t proven to be too kind to humans. It especially hasn’t been kind to children. Children don’t often realize the reality of the world of “Fame”. People who are famous are popular, but they have no privacy. They have all the money, and yet many children are exposed to “all that money can buy”, including drugs. This gives them nothing to work for. This also makes life meaningless. When you’ve tried everything, what’s left? This can also lead to arrogant behavior.

To add, it’s hard to keep friends, or find love interests. You just can’t tell who loves you for you. Tons of fans…but no one who truly understands you or allows you to be you. Then you have to worry about family members begging you for money all the time.

Many people love you as long as you keep making movies, music, or books, but as soon as you plummet…usually, no one is left to help you pick up the pieces. Celebrities get old quickly, and there’s always a fresh new face to replace the old, especially when you really aren’t original. Justin Bieber is a prime example. Austin Mahone is an easy replacement. One Direction took over the Bieber craze. And Bieber took over the Jonas Brother craze. The cycle keeps moving, and sales fall in the hands of the freshest face. Generations grow up, and new kids arrive to claim what’s “trendy”. Many celebrities end up bankrupt.

While it seems they can do whatever they want, celebrities are constantly criticized for things that normal people get away with (like twerking at a party). Many get called ugly, stupid, boring, untalented, sell-outs, and many other negative comments. Professional critics and journalists are always watching you, waiting for you to mess up. Celebrities have to try and ignore all of this negativity because this was their choice. There is no room for mistakes. You almost have to be perfect, and walk on egg shells everywhere you go. Everywhere you go, you have to care what everyone thinks and feels and cater to them because everyone is a potential customer. As this is impossible, celebrities often end up offending somebody.

Many journalists print lies about celebrities, or exaggerate events. You have to watch everything you say. When people offend you, you have to show the utmost self-control. You can’t get angry like other normal people. It’s almost controversial to cry-people in the comments section might call you weak or a wimp, especially if you’re a guy. You’re forced to bottle everything up. No wonder so many celebrities are on depression pills!

Few get enough time to spend with friends or family. They are constantly traveling and working odd hours. When they get married, it’s hard to spend time with children or spouse. They are constantly tired.

They also have to watch what they eat and watch their weight. If they don’t, people will talk about them, and their business will be splashed all over the news. And acting as if others’ opinions don’t matter can be threatening to their career because every fan or potential fan counts if they plan on making money.

They travel so often, they often get jetlag. They are always in the air or on a bus.

Many feel they are trapped. Once you get famous, there is no turning back. Many who lose money, or decide that this “world” isn’t for them, can’t go find normal jobs because paparazzi will humiliate them and their “downgrade”. And many times, they buy expensive things, and end up owing money. Jobs with lower wages can’t compensate for what they’ve lost. While many celebrities get sponsored, and get many free things, when they lose popularity, many of these companies expect to be paid back every cent.

Celebrities are stuck with one reputation, and often times, it’s hard for them to try and change. People expect consistency, and as change is inevitable, this isn’t possible. Many celebrities change in a way that’s more appealing, but many change in a way that isn’t so likable.

Many celebrities begin by being what their manager or producer makes them like Britney Spears and BoA Kwon, who were too young to know exactly what they wanted. When they got older, they both tried to express themselves more. This was hard for fans to adjust to, and it caused issues in their music sales for a moment until fans could be more comfortable with their new images.

To add, so many people want the same “dream”. Competition is high. And so many talent-less people often outshine the more talented. A talented actress could be overlooked by a prettier one. A wild singer (like Miley Cyrus) could get more airplay than a talented one (Ariana Grande). The world of fame isn’t always fair, like many of these shows teach children. Sometimes, you can be following the same dream for years…

Do we really want to train up our children to enter into a world where it might not guarantee happiness or TRUE fulfillment?

Why can’t we teach children that fulfillment could come from doing things for others, from service, from contributing to humanity and making a TRUE difference? Being a scientist, astronaut, banker, and other important careers can help children understand the value in service, hard work, education, innovation, and many other up-building qualities.

Fame Can Be Good, if for the Right Reasons

What happened to the days when people used to become famous celebrities because they made a difference in the world? Amelia Earhart became famous for being the first woman to fly a plane across the Atlantic Ocean. Mae Jemison was one of the first women, African American at that, to fly into space. The Wright Brothers flew the first plane. Neil Armstrong landed on the moon. Martin Luther King led the march for civil rights. Thomas Edison invented the light bulb. Benjamin Franklin discovered electricity. These people aren’t just famous, they are historical figures and role models. Because of them, many things are possible. They have a legacy that can’t ever be erased, unlike these famous “singers” who will easily be replaced by the newest, more entertaining face, no one can ever replace those historical figures. Those people deserved fame, and no one will mar their names because their personal life matters little to what they’ve accomplished.

So I conclude by saying that while there’s nothing wrong with the performing arts, using the performing arts to get famous is taking over the minds of children, and even some adults. Not enough children see the value in doing important things in the world anymore. It’s especially obvious that women are more consumers than inventors in the 21st Century. Many women aren’t making a difference in technology, science, or business…or few are getting recognized for it. Obviously, they get recognized in music because it’s a profession where a woman can shake her body and show off how beautiful she is. It shows that women still only get respect if they stay in professions that make them look good.

Even in the 21st Century, no one is trying to encourage children to truly bring in the future…without bringing entertainment with it. Entertainment is only for escape, but many businesses contribute to everyday functions of human beings in our “reality”. I feel that entertainment should tell the truth about fame, and try to encourage children to try many different things. I also feel they should encourage children to use the performing arts as a means of expression, not as a cheap way to get fame, glory, and respect.

Ever After High—The Monster High spin-off series

Are you a Royal or a Rebel?

I just found out about the new Ever After High line soon to be released this summer. Ever After High, unlike Monster High, has a set story (probably fitting with a storybook theme).

Are you a Royal or a Rebel? Ever After High takes place in a world where fairy tales are real (unlike Monster High, who isn’t from an alternate universe). The Royals are the fairy tale people like Cinderella, Snow White, and Prince Charming, who will all get “happy ever after” endings. At this school, they prepare to be just like their parents, and keep the fairy tale stories going. However, there is one condition, everyone must accept their role in the story, otherwise all the characters supposedly “disappear”.

The main royal character is Apple White, Snow White’s daughter, who is in line to be the next Snow White. She is popular, pretty, perfect, and well…shallow. She wants everything to stay the same. Her best friend is Sleeping Beauty’s daughter.

The main rebel character is, of course, Raven Queen, future Evil Queen from Snow White’s story. Raven doesn’t want to take that path and become evil. She wants to be able to decide her own destiny. This is a threat to Ever After High, and the current Headmaster Milton Grimm, is against this rebellious attitude. His brother, Giles Grimm, on the other hand, who appears to be locked in the school basement, also feels the same as Raven. Thus Raven is called the Rebel. Her best friend is the Madd Hatter’s daughter…

What do I think of the franchise?

Pros

1) I love the story. Unlike Monster High, the webisodes are more than just a bunch of weird teenagers obviously directed to a generic tween market, and has an engaging story line. These webisodes actually seem like a television show, and I’m more interested in them than Monster High’s. The opening song is better too. Maybe not as catchy as Monster High’s, but certainly the singer is better. Monster High’s singer was talent-less.

2) It’s also more appealing to parents and religious folks. Parents who found the buying and selling of ghouls and ghosts a little too much for their kids, or found it offensive, will enjoy this new line because it is wholesome, and isn’t suggestive. People who are against superstitious and gothic encouragement in children will love that this line can appeal to everyone.

3) The artwork is prettier than MH.

4) The Eco punk style is appealing to me.

Cons

1) The dolls are boring. They lack the detail that Monster High has simply because of one simple fact: most of them are human. Monster High’s dolls were much more interesting. These remind me of a Liv doll, very sup-par to a Bratz doll, and even a winx doll.

Apple White soon to be Snow White

Raven Queen doll doesn’t want to be the Evil Queen, and wants to chart own destiny.

2) Some of the main characters aren’t positive role-models. I find Apple White to be snobbish, vain, into herself, so unlike Snow White, and undeserving of her fate. I mean Cleo de nile was too, but she supports the lead girl Frankie, who is a good person. I find myself, and many others do too, leaning more to Raven. The promotional question is almost pointless to ask: Most people are Rebels. I can’t see the other main girl being that popular…then again, she wears pink and has blonde hair…

3) Which brings me to my next point. This line is too girly. I feel a return to Barbie with this line. Mattel always manages to throw Barbie in the mix…Especially with all the fairy tale, imaginary stuff…Monster High was even more appealing to males and adult audiences because it wasn’t like that. Males and adults in general aren’t very interested in fairy tales. Monster High has a wider appeal.

4) Race and Ethnicity becomes an issue because they are human. Monster High were Monsters, so race wasn’t a factor. When race comes into the picture, blondes sell, and the others don’t. That’s the reality.

5)In MH,  the school was more engaging, and the characters were more interesting. They could do more interesting things with the characters. The Fairy tale theme limits the characters to their stories.

6) Some of the story in Ever After High doesn’t even make sense. For instance, if Apple White is Snow White in the future, that means Raven Queen is going to be her Step Mother. Wouldn’t that make Raven Queen older? Or if not, shouldn’t she marry Apple White’s father first before she becomes evil? And shouldn’t SHE have the magic mirror, not Apple White? Plot hole alert! And if Pinocchio’s daughter is starting over as him…shouldn’t she be made of wood? And even if she WERE to start over as him, how is that possible coming from a HUMAN? Didn’t Pinocchio TURN into a REAL boy at the end of his story? More on this issue here ——>>> Mattel’s screw-ups

7) MH had better promotion. They had journals, a music video, and even a boy band reference. They promoted being yourself and standing up to bullies, and loving yourself the way you are. Ever After High does promote being yourself…vs not? Some of the characters are so shallow, it’s annoying.

So of course, we can’t expect it to be just like Monster High, but I’m pretty sure it’s not the next replacement. While they may be running out of ideas for MH, EAH isn’t striking enough to dominate MH. I can see them being equal. I think this line is meant to match up with the Disney Princesses, Tinkerbell, and Winx doll lines.

Ever After High…They kind of remind me of the last new Myscene look…

TRIVIA

C.A. Cupid is moving from the Monster High line to the Ever After High line. Her whole look has changed. She looks more human. Cupid announced the transfer from MH in 2012. I personally don’t like the new look, but she’s pretty…in artwork form. The dolls stink in my opinion.

C.A. Cupid traded in her gothic look for a sweeter one.

Liv dolls are being discontinued ALREADY!

Liv in Wonderland-My favorite line from them! I’ll miss it 😦

It seems that Liv was just released three years ago and already these dolls are going to retire. Just when I started to get into them, I hear the announcement that Spin Master, the company that produces them, is getting rid of them in 2013.

I know. When Liv was first introduced, I mentioned how I expected the Liv dolls’ sales to decline. Due to the high competition, Liv just couldn’t stand on it’s own. Liv dolls, even though pretty and fashionable, are just…like any other fashion doll. This is what makes them suffer. But Liv started a fashion trend that the other more “popular” dolls are imitating: pose-able bodies. That’s right. Liv was the first doll to have several different poses. The quality of the Liv dolls have been top notch as well. It’s sad to see the dolls leave so soon.

I know that Spin Master is used to making electronic games and boy toys, but they have to recognize that being a “Powerhouse” doll company is going to take time and effort. They should’ve known this before they made Liv dolls. When Bratz were first released in 2001, they didn’t make a whole lot of money. But Isaac Larian didn’t give up which is why Bratz grew to be the doll franchise it is today.

Times are different now than they were back then. Dolls need money in order for companies to keep manufacturing them. If a company senses that a doll isn’t working, nowadays they immediately toss that doll aside and start working on a project that will make a profit. Dolls are now made into an industry that can promise fortune if done in an innovative, creative, and discerning way. In order for companies to make the perfect doll they must:

1) Not consider what they personally think would be a positive doll, but do what children and tweens like. I’m sorry. Parents don’t want their kids to play with unwholesome dolls, but that didn’t stop Barbie and Bratz. It’s really not about the parents who just pick out a doll for their kids. It’s about the kids who like them. Even if a parent picks out a doll, a kid doesn’t have to play with it. It doesn’t mean they will like it. So, instead of worrying about what parents think, think about what kids like. And unfortunately the industry isn’t about personal creativity anymore either…not if you want to appeal to an audience and make money. So don’t throw your own ideas in too heavily.

2) Consider movie trends, music trends, and fashion trends.

3) Think about the future generation. NOT THE CURRENT ONE. Kids grow up fast, and before you know it, a whole new generation of kids will appear. Be aware of the future, not the present.

4) Have more quality and detail than the last doll to make the most realistic looking doll ever. Observe the current doll trend, in other words.

To conclude, I’m really sad to see Liv go. The doll line has really grown on me and the most recent outfits are so detailed and creative. I wish Spin Master wouldn’t give it all up so soon.

Liv Twist and Dance-obviously no dolls can pose like Liv can! Their poseable bodies had over 100 different poses that made them seem more alive! This is one of my favorites too.

Monster High vs Bratzillaz: the Halloween Trend

Yes, Bratz has come out with a line called Bratzillaz. After the line was first announced on facebook, I took a peek. And I admit, at the back of my mind I couldn’t help thinking…”Wow, these dolls look an awful lot like Monster High.”

Bratzillaz

I’m a Bratz fan, heart and soul, but I’m honest with myself when I see the doll line heading in a certain direction. Bratz have always had really outrageous lines, they even had a “ghoulish” line back in 2005 called Midnight Dance. Even though I would say it was more of a Gothic line, it was still very “Halloween-ish”. Bratzillaz have a similar taste in my mouth, except the colors are brighter and the clothes are girlier. This is a result of there being a female designer for Bratz rather than the male designer Carter Bryant.

I hate to bring him in this. But the truth of the matter is he was the genius behind the Bratz fashion. Why? Because he was a dude. I hate to be sexist, number 1 because I am a female, but women make dolls that are too “fashionable” to the point they can’t start trends. It’s too predictable. Women make clothes they would like, and the clothes they like are “girly”. Bryant was a male designer who more than likely thought about what appealed to him: four sexy babes who wear fashions that even men would think were cool. Bratz didn’t have all of this imagination “wear” before 2006. Then Barbie Fairytopia happened, and here comes the Pixiez. Bratz weren’t the dolls for all the magical fairies and princesses. Bratz used to be the line that had the rockstars, the tokyo clubs scenes, the beachwear, the spy outfits, the gothic style…nothing that hinted of being “imaginative”. This is what made them different.

Bratz Midnight Dance-Bratz as Goths

Back to Bratzillaz, I do think the line is very detailed and pretty. It still has a bit of the Bratz edge. To me, it is a better version of Monster High. However, it still feels like a copy-cat. “Zillaz” reminds me of a monster like Godzilla, and they even have a MUSIC VIDEO just like Monster High! Bratz have been known to make fun of the Barbie line (Tweevils). If this is a joke to make fun of Monster High MGA, it’s not very funny. It looks like an imitation. I didn’t even know Monster High was that popular even worthy of imitating.

Because I’ve been hiding in a doll cocoon, I thought Monster High was the most unoriginal idea ever. You can’t go very far with monsters, especially not in High School. Eventually, they will graduate…And to add the line is centered on high school. How many lines can they possibly think of pertaining to high school? Although Bratz oddly seem to remain teens, their life isn’t centered around high school, so they can go beyond high school, no sweat. But Monster High is turning out to be the latest “freakish” trend.

Of course, I know that Bratzillaz aren’t meant to represent monsters. They’re really witches. But who would guess that? Take one look at their pets, and you start thinking “that’s weird, and monstrous”. And aren’t witches a part of the ghoul society?

I’m not saying the line is ugly, but I do hope that Bratz doesn’t cave into the craze. I hope they remain the original Bratz. I don’t want the Bratz to be confused with another line. What’s worse, I don’t want people crying they copied and I don’t want Mattel placing another lawsuit on MGA. We just got Bratz back. I don’t want to see them fade again. To add, it’s making them seem like they’re running out of ideas, and that Mattel’s idea is winning. It’s making them look like pathetic wimps.

Side note: Did anyone else notice that Monster High is like a complete re-vamp of Diva Starz only they’re ghouls? They say “ghoul-o-rama”. Didn’t Diva Starz say “Cool-o-rama”? Monster High also say “Ghoulicious”…didn’t Diva Starz say “Divalicious”? They even have big feet and heads like them, only Diva Star were meant to be mechanical dolls of the “future” (Turn of the 21st Century=Y2K). Oddly familiar…

So which line is your favorite?

Monster High

OR

Bratzillaz

Which artwork do you like best?

Monster High

OR

Bratzillaz

And lastly which is your favorite music video?

OR

Vote and comment to let me know what YOU think about the Halloween fright dolls!

My personal favorite music video is the Bratz. They’re super sassy and sexy! But I have to admit, Monster High’s song is catchy and it was the first! Monster High’s song reminds me of the songs on Disney Channel nowadays though: no talent. It’s also very cheesy. “When I’m with my peeps?” Really? And “My boos”? Very cheesy. And then they have a generic black rapper in the video like they did in Rebecca Black’s video, “Friday”.  Monster High seems more “little girlish”, which most dolls SHOULD be. But Bratz looks older, and is more appealing to a wider audience. It’s what makes them different from all the other dolls.

Bratz were the first dolls to promote being different, and even though Bratzillaz seems like a major copy, the whole idea for Monster High’s existence was to be an edgy line that competed with the Bratz. So both are even steven.

Monster High is very limited to ghouls and high school. I can’t see the lines expanding. After they do a prom line, beachwear, pajama wear, school dance line, after school club line, and shopping line…what’s next? After they’ve done all the popular monsters, then what? They’re going to keep re-making the same old lines over and over. And all the characters wear the same colors in every line! Why does Draculaura wear pink in every line that comes out? No variety. It’s not like monsters can go to Tokyo or be Pixiez without looking like monsters…too much of a similarity. Monster High is also too sweet for my tastes. Bratz have a naughtiness about them that attracts me. They’re daredevils. Whereas Monster High is just a ghoul line designed to make Monsters look nicer. Not my thing.

Remember this 2003 Bratz Music Video? Really, we can say Monster High got it from the Bratz, huh?