OPINION Why research toys with kids?


Steve Reece outlines exactly why consumer research still remains a vital aspect in the process of launching toys


I WAS recently asked to outline three reasons why I think consumer research is worth the investment. This was a difficult question to answer, but not because there was a problem listing three reasons, far from it. I couldn’t keep it down to just three, the least I could whittle it down to was five. Dexterity and


Functionality Testing: The first and most obvious benefit of consumer researching toys with kids is to see whether there is a reasonable fit between the dexterity level of the majority of kids in the target age group and the dexterity required to successfully use the product.


We’ve seen literally tens


of millions of pounds saved by companies we’ve worked with just by identifying (often glaringly obvious) dexterity mismatch. If the target consumer can’t use it, how will word of mouth boost sales, how well is it likely to sell, and for how long?


misconception. I.e. the product is based on faulty premises or a misconception of the consumer. Frankly, this is more difficult to test than dexterity testing, but nevertheless a potentially ruinous mistake that can be addressed via consumer insight.


A more truthful picture of how our brand is perceived can open up previously unexplored brand extension possibilities.


Positioning Issues:


Fairly often, in around a third of all new product development projects, we find a positioning


Brand values: Validating what client’s brands actually mean to consumers versus what the clients themselves presume or


want consumers to think. Often we can have inflated opinions of our output, and consumers very quickly bring us back down to earth. A more truthful picture of


how our brand is perceived can often open up previously unexplored brand extension possibilities. Competitive Comparison:


The world in which our products live or die is a competitive place. Even in retail outlets


where there is less limitation on sku count, there is still competition for prominence. So when we consider our products sat in our ivory towers, and discuss the prospects for our products we normally do so with less competitive context.


Testing for competitive appeal is a critical part of understanding how ‘hot’ or not our products are. Clarity from confusion and


risk reduction: In financial terms, new product launches are one of the most critical financial risks we take. With TV spend, trade


marketing, tooling and inventory costs, plus licensing fees adding up to hundreds of thousands, and sometimes even millions. Validating our high-risk decisions with something more than our own preferences and prejudices, like by testing with the target end consumer, is normally proven to be prudent expenditure based on my experience to date.


Steve Reece runs a leading consultancy delivering consumer research and other services to toy & game companies. Contact him via: www.KidsBrandInsight.com What merging digital and traditional


entertainment means for brands Tinderbox’s Dan Amos looks at how technology is dramatically changing the way entertainment is being delivered to consumers


IN RECENT years, there has been a shift in how consumers search for, consume, and relate to entertainment media. Children and teens have access to computers, smartphones and tablets at a progressively younger age, exposing them to new games and platforms on an often daily basis. By the age of seven, an


average child in the UK will have spent an entire year (8,766 hours) looking at TV, computer and game console screens, and most babies under the age of two will have developed an online footprint.


Consider tablets and


mobile phone devices to be sophisticated content


delivery systems and you soon realise their substantial impact on entertainment brands. Developments in new media give consumers access to what they want, when they want, and for brand owners, the implications of these shifts in media use are many. Not only will they have


to recognise the change in how children and teenagers access entertainment, but they will also have to adapt to the speed at which innovations in the digital landscape call for new and innovative brand extension strategies. The rapid rate at which new media brands are growing illustrates


the strong emotional connection young fans often have to their favourite new media properties. What is particularly


interesting is that it is the consumers themselves who are driving demand, rather than the companies and brand creators. Digital developments


are, in that sense, turning traditional entertainment on its head. A recent example of the successful merging of new media and traditional entertainment is the collaboration between specialist children’s publisher Egmont and gaming sensation Minecraft. The books, teaching


readers everything they Dan Amos is the global head of Beanstalk’s digital entertainment division, Tinderbo 14 July


need to know about the pixelated block building game, have all achieved top ten bestseller-list status and are phenomenally popular amongst fans. By inviting gamers to participate in the content development process, Egmont and game creators Mojang have managed to establish a solid emotional bond to consumers which has turned into an even greater interest for the game, as well as for products that extend it into physical retail aisles. I would like to argue that entertainment as a concept is still the same, but the way it is being delivered to consumers has changed dramatically. Digital properties such as mobile video games and


x. He can be contacted on 020 7572 0858. www.toynews-online.biz


apps have successfully established direct and often two-way interaction with their fans, forming a strong connection that is now translating into demand for additional products. Whether a brand is


viewed as a traditional entertainment property, or launched directly into the digital media landscape, savvy owners and developers will have to stay ahead of the curve in terms of both changing consumer behaviour and technological innovations.


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60