No More Mr. Potato Head

[Deleted member 133849]

Or they just updated the brand. No one is going to call Toy Story problematic except for maybe some lone attention whore using it for clickbait that no one would take seriously anyways. Who does this hurt exactly?

The concept of gender in society, and everyone who lives in that society that understands that gender is real. Of course this specific toy name change does nothing. But bad things often happen in small steps, and I'm sure many feel this is a step in the wrong direction.

Now your turn. How does this help anyone? Is there really a young girl too afraid to transition because of her Potato Toy?

 

[bufetadanacara]

They have just expanded their product line and launched a Potato It.

 

[Slick_36]

The concept of gender in society, and everyone who lives in that society that understands that gender is real. Of course this specific toy name change does nothing. But bad things often happen in small steps, and I'm sure many feel this is a step in the wrong direction.

Now your turn. How does this help anyone? Is there really a young girl too afraid to transition because of her Potato Toy?

Well sex is real, as in it's a concrete thing. Gender is a social construct and means different things in different places and different times, it's always changing.

It benefits the brand because it's truer to what it is. The fun of the toy is that you can make anyone, they've expanded it to more than just a married couple. If a kid wants to play with a realistic couple, they'll play with Barbie and Ken. The rebranding makes a lot of sense outside of any "woke" bullshit. It frees them up to do more with the product and lean in to what makes it appealing.

 

[Deleted member 133849]

Well sex is real, as in it's a concrete thing. Gender is a social construct and means different things in different places and different times, it's always changing.

It benefits the brand because it's truer to what it is. The fun of the toy is that you can make anyone, they've expanded it to more than just a married couple. If a kid wants to play with a realistic couple, they'll play with Barbie and Ken. The rebranding makes a lot of sense outside of any "woke" bullshit. It frees them up to do more with the product and lean in to what makes it appealing.

I think it hurts the brand because they took an unnecessarily progressive position that won't make a difference and has the potential to irritate a lot of people (clearly). Brands are tools to drive revenue and this is more likely to hurt revenue than help it. If you think this will help their revenue, I'm curious to hear why.

P.S. I have a master's in marketing from one of the best business schools in the world... you may not want this smoke

 

[hohner]

I would've thought it more likely that they add genitals. Missed opportunity imo

 

[Deleted member 133849]

I would've thought it more likely that they add genitals. Missed opportunity imo

Why would they do that? Genitals are a social construct.

 

[kimocomplex]

Never in my life have purchased a Potato Head, even less reason now

 

[The_Renaissance]

Well sex is real, as in it's a concrete thing. Gender is a social construct and means different things in different places and different times, it's always changing.

It benefits the brand because it's truer to what it is. The fun of the toy is that you can make anyone, they've expanded it to more than just a married couple. If a kid wants to play with a realistic couple, they'll play with Barbie and Ken. The rebranding makes a lot of sense outside of any "woke" bullshit. It frees them up to do more with the product and lean in to what makes it appealing.

Nope. It isn't.

 

[Slick_36]

Why would they do that? Genitals are a social construct.

Genitals would be sex, which I said was concrete. Gender would be intangible. The two are related because gender is usually based on conventions typically associated with sex. Wearing makeup is feminine, but you aren't a woman just because you wear makeup.

 

[Slick_36]

Nope. It isn't.

Tell that to the linguists who compile every major dictionary out there.

 

[hohner]

Why would they do that? Genitals are a social construct.

I'm not so sure about that. When I try to construct with my genitals socially I end up in trouble.

 

[CutStryker]

So no more male or female Potato Heads? How can you get around this without exterminating the toy itself? If you go Mr., you’re damned, if you go Mrs. then that’s not gender neutral. So how do you get around this?

 

[erhnamdjinn]

Wow hasbro, they recently did this with magic the gathering permanently banned a couple of cards because the names didnt match up with current political views, while some cards made sense, other cards like stone throwing devils, jihad etc were weird.

 

[Slick_36]

I think it hurts the brand because they took an unnecessarily progressive position that won't make a difference and has the potential to irritate a lot of people (clearly). Brands are tools to drive revenue and this is more likely to hurt revenue than help it. If you think this will help their revenue, I'm curious to hear why.

P.S. I have a master's in marketing from one of the best business schools in the world... you may not want this smoke

It's not even necessarily progressive, it's just less restrictive. Ironically the majority of consumers aren't as easily triggered and offended as you. The amount of people buying the toy just to reinforce traditional gender roles definitely isn't going to be noticed if they boycott.

If anything, this will get people talking. Nothing is lost but a few conservative pearl clutchers that wouldn't make a dent in their sales. Toys change like this all of the time. If you have a masters in advertising, it sounds like you wasted your time and money.

 

[Slick_36]

So no more male or female Potato Heads? How can you get around this without exterminating the toy itself? If you go Mr., you’re damned, if you go Mrs. then that’s not gender neutral. So how do you get around this?

Or they they just don't brand it around a Mr. and a Mrs., allowing the kid to make whatever they want. The toy was created in the 1950's.

Original Mr. Potato Head was sold on the creative part of it, and the novelty of a potato toy you build. It sold to boys by itself, but the Mrs. and the "spuds" that followed specifically targeted the girls who were expected to play house and maternal stuff. Like baby dolls and fake appliances, those were specifically aimed at girls.

That's not the direction the brand is going now though, they aren't competing with that kind of toy for the girls. Girl's toys are a lot more varied now and resemble the boy's toys a lot more than they did when I was a kid, but there are still definitely toys that cater to those conventions.

 

[Deleted member 133849]

It's not even necessarily progressive, it's just less restrictive. Ironically the majority of consumers aren't as easily triggered and offended as you. The amount of people buying the toy just to reinforce traditional gender roles definitely isn't going to be noticed if they boycott.

If anything, this will get people talking. Nothing is lost but a few conservative pearl clutchers that wouldn't make a dent in their sales. Toys change like this all of the time. If you have a masters in advertising, it sounds like you wasted your time and money.

Its a one time increase in awareness that is unlikely to lead to any new revenue. People who approve of this decision will not buy a net new toy because of how woke this is. This type of thing may work over a long period but awareness dies quickly and requires constant refreshes. It's why you see the same companies bombard you with constant advertisements. This is a one time hit with no follow up strategy (for now - would be surprised if they had anything planned or the budget to do anything meaningful) at a disproportionately high cost.

The cost is high because demand for children's products is extremely inter-generational. Parents pass on what they liked when they were kids to their own kids. It's why Disney re-releases movies every 20 years - so parents can watch the movies they loved as kids with their kids (eg. Dumbo remastered, Dumbo live action, guarantee we'll see Dumbo VR in about 20-25 years). Toys are the most sensitive to this, only behind food. Its why parents who loved Legos as kids almost all buy their kids Legos. Irritating roughly 50% of parents is a HORRIBLE strategy for a kids brand as it can break this chain. Especially stupid for a toy.

Your arrogance about something you haven't studied is also surprising, given your age (I'm assuming based on your join date and the way you write that you're at least 25). Maybe try to learn something instead of sharing whatever uneducated opinion you developed in less than 30min

PS - There's a BIG difference between marketing and advertising... but it's already clear that you're out of your element.

 

[Slick_36]

Its a one time increase in awareness that is unlikely to lead to any new revenue. People who approve of this decision will not buy a net new toy because of how woke this is. Awareness also dies quickly and requires constant refreshes. It's why you see the same companies bombard you with constant advertisements. This is a one time hit with no follow up strategy (for now - would be surprised if they had anything planned) at a disproportionately high cost.

The cost is high because demand for children's products is extremely inter-generational. Parents pass on what they liked when they were kids to their own kids. It's why Disney re-releases movies every 20 years - so parents can watch the movies they loved as kids with their kids (eg. Dumbo remastered, Dumbo live action, guarantee we'll see Dumbo VR in about 20-25 years). Toys are the most sensitive to this, only behind food. Its why parents who loved Legos as kids almost all buy their kids Legos. Irritating roughly 50% of parents is a HORRIBLE strategy for a kids brand. Especially a traditional toy.

Your arrogance about something you haven't studied is also surprising, given your age (I'm assuming based on your join date and the way you write that you're at least 25). Maybe try to learn something instead of sharing whatever uneducated opinion you developed less than 30min ago.

PS - There's a BIG difference between marketing and advertising... but it's already clear that you're out of your element.

Buddy, you don't even know what the difference between sex and gender is. Maybe stay off your high horse.

There's no fucking way 50% of parents will upset enough to never buy this again. The majority of voters, which you're basing that number on, are way beyond child bearing years. The large majority of parents this would be targeting would be apathetic one way or another, most people don't vote and don't give a shit about being conservative or being woke. The amount of people who would be triggered enough to boycott will be replaced by the other extreme who see this as a progressive move. The majority won't even notice the difference.

You keep framing this as it being entirely about being woke, which is a shit take and makes it hard to believe you know what you're talking about.

 

[Deleted member 133849]

Buddy, you don't even know what the difference between sex and gender is. Maybe stay off your high horse.

There's no fucking way 50% of parents will upset enough to never buy this again. The majority of voters, which you're basing that number on, are way beyond child bearing years. The large majority of parents this would be targeting would be apathetic one way or another, most people don't vote and don't give a shit about being conservative or being woke. The amount of people who would be triggered enough to boycott will be replaced by the other extreme who see this as a progressive move. The majority won't even notice the difference.

You keep framing this as it being entirely about being woke, which is a shit take and makes it hard to believe you know what you're talking about.

You're putting words in my mouth because you're angry. I never said they'd lose 50% of customers and never said anything about a boycott.

Also, stop talking about marketing. It's not a good look for you.

 

[Slick_36]

You're putting words in my mouth because you're angry. I never said they'd lose 50% of customers and never said anything about a boycott.

Also, stop talking about marketing. It's not a good look for you.

You said "Irritating roughly 50% of parents is a HORRIBLE strategy for a kids brand". Implying they'd be irritated enough to change their purchasing decision.

 

[Alphaboy]

Is it sad that even before I opened this cot damn thread I knew what you were gonna say? That's how predictable the bullshit is now.

I wonder what leads to this decision. Was there someone out there mad that Mr. and Mrs. Potato head were cishet or some shit?