Mattel Case Study analysis
II Problem Statement
As per the case study, Mattel’s main issue is that they are not living up to their core mission. The case clearly states that Mattel’s philosophy is to satisfy the customer’s needs and wants. Delivering what the customer needs and wants can be segregated into two broad categories:
First, product development: According to the case, Mattel’s product development ensures that its portfolio never stagnates. Unfortunately, Mattel has failed to adapt to the evolving demands of children, as they are becoming increasingly technologically savvy and are therefore interested in electronic and interactive rather than traditional toys such as Barbie or Hot Wheels at a younger age. This is evident, for example, from the demise of the ‘ELLO’ building toys for young girls1.The product development disparity between customers’ needs and Mattel’s production is further demonstrated by their lack of attention to their global market, which, according to the text, account for 46% of gross sales. This is evident in the Malaysian Consumers Association having attempted to ban the Barbie brand, one of Mattel’s core products, because of her non-Asian appearance and the lack of intellectual stimulation that Barbie provides; and many other countries are following suit. According to the text, Asian sales account for a mere 11% of Mattel’s gross revenues.
Second, Corporate and Social Responsibility: A strong product is no longer enough; customers increasingly demand corporate social responsibility2. With increasing concerns with regards to internet privacy, and the risks associated for children surfing the internet3, Mattel’s move into the virtual realm comes with increased demands from parents for ethical practices. In the case, Mattel expresses its commitment to ethical responsibilities, and Mattel has taken measures via its corporate website