@misfit While it may be entirely unsurprising, it's still really disappointing that your experience with the new figures is -that- bad. Definitely has the strong feeling of a wave that was rushed out from the 'B Factory' without much care about the quality because the line was already toast anyway.
It's almost like they don't understand that no one views their lines in a vacuum and intentional (which it must be) disregard for quality here will be used against them everywhere else and is absolutely going to contribute to the lack of pre-orders that Brian has been crying about.
@misfit It is just really disappointing that it seems they rushed this out, likely Disney told them "get these out before Jakks or you will violate the contract" and they had to rush. But still, some of these things sound inexcusable for any toyline, let alone a supposed premium line, rushed or no. There is no universe you could make a Ralph figure that is worth that MSRP.
Anyway, sorry you got burned for good faith support of a line.
It's an odd feeling knowing you're probably going to be let down by a line going in, so at least it wasn't unexpected. Curse my thirst for a line of Simpsons references in figure form! It's too bad Super7 completely lost the license though as the more I look at the ReAction figures they did the more I think that's all Simpsons should have been for them, even though they too are absurdly priced.
It is too bad though because even if the Super7 approach to character selection was truly baffling for a company that actually wants to sell as many toys possible, it still makes for a fun and eclectic display to have 30 years of Simpsons references distilled into a shelf (or two). And the property could cater to what Super7 can handle which is soft, but on-model, sculpts. Simple paint apps and toys that should lean into a bunch inane accessories to help sell them. They still found a way to muck it up though just further illustrating that Super7 is not a company worth putting one's faith in. We hear all of the time from toy producers that if you want to see your favorite line continue, you better support what's out there now and at MSRP. And that's true, but it's also important to remember that these companies don't deserve our money just because they acquired a license we belove. They need to earn it, and a more sensible person than me would have probably cancelled the preorders I had when that Radioactive Man video surfaced or even when the cancellation was announced since these are destined for discounts. On the other hand, at least there's less remorse about the line's demise when the final waves are so mediocre. This isn't a good toyline getting cut down in its prime, it's just getting put down.
I know its a diff company but i figure it would go here. I re-painted the WOS Bowling APU into the 'regular look' Apu. I know they made one but just felt creative at the moment lol pics coming soon. the scales are way off but you knew that. Apu is 4.5" and Krusty is 7"
"it's also important to remember that these companies don't deserve our money just because they acquired a license we belove."
Spot on, Misfit. Nacelle just revealed their COWboys of Moo Mesa line, an IP I really could not care less about. But damn, the figures look good and the accessory load outs are awesome. Price point has not been announced yet but I can't imagine they are more than $55 a pop. Biker Mice were NECA price at $35.99
On one hand, cheaper IP for sure. But on the other hand, less popular IP means less sales. Simpsons is more expensive, but you should have been able to move more units. And if they made Nacelle quality figures I think they would have.
There are so many examples now of companies making high quality niche figures of obscure IPs for a reasonable price, that all of S7's "but but but..." 's don't hold up in the marketplace. Their figures are big though, I'll give them that.
@hopethisworks agreed. Nacelle is putting Super7 to shame. Those Biker Mice figures aren't perfect, but they look better, articulate better, have more paint, and a much cheaper price than what Super7 is doing and all for a license that's pretty damn niche. The $55 price point is the biggest grift in toys right now.
I do need to make a correction on my initial impressions:
Burns - terrible paint job. The white of his shirt features a lot of green on the right side. I think they hit the yellow plastic on the heads with a matte spray rather than paint them and he looks pretty cheap. Hips are useless and you would think it's because of his coat, but no, they're just engineered poorly as he comes apart at the waist easily and the hips just have no range. Ankles hinges are just painted white, but are sculpted in green, and the paint flakes easily.
Burns' ankles are sculpted in white, the green I'm seeing is a combination of transfer from the green plastic and the edges of the painted green parts flaking off. That's obviously better than the hinge being green, what does stink though is Burns' suit is VERY green. He does not match the solicitation images or any image of Burns I've ever seen. Modern licensing art does have his suit a sort of green-blue color where as classic era episodes of the show lean far more blue. My guess is Super7 was aiming for the licensing art and the solicitation images are what the figure should look like, but the reality is he turned out differently. The real question is, was the factory sample this color or something else? My guess is this is what was approved because that feels like Super7's M.O. My picture below doesn't really capture how green he is. If you have the Super7 Michelangelo or the X-Men '97 Rogue, it's pretty close to that shade (with Rogue I'm referring to her jacket).
https://twitter.com/SamhainsGrimm/status/1780320833769976281/photo/1
@hopethisworks agreed. Nacelle is putting Super7 to shame. Those Biker Mice figures aren't perfect, but they look better, articulate better, have more paint, and a much cheaper price than what Super7 is doing and all for a license that's pretty damn niche.
You do realize that the smaller size of the license allows for a lower cost of the figure, right? Biker Mice from Mars isn't owned by Disney so Nacelle doesn't have to negotiate with Disney lawyers for licensing fees the way Super 7 does for Simpsons.
Now - that isn't a full defense of Super7's price point for Ultimates - since they charge the same $55 fee for their figures of The Worst characters which are wholly owned by Super7 and for which they don't have to pay any licensing fee.
But I guarantee you licensing the fees that Super7 is paying to Disney for Simpsons is a factor.
But it's apples to oranges anyway - partly because Nacelle is playing a different game. Nacelle actually bought the rights to Biker Mice from Mars outright and are now the holder of trademark. They did with BMFM what Brian thought he had done with Silverhawks (but in fact had not). Apparently they have an upcoming project planned in partnership with Ryan Reynolds production company Maximum Effort to reboot the cartoon.
So in actuality, Nacelle isn't paying for licensing at all. The company also bought Cowboys from Moo Mesa, Sectaurs, and Maxx Steele.
@panthercult agreed, it's why I said:
"On one hand, cheaper IP for sure. But on the other hand, less popular IP means less sales. Simpsons is more expensive, but you should have been able to move more units. And if they made Nacelle quality figures I think they would have. "
Good to know about Nacelle owning the licenses, though. However, they did have to pay money for it, I'm sure. How much licensing $ per BMFM figure sold vs how much licensing $ per Simpsons figure sold is a ratio I do not know, but I'm just going to assume BMFM is decently cheaper. But how much cheaper and how much that influences price, I'm not sure. After all, like you said, The Worst is their IP.
My guess though is that it wasn't Simpsons licensing costs that brought down the quality of The Simpsons figures, or really raised the price that much. $55 is what they decided on for all their Ultimates and the QC issues seem to be systemic in the company and their factories.
There's an interesting perception in figure communities, that the Disney IPs are golden—super regulated, expensive, and protected—and maybe that is the case, but I see their brands schmeared across all forms of crappy merchandise, from waffle makers to lamps to underpants to tacky jewelry to disgusting candy. You could fill a shopping cart with clearance merch at Walmart. 90% of it looks like its destined for a landfill by way of Goodwill. I think, if anything, Hasbro pays so much for their Disney license because it's exclusive and they pay extra to shut out competition in the 1:12 scale. They'd rather pay extra to eliminate competition.
@panthercult it's my understanding from various interviews and discussions with those in the toy world, that unless you're talking about a mass market retail license with some exclusivity, the licensing fee isn't even as much of a burden as the tooling costs to create the figure. Even someone like Diamond who has a license to produce Marvel toys is able to sell the few they make at a much cheaper price than what Super7 does (and better quality). They don't even have the luxury of spreading that fee across as many figures as Super7 does. Nacelle may have bought the brand outright, but that's still a cost and probably a far greater one than the licensing fee, it's just one they have the potential to recoup down the road. I guarantee it's tacked onto the figures in a similar manner as part of the cost breakdown. I'm not so naive as to suggest there's no difference, of course, and Nacelle could be looking at the toys as an investment cost all their own as a gateway to jumpstarting the franchise. They may be willing to accept a lower return if it leads to a TV show, for example, but we're still talking about a franchise that even the 90s wasn't crazy over. The room for profit with Biker Mice is small so I don't think they have the luxury of selling at cost or a loss to further the franchise when such a thing is a longshot, at best.
Disney is hard to work with because of their size and how protective they are of their brand which makes the approval process long and tedious. It doesn't stop them from licensing everything under their umbrella though with stuff sold at various price points. Just because Simpsons is now owned by Disney doesn't mean it costs Super7 more to produce a figure of Homer than it would Leonardo or Optimus Prime. The best evidence of this is that Super7 isn't tacking on a "Disney Tax" to the products it made because they certainly would have no trouble doing so and telling us "The Disney license is expensive, what are you gonna do?"
First, let me say, I don't disagree with you guys strongly about your points.
I had an entire response typed yesterday that didn't post explaining that Nacelle acquired the entire property of Biker Mice and already have a deal in place with Ryan Reynolds' production company to bring a new show to fruition, so the cost analysis is different for them than just a licensing fee to make a product.
And I expect the licensing costs for Disney properties are the highest Super7 paid for anything, though I'd guess licensing fees from Hasbro (GI Joe, Transformers, Power Rangers) weren't insignificant - to let another toy company make toys of their stuff? - and Warner Brothers either. Big companies demand bigger fees.
But again, I acknowledge the cost of their licenses isn't the only, or even the primary, reason for the price point on the figures. If it was there would be no reason to charge the same $55 for their Ultimates of The Worst, which is a property they created and wholly own.
When Super 7 first took over MOTU Classics they raised the price Mattel was charging. They rebranded to Ultimates and landed on the $45 price tag - a $10 increase from where Mattel had been - in part using the excuse of a smaller company, smaller product runs, etc - but also deliberately set the price above the rest of the market to establish themselves as a "premium" product.
That $45 price tag held for awhile through the first couple of waves of Thundercats and Turtles and then I think their costs did go up - increased competition for factory time, increased wage demands in china, increased cost of plastics - they didn't make those things up... but they raised the price another full $10 to ensure they maintained that same margin they had grown used to.
Now, when costs began to rise again they realize another price increase isn't sustainable so they cut some of the packaging, they began including smaller figures (see Ralph in this line - or the last wave of Thundercats) at the same price point, they changed factories and clearly and obviously they cut corners on quality control so these same "premium" figures are now more poorly made and feel cheaper at this higher price point.
And that's the current problem. You can't establish the higher price to set yourself apart as high end product and then produce low end, knock off grade garbage - and with the quality of the output from these most recent Simpsons figures, it seems like that's where S7 is finding themselves.
And that's the current problem. You can't establish the higher price to set yourself apart as high end product and then produce low end, knock off grade garbage - and with the quality of the output from these most recent Simpsons figures, it seems like that's where S7 is finding themselves.
I think that's the crux of it. We can all speculate on the cost burden these companies face and we know it isn't exactly an even playing field, but at the end of the day once a company chooses to enter the action figure market they're competing for our dollar even if the products are not an apples to apples comparison. If you can't have the lowest price, then you need to make up for it in another way. Super7 is in the unique position of being near the top of the US market as far as price goes, and near the bottom when it comes to quality. That's not the combination one likely sets out to hold. They seem to be relying on exclusivity and a consumer base that has some degree of brand loyalty. Their problem is I don't think they have a license that guarantees them exclusivity over anything for the licenses they do serve and I think that consumer base that has been loyal to them is dwindling. If their days of Playmates homages for TMNT are over or if a mystery company decides they want in on something like ThunderCats then they could really be in trouble. And even if neither happens, both lines are likely closer to their end than beginning and I don't think Super7 has a replacement ready to go for either one.
If their days of Playmates homages for TMNT are over or if a mystery company decides they want in on something like ThunderCats then they could really be in trouble. And even if neither happens, both lines are likely closer to their end than beginning and I don't think Super7 has a replacement ready to go for either one.
I agree - since MOTU was taken off the table Thundercats and TMNT have really been the success stories for Ultimates. The Thundercats license is getting tapped out. There just isn't much meat left on the bone and so it's likely they'll see diminishing returns with each subsequent wave. And with TMNT - there is a LOT of active competition with NECA and Playmates serving the same collectors in various ways, so thinner margin for error there for sure.
I think they believed that Disney animation, Simpsons and the Hasbro deals would be big enough to surpass and replace those other properties and could go on for a while. There is an enormous cast of Simpsons characters to draw from, the Disney library is deep and wide... and those Hasbro licenses, GI Joe, Transformers, Power Rangers - each property has dozens if not hundreds of unique characters that could be tapped. If they had figured out how to properly serve those markets I think they would have been off and running and could have gone on for a long while.
Instead they fumbled the bag so significantly with Disney that they've already lost the license. The Hasbro relationship is still intact-ish... though Transformers is dead and Power Rangers is over and it's not looking great for G.I. Joe Ultimates either. The Reaction stuff may still be doing well enough to make the agreement worth while though. And we'll see how the Dungeons and Dragons effort pans out. Still the horizon looks like pretty stormy skies.
Some speculation here, but my understanding is that there are generally two components to licensing fees, an annual cost for the license as well as a fee per item produced based on MSRP (possibly wholesale). Note that the per item fee may kick in until after a threshold - so if the deal is I pay $100,000 for the license for the year, and 5% of the MSRP, the 5% might not kick in until after I sell something like $1,000,000 in MSR. In theory, the licensor is assured the $100,000, the licensee keeps a higher percentage for a successful line once that threshold is surpassed, and both make more money with more product sold - which is why it is a collaboration/partnership.
I suspect that the slow pace of releases basically meant that Disney was not getting anything above the base cost of the license as not enough product was being sold to get to the "bonus", and they reasonably expect more than that. It also wouldn't surprise me that Super7 produced extra product in part because they were paying the baseline license anyway, you might as well produce up to a threshold, if one existed, otherwise like the costs of tooling the license fee isn't spread across enough product.
So if Jakks comes along and says "We'll agree to the same deal, but we'll produce 10 times the product and get it into Target and Walmart so we'll blow past the baseline" Disney will say "I like that better".
Latest Post: McFarlane Super Powers Our newest member: Count von Curdles Recent Posts Unread Posts
