I think she sold to Mattel for the money....it's a shame, but I think that's a big part of it.
Why did she sell the company to Mattel? It's kind of ironic because it contradicts Pleasant Company's mission statement. Pleasant Rowland was looking for alternatives for her daughters in a time when there was only Barbie and Cabbage Patch Kids. (Mattel makes Barbie) Any thoughts?
I think she sold to Mattel for the money....it's a shame, but I think that's a big part of it.
I think it was the money, too... [img]graemlins/wonder.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/gulp.gif[/img]
There's an old article about Pleasant Rowland in Forbes Magazine. If you google her you will find it. She mentions why she chose Mattel. She said because of the woman who took over the Barbie line. She introduced the professional women to the line, ie: doctors, business women, etc. She said she thought she was trying to improve the image.
I'm sure money had a part of it, but because of the mission of the company I can't imagine that to be all of it.
She was an woman who developped a line that was successful beyond probably beyond her wildest imagination. That involves a ton of work, and very very long days. Perhaps she no longer wanted the stress that came with it and found a buyer who she believed would carry her vision forward.
She had about 700 million reasons for selling. [img]smile.gif[/img]
After pouring her heart and soul into Pleasant Company, she was burned out, felt she had done everything she could for the company, and believed she found a kindred spirit in the lady who was running Mattel at the time who would take up the challenge of running the combined company. Unfortunately, and unlike Pleasant Company, Mattel is a public company and the CEO serves at the pleasure of the board. Mattel's profits started to sag and the board dropped her like a hot rock.
The guy who is currently running Mattel got his training marketing cheese for Kraft. This obviously qualifies him to run American Girl into the ground...
Taffy
<font color="#051E50" size="1">[ August 20, 2005 09:34 PM: Message edited by: Taffy Cheerful ]</font>
Ok auri,
Be nice [img]smile.gif[/img] [img]biggrin.gif[/img] , but thanks for the post. I was wondering how much it was sold for.
Whew $700 million, just $300,000 short of a billion [img]rolleyes.gif[/img] [img]rolleyes.gif[/img] [img]rolleyes.gif[/img]
<font color="#051E50" size="1">[ August 20, 2005 09:58 PM: Message edited by: prasnlrd ]</font>
Pretty soon you'll start noticing references to "PM" items - Pre-Mattel (as in made before the Mattel buyout). Some people maintain that the PM products are higher quality (a few people on here even collect exclusively PM items, I believe). It's a personal preference thing, though there are real differences between some PM items and their current incarnations. This issue comes up fairly frequently here, so stick around long enough and you'll here plenty on the subject...
- Becca
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Hahahaha, thats so funny, yet sadly true. When I first came on here I had the same realization and posted the same basic thoughts (albeit, a little bit strongly) but a lot of people jumped on me and defended Rowland. Maybe it was because I was new I dont know.Originally posted by auri:
She had about 700 million reasons for selling. [img]smile.gif[/img]
I have read the article they are talking about and while I think there is truth in it, I also think a huge part of Rowlands motivation was monetary. That article makes it quite obvious that Rowland was no weak minded fool, she was quite a shrewd business woman herself, just one with a different idea and vision. In the end, I think it was the business side that won and that is why the company is now in Mattel's hands. Some people have said Mattel doesnt have as much control as we blame it for, and that certainly makes sense, I dont discredit that argument, but the fact remains that AG is no longer controlled by Rowland AND that is whats caused most of the issues we have felt strongly about. If Rowland had cared as much about her company and its original purpose as she leads us to believe, she would have found a single person willing to take on her job and let it continue to be a private company. She wouldnt have recieved NEARLY as much money, but the focus would have remained on educational value and quality. Instead, she chose to sell to a large corporation and make millions of dollars. She was wealthy before she started the company, and filthy rich when she decided to sell, I really dont think she needed the millions Mattel ended up giving her. Shame on Pleasant Rowland.
Yeah I went there, let the verbal beating of shortie begin [img]rolleyes.gif[/img]
<font color="#051E50" size="1">[ August 21, 2005 01:24 AM: Message edited by: *shortie* ]</font>
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks