Mattel Colors vs. Pleasant Company Colors

[JAdder]

Cami I think you are sterotyicaling little girls not all little girls love pink. In fact I can give the majorty of little girls who in fact hate pink and even more despise purple. Are you trying to make us belive that like Mattel who I am guessing for a long time think that the only little girls out there are ones who love blond haired blue eyed dolls and who obssess over pink? Not every girl loves pink. In fact there are many that don't. Personly I felt sick when I saw Elizabeth looking more like the king size Barbie that I feared AG might become when the company was sold. When I was growing up I did love Barbie but that is Barbie not AG I really don't think the lines should get fuzzy becuase if it does guess what? Soon there will be no differance. Look what happened to Barbie has anyone seen this doll lately she looks like Bratz. And now they ar changing AG to look like Barbie. I always thought Mattel were the trend SETTERS not the followers.

[mypinkmermaid]

Let us not forget that Pleasant Rowland developed AG dolls to give little girls something totally different as role models than Barbie type dolls. How ironic that the company sold to Mattel.

<font color="#051E50" size="1">[ February 21, 2006 11:58 PM: Message edited by: mypinkmermaid ]</font>

[Bean Bunny]

I've only ordered one Mattel thing so far, and got one as a gift, and I've had things that I actually like BETTER than Plesant Company's stuff. I ordered replacement ribbons for Kirsten, and they're much thicker, longer, and nicer than the Pleasant Company ribbons. But the Midsummer dress I ordered fits her tightly around the arms, so I dunno.

I also got a Mattel Mini Nellie and I. Am. In. LOVE. With that doll. She's so unnatuarlly perfect that I think planets must have aligned to make her, it's so crazy how nice she is.

I'm not sure where you're getting the colors argument, though ... there's lots of blue and green clothes for the dolls. I kind of wish there was MORE purple. Part of it might be our time period, too ... in the 90s, for example, we would have worn those ugly turquise and red sleep shirts no problem, but sitting here in 2006, I can easily see that they're ugly.

<font color="#051E50" size="1">[ February 22, 2006 12:23 AM: Message edited by: Bean Bunny ]</font>

[cami713]

I'm going to again say that I believe it depends on what YOU want out of AG, and you're personal expectations. I've been collecting for over 10 years now, and I think I have a pretty good grasp on the PM quality and the M quality. They seem pretty consistent. However, I still look at AG the way I did when I was little, that they were, and still are, made for little girls, not as adult collectibles. The AG items are still far above the quality on other (often similarly priced) items created for little girls.

?Most little girls like pink,? it seems to be a "given" fact, and yes I do know that it's a generalization, but it seems to hold true for AG's (and most other companies?) sales. I didn't love pink when I was little, and I don't now, either. I can't think of anyone who I knew, from when I was in AG's target age range, who loved pink. However, that didn't stop any of us from getting the pink AG outfits if we liked them, and since most of my friends with AGs had Samantha (who wouldn?t sell as well if pink didn?t sell), we all had a lot of pink, [img]wink.gif[/img] . My favorite color was actually green, and AG didn't make very many green outfits back in the day, and still doesn?t.

Now whether or not pink is the popular-with-girls color that Mattel (and every other chain/store that makes items specifically for little girls) seems to believe, people ARE buying the pink items. Mattel/AG isn't stupid. Whatever people say they do and do not like doesn't seem to matter, as enough pink/purple outfits are being sold that warrants them to keep being made. Someone is obviously buying them, right? If not, if every little girl truly hated pink, they'd stop using the color. There's a huge color spectrum out there, AG wouldn't have a hard time finding a color that sold better.

Of the current AGT outfits on the website, there are 4 outfits out of 25 that are mostly pink. 4/25 isn't an overabundance in a line of items made for little girls. There's another 4 that have pink as an "important" accent color. And there are 2 outfits with ANY purple on them, the birthday girl and the flapper costume.

I think quality is hit or miss, depending on the item. I've seen people complain here about items they thought were bad quality that I had absolutely no problems with, and absolutely adored. I'm not sure if I'm less picky, or if I just got "better" items. Also of note, I don?t collect anything right now (and didn?t much when I was little) past the dolls and clothes. I have very few accessory pieces, so my comments are not in the least ?accurate? to the accessories or furniture, as I have no real way of commenting on those.

Ariella, I am not trying to ?make? you believe anything. I certainly don?t think every little girl loves pink, or that every girl wants blonde haired, blue eyed dolls (I know I don?t, and didn?t when I was little. Elizabeth was my first, and still only, blonde AG doll, out of 8), but obviously these things sell. AG is a business, and they like to make money, they?re going to make what sells. Obviously most little girls (or their parents) DO like blonde haired, blue eyed dolls, and pretty pink dresses. If not companies would stop making pink, and stop making blonde dolls. Since they continue to be made, there must be a market for it.

Barbie =/= AG. They are completely different, and I see very distinct lines between the two. This might be because I was a fan of both when I was young, but at totally different times. I love Barbie, and think she?s a great doll in her own right. However, I think AG could take with following Barbie a little more, (blasphemy, I know, lol). A line of collector AG outfits, in the vein of the collector Barbies, would be great, since there are, apparently, so many people who think AG quality is less than it could be. AG would be stupid to start changing more into the little girl Barbie, as she's not selling as well now as she was years ago, and I'm pretty sure they've figured this out, too.

Nana, I do agree with the last comment you made. I'm not sure if that was directed at the clothes, or what, but I really think AG needs to start placing more emphasis on the books again. This is the ONLY place I, personally, see decline in the AG world. The books are second place to the dolls/clothes, and I do think that's a bad turn on their part. Retiring the short stories bothered me a lot, but I'm still hoping they intend to bring out single volumes for each girl. And they are at least making the Mysteries. However, it seems to me like it doesn't...even out, I guess.

Pleasant?s original concept was a line of dolls that were ?different,? and focused on books, with dolls to enhance them, to quote her, ?At an age when girls are old enough to read and still love to play, they need books and dolls that capture their imaginations and are worth caring for. The stories in the American Girls Collection come alive with beautiful dolls and period doll clothes.? It?s obvious that she believed the books were the core part of the AG collection. I?m not sure on the ?caring for? line, if she means taking proper care of the dolls, or caring for the book characters. I love the book characters, I think they?re all so well written, and I generally DO care about them. That?s why it?s hard for me to see the books get so little attention nowadays.

That note continued with, ?The doll accessories are replicas of real things found in times gone by. They are quality pieces?not plastic playthings?and are made for children over eight years old to enjoy.? I imagine Pleasant is probably disappointed with what the line has become, but obviously she didn't have too many qualms over selling to Mattel, or she would have sold to a different company for less money. Surely she knew that Mattel AG would bring the focus of the books down, and bring more plastic into the line. But what's done is done, and I guess we just have to accept it and enjoy AG for what it is.

Edit: Oh my gosh, could that have been any longer? I don't know what to cut out though! Sorry, [img]redface.gif[/img] .

<font color="#051E50" size="1">[ February 22, 2006 01:47 AM: Message edited by: cami713 ]</font>

[Skittl1321]

All the interviews I've read said that Ms. Rowland sold the company to Mattel because she felt a connection to the CEO, a woman, who she thought would continue her vision. This woman was running the company when Bratz rocked the doll industry, and of course, because of drop in profits, shareholders had her removed. A new CEO is running the company and clearly does not have the same vision.

[mypinkmermaid]

Didn't know that about Mattel; what a shame, but I guess it's par for the course. I love the new scooter, plastic or not, so I can't totally dis the vision Mattel currently displays for AG. However, what I don't like is that this line was originally geared toward 8-12 year olds, and the clothing construction, while still of decent quality overall, seems to be over simplifying and geared towards even younger girls. A lot is said about AG being intended for little girls, not adults, but I don't see many 8-12 year olds that can't handle buttons and snaps. I don't begrudge the cost of an AG outfit, but am tired of velcro snags in tights and other delicate fabrics, and I know I'm not alone. The Flower Garden Dress from 2002 and Periwinkle dress from 2001 both had soft, very fine velcro closures. Why can't Mattel be consistent with quality and put that kind of care into all the outfits they make? Granted, many of us buy these dolls for our 4-6 year olds, but they are even more in need of outfits that are child friendly and of enduring quality and construction than our 8-12's who are old enough to know how to handle items more carefully.

[cami713]

Oh, I agree with that!

Many of the outfits are more childish than one would expect. I do think a lot of the bright colors are intended to open little, little girls' eyes to wanting the object more. No matter who the products are being purchased for (and surely they do know there's a number of under-8's who like AG), they really should stick with the ages they put out as the "target age range," which is still 8-12, the Bitty line is here for the younger girls. PC was much better about that. There were no items up until the 2000's that I thought seemed more childish, or outlandish (look at the newer Halloween costumes, compared to the older ones, which were all very, very real. I know I'd worn 3 that were very similar in that age range), and like something that would only appeal to a very small girl who didn't "know better" than to know that the outfit was odd.

And I think that using the soft velcro on everything would be *very* nice. I don't have either of the outfits you mentioned, as I wasn't collecting then, but I do have others from the *same* release times, and they used the harder velcro. Consistency would be awesome, and would make sense. Is the softer velcro more costly? Surely not.

LOL, I don't think the buttons or snaps are too much for 8-12 year olds, but it just *takes too long*, I'm impatient now, and was worse when I was little. I didn't want to dress the dolls, I wanted to play with them, and if dressing took longer (and the buttons on Molly's tennis outfit are SO small), I had to wait longer to play. I do have some with bigger buttons and snaps, mostly jackets, that I think are great.

And about Pleasant, yes I know she felt a connection to the CEO at the time, but she can't have expected that that lady would be there forever. But, she might have thought she'd be there long enough to "set up" AG under Mattel so well that Mattel wouldn't feel the need to change the brand, or at least not so soon.

[[email protected]]

It is my belief that the quality has dropped, in the more recent years since Mattel bought the company.

I also am sad that things seem to be slipping into styles and colors that seem more "Barbie-esque" There are plenty of Barbies out there--why can't we keep this company producing items that are distinctly different?

I also am sad about the increasing number of items that are made from plastic.

The goal seems to be what will sell, rather than being historically accurate. I think that they should look at what colors were popular when the character of that doll was alive, rather than what colors are popular now.

I also think that they used to use more primary colors and thicker fabrics.

I've also noticed, with great sadness, that all the Elizabeth clothes, and possibly the new Felicity clothes too, are much shorter than the original Felicity clothes were, and the fabrics are much thinner. This makes them look cheap to me, and as if they are pretend, or "dress-up" clothes for pretending in, rather than actual miniatures of real clothes from that era, which is what I used to feel.

I agree that the dolls should be designed for 7-12 year olds, who can handle real buttons and hooks and snaps and shoe laces and buckles. One of the main points of Pleasant's was to extend and preserve girlhood, so these dolls are not really for little girls. That's what the Bitty Babies were for. It seems to me that Mattel keeps trying to "young-down" all the dolls. It's as if they can't quite believe, or don't want to affirm, that olders girls can and should still like dolls--the opposite of what Pleasant's philosophy was.

I had no illusions about what Mattel does to companies that it buys, because I saw what it did to Fisher Price. A lot of Fisher Price products used to be made of wood. like the pull-toys (even the phone) and the little people. Now I don't think that Fisher Price makes anything out of wood at all. I was afraid that they would do the same to American Girl, and it looks like my fears are being realized.

The miniature dolls are an excellent example. They used to be so much cuter, when they had glass eyes and wigs, rather than painted eyes and rooted hair, in my opinion.

The books are another great example. They should know that if an item is included in a story, it sells better. And instead of changing a book and its illustrations to fit a doll or other item, they should keep the integrity of the books and fit the dolls and items to them. Messing with the books makes them less real and believeable, which messes with the attractive-ness of all the miniature items. If we don't believe they're real, we aren't as compelled to buy them.

For me, the magic of the books is that they do seem real and not like fiction. The impulse that I get when I read the books is that I want to be there. I want to jump into those pages and live the story along with the characters. For me, having the miniatures of the clothes and accessories and furniture was my way of jumping into the book and living the story along with the characters. So disconnecting the stories from the products, by not having stories for some products, or by not having products for parts of the stories, really ruins the effect for me. Also changing the stories to fit the products makes me feel betrayed, and like I can't be fooled into believing that the stories are non-fiction any more.
Joy

<font color="#051E50" size="1">[ February 22, 2006 11:15 AM: Message edited by: djsnjones ]</font>

[mypinkmermaid]

Well put! Mattel, are you listening?

[moderator]

Joy, I also wanted to chime in with "well put." Everything you said is what I believe. I think Mattel is catering to kids too much, even though that sounds odd! [img]wink.gif[/img] Part of what set them apart before was because they *were* so different. I have a catalog from 1991. Counted up, how many things were pink? Kirsten's birthday dress and Samantha's birthday dress (with a bit of pink trim on her tea dress).

How many things were purple? Zero.

Molly usually wore patriotic red and blue. Her new outfits are usually pastels now.

The color changes are pretty easy to compare. I don't have new items versus old to talk about things changing to plastic, so I have to go by what members state here, but I think it's sad. Plastic is a very new material; even my grandparents had "plastic-like" things made from bakelite and celluloid. Plastic like we have it today didn't even exist back when these characters would have lived.

On an educational note, at least we can be glad plastic has changed . . . bakelite is nasty. We have old buttons of my grandparents'. When they get warm, they smell like formaldehyde. If you ever find plastic-looking things from your grandparents, try running them under warm water. You will run from the room! [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Sorry to got a bit OT, but I agree on the colors and plastic really changing how I perceive AG.

<font color="#051E50" size="1">[ February 22, 2006 11:34 AM: Message edited by: Melissa ]</font>