Pleasant Rowland

[TaffyCheerful]

The Fortune Magazine article posted at the start of this thread by *Beach Girl* is an outstanding overview of the history of Pleasant Company.

Taffy

<font color="#020176" size="1">[ July 29, 2003 03:18 AM: Message edited by: Taffy Cheerful ]</font>

[TaffyCheerful]

Jan, there really is no "garbage"... Mattel is driven by a completely different set of factors than was Pleasant Company. PC was built to deliver the dream described by Ms. Rowland in the various articles people have listed here. She described her concept first in a card to her closest friend: 'What do you think of this idea? A series of books about 9-year-old girls growing up in different times in history, with a doll for each of the characters and historically accurate clothes and accessories with which girls could play out the stories?' And that is precisely what she delivered.

Ms. Rowland insisted, "...it is the books that unlock the mystery of American Girl's staggering success." This is the fundamental point Mattel's leadership is apparently incapable of comprehending. Mattel is a doll company and they make their money selling dolls. Pleasant Company was a "dream company" -- PC's success came from selling the dreams contained in the books. The books then drove the sales of everything else and, since this concept is foreign to Mattel, Mattel focuses on what it has always done, i.e., sell dolls.

Thus, one can easily understand why Mattel is so interested in selling doll-related "merchandise" rather than books, producing one-book wonders without all of the laborous research that went into the creation of a historical American Girl. This also explains many of the "trinkets" we see taking over the catalog, as well as the additional lines of dolls including, heaven forbid, collectable dolls. At Mattel, the mantra is "sell dolls"...

What is incredible (at least to me) is that Mattel paid $700M for a company built on a model totally foreign to their own believing either that the two models could co-exist or that success would be achieved by imposing the parent company's model on the acquired company. Basic Business 101 teaches that this type of thinking is "dumber than a sack of hammers"...

Sorry for belaboring the point. Now back to dolls...

Taffy

[annkirstin]

I wouldn't blame it all on Mattel. Ms. Prohaska (AG brand manager at PC) told me that Mattel let them be fairly autonomous and that some of the unpopular decisions--like retiring historical stuff and starting unrelated other lines--were issues Ms. Rowland was considering while she was still with the company.

[siochembio]

I agree with Ann. I dislike Mattel as much as the next board member, but I can't help feeling a bit disillusioned with Pleasant Rowland and the original Pleasant Company for allowing Mattel to buy them out at all. And plus, what Taffy said about how it's "as dumb as bricks" how Mattel could have thought they could keep PC without altering it - well, didn't that thought occur to Ms. Rowland when she sold the company? I can't believe that, even though Mattel had put someone in charge that she trusted, she didn't foresee certain Mattel-esque changes to her company. After all, she WAS a businesswoman as well as being a teacher, and I'm sure she knew basic business strategy as well. I do admire Ms. Rowland for what she created, but I am also aware that she sold what she created to Barbie's company. Of course, I know that if Mattel came knocking at MY door with $700M, it would be extremely hard to say no, but the fact remains. It was ultimately her and the original PC's decision to sell, and I am unconvinced that no one at PC anticipated Mattel making changes from that point on.

[TaffyCheerful]

I believe you are correct, Ann. One of the real problems with a concept like the historical American Girls is that its growth will eventually slow down and, to stimulate additional sales, new merchandise has to be added to the mix. Likewise, keeping everything for every historical doll always in stock is a logistical nightmare, not to mention an enormous cost for inventory that moves very slowly.

I think the concept worked amazing well but upon reaching the limits of its niche market something had to be done. I would have been happy to see it stay in its original market, even if that meant slower growth, but those decisions are not mine to make.

I no longer fault Mattel for the changes they have made. It is their company and their products, to do with as they see fit. Pleasant Rowland sold the company and Mattel bought it. I assume both parties had their eyes wide open, even if their expectations were different.

Taffy

[3castles]

Great article!
Thanks for posting!