Has Disney taken over Hasbro?

[ManaMinori 4,149]

Once upon a time, in a land far, far a way known as Dream Valley of gen 1, there lived regular ponies. Some were earth ponies, some were unicorns, and some were pegasi, and from time to time, they played with a young girl named Megan, along with her brother, Danny, and their little sister, Molly. In that magical land of little ponies, there were no Princesses, no castles, but plenty of adventures and curious new species and races to explore for the little ponies.

 

Fast forard to g3 and g4, and we have Princesses and castles out the wazoo.

 

Here's the thing- once upon a time, Hasbro had its own identity. Their goal as a toyline, was to sell a wide diversity of little, cute, plastic ponies and reboot every once in a while, when sales dipped and a new generation of kids came along. Now, not so much. Hasbro has taken on the Disney identity in marketing Princesses, and this is more than evident in the toyline. Princess Cadance, Princess Celestia, Princess Luna, Princess Twilight Sparkle and her friendship knights of the round table, Princess Skystar. Castles, Castles, Castles! Castles everywhere! Back in g1, the main playsets that were available were horse stables (Peachy Parlor set), (Lemon Drop's Show Stable), a waterfall, Lullaby Nursery, Paradise Estate's mansion and ONLY 1 castle, which was Majesty's Dream Castle. (which belonged to a Queen, not a Princess)

 

The thing with Disney (which has gone on record), is- they're able to market Princesses, because of the clothes and fancy dresses they wear. Little girls want to wear them. Ponies typically don't wear clothes. Sure, there's costumes for the kiddies that can allow them to look like Twilight Sparkle of any of her friends, but that's pretty much it. There's no "official Twilight crown" or "dress" or Celestia/ Luna/ Cadance garb for them to dress up and look all pretty and cutesy in, because that's just not Hasbro's field of expertise with little ponies. It's Disney's. And it really bothers me that they've taken to this route, following int he footsteps of Disney like this, instead of being who they used to be- a company that didn't rely on Princess hype, even WHEN Disney was doing it (because as I said, we really didn't start the Princess trend  until g3/ 2008-2009), and even de-glorified the trope when Twilight turned Princess, by not glamorizing it as everyone expected (instead, they made it out to seem that being a princess was really boring and restrictive), but still continued the Princess trend, in spite of what was shown on the series.

 

so I can only hope that g5 corrects this and breaks free from Disney's shackles in order to re-establish their identity, not with Princesses, but with ponies.

[Jeric 46,880]

Considering they are kissing cousins, I don't expect Hasbro to change anything. They fought too hard for the Disney license and Mattel flat out sucks as a toy maker. I mention this because I almost thought you were going to be linking a business news article about a pending merger. Nerp. 

Also, not sure that it is entirely fair to suggest that Hasbro had their own identity back then. They effectively took designs from several Japanese toy lines and repainted them. and created a sci-fi story around the second hand toy line which became Transformers.

 

[EpicEnergy 23,246]

Congratulations! You have experienced enlightenment! I'm not alone anymore!  

Hasbro wants money, so they use MLP to obtain it. They don't care about the narrative features of MLP, they only want to sell their products. Same with Disney. Welcome to the crowd, this is how Star Wars is like. A narrative disaster, but a money-magnet.

 

Edited September 4, 2018 by EpicEnergy

[BornAgainBrony 2,398]

From what I know of the drama that ensued back with the end of season 3, I'm probably in the minority here, but I like Twilight as a Princess, and I like the "friendship knights." All that said, I don't think it's really fair to decry this as just copying Disney. I kind of found the idea of having Princess as the highest royal rank to be pretty neat, and the presence of multiple castles and even multiple kingdoms provides a bit of a "Game of Thrones" or Tolkien feel.

Even if they WERE just ripping off of Disney though, singling them out for doing so is pretty unfair. ALL companies do this kind of thing, taking ideas from one another and putting a different spin on it. This is more or less a necessity in a competitive world when something becomes extremely popular. Take for example when "Jem and the Holograms" became big. Suddenly, out of nowhere, Barbie gets her own rock band. Even outside of the businesses who are focused on certain properties, this kind of thing happens. Have you noticed how insanely popular unicorns have become in apparel in the past ten years? Most of what's being sold isn't MLP, but they clearly exist because they're trying to snag a tiny piece of that same pie.

I think the simple fact that they made being a Princess seem "boring and restrictive," kind of conflicts with the point you're making that they were trying to copy Disney. Disney's stereotypical Princess tale is a "rags-to-riches" story. This is irrelevant in Equestria because poverty is virtually unheard of, so there is no need for Ponies to have an obsession with becoming a Princess as a means of escaping some Hellish lifestyle. The Ponies don't seem to envy it at all really. And I really don't see how this is necessarily a bad thing, to paint being a ruler in a somewhat more realistic light. Isn't that a good lesson for children to have? That there's more to being a leader than getting your way all the time and having tons of money? Restrictive lifestyle isn't unique to rulers either. This is true for ANYONE who has responsibilities.

Also, you seem to be mixing things up a little bit when you go into the lack of Princess dresses or accessories, such as a crown. So are you saying the Princess angle is bad? Or that Hasbro failed to capitalize on it? I tend to agree with the latter more, because IMO that is Hasbro's larger problem and this is one thing that Disney does extremely well. On the merchandising front, Hasbro doesn't seem to know how to think outside of the toy box. Disney does it brilliantly. Not only in knowing the diverse number of things they can sell, but they also are much better at catering with a fandom consisting of people ranging in ages from 1 to 90. Hasbro merchandising never even seemed to figure out how to sell to Bronies, instead putting all of that potential money into the hands of artists on Etsy.

As for Princess merch though, it could've still easily worked. There's SO much more they could've done. That they somehow failed to do this is pretty amazing to me. Even just doing more with toy props for humans, further diversifying the kinds of play that kids could experience with Ponies. Some kids are fine just roleplaying with dolls, hopping them around the table and doing a bit of ventriloquy. Other kids want to jump into costume and roleplay it themselves, and Hasbro doesn't seem to know how to cater to that. Equestria Girls should have made that idea even more of a no-brainer and they STILL did nothing, aside from Halloween. Here's one example. With Rarity, they actually could have done one heck of a clothing line, with human dresses inspired by all the ones featured on the show. Even taking it a step further, Hasbro could have set up their own promotional booths at comic-con, or in the lobby of a Toys R Us, and invited kids to come get themselves done up. Ever heard of the Bibbity Bobbity Boutique that Disney has at their themeparks?



It's a salon where kids can get a dress along with a full makeover with hair styling, makeup, and body glitter. It's pretty much a completely immersive experience. Imagine if there could have been a Ponified version of this. Granted, not as extravagant (Disney has pretty much infinite resources after all), but what a cool it would be to walk into a mall, see a cool Carousel Boutique mockup, roughly the size of a "Photo with Santa" enclosure, and hear that Rarity has expanded her company to include a traveling store of sorts so that humans can also get in on the fun.

Hasbro, unfortunately, seems to lack the kind of vision that could enable them to become a much bigger entertainment and toy giant than they already are. They're stuck with a very narrow-minded focus, and aren't very good at adapting. Even just the fact that MLP became popular to boys AND adults, was all just a happy accident. With a full decade for a kids show, they were given more time than most companies could hope for, to figure out a way to add those demographics to their marketing and merchandising plans, and STILL, they did nothing. Even while the studio was loving every minute of it and jumping right in to play with the fans, Hasbro just never seemed to care. It's strange too though that they seem to have no problem with taking a more progressive approach to Transformers (and for crying out loud, they have the Star Wars toy license too), but they have mainly ignored trying to get the most out of Ponies.
 

1 hour ago, Jeric said:

They fought too hard for the Disney license and Mattel flat out sucks as a toy maker. I mention this because I almost thought you were going to be linking a business news article about a pending merger.

Heh, that's exactly what I thought. I clicked on this thread feeling my anxiety quickly rising.

 

 

Edited September 4, 2018 by bornAgainEquestrian

[heavens-champion 1,907]

Honestly, the title for this topic could have been worded better. It sounds like you're saying that Disney has bought the rights to Hasbro, but what you're really saying is that Hasbro is copying Disney by marketing princess toys.

 

[ManaMinori 4,149]

6 hours ago, heavens-champion said:

Honestly, the title for this topic could have been worded better. It sounds like you're saying that Disney has bought the rights to Hasbro, but what you're really saying is that Hasbro is copying Disney by marketing princess toys.

 

Perhaps. But I think the title is fine as is. That's why the op exists to clarify.

[Dark Horse 12,971]

I've gone ahead and adjusted the title in a way that presents it as more of a discussive topic than a statement. Should avoid any further misinterpretation.