He's not calling you a liar.

But neither is anecdotal evidence fact.

 

Look at the very first post of this thread: Hasbro (probably because of contractual obligations of license) informed SW collectors outright that a line was being cancelled ahead of time, a courtesy rarely given to other lines. I never said that my view is any more valid; I have simply contended that it is more supported by available facts.

 

...yet not a SINGLE person contributing to this thread can point to a single example Hasbro has have explicitly said what fanboy lore has taken for granted and that I challenge, that collectors are a minor percentage of their consumers.

You are making a transitive inference. I said that they sometimes act deceptively to further their business interests, and since no one can show a SINGLE example of them saying otherwise, I have in no way accused them of being dishonest about THIS issue, because it appears that they officially will NOT take a position on purpose.

 

I fail to see how that equates to you being suspicious of everything Hasbro says.

Because Hasbro is not beholden to you to reveal every minutiae of their business deals does not equate to dishonesty.

That's like me calling you a liar because you didn't first tell me what you had for breakfast. And what time you woke up. And who you slept with last night.

Their Star Wars team is separate from their Transformers team, and for whatever reason, that team deemed it prudent to tell their fans of an impending cancellation, while the Transformers team instead fought tooth and nail to get their product to market, thus delaying the eventual cancellation notice. Those monsters.

And I personally think you're a sapient gerbil who's honing his internet debate skills for his eventual assimilation into human society. You've not displayed a SINGLE bit of proof showing me otherwise, so it must be true.

As I so farcically demonstrated above, absence of proof is not proof.

 

Untrue. It is factual unless I am delusional. Even with aspersions here to the contrary, I am quite capable of making factual observation, and while I have never claimed my observations are universal, they can be indicators of larger trends.

 

You've not definitively proven otherwise...

Anecdotal evidence is not verifiable fact. For example, it is not admissible in court of law without corroborative evidence.

 

I love how you guys get your panties all in a wad because I challenge some sacred-cow of a belief that you hold, but do realize you just equated yourself to Hasbro? My "suspicion" is only extant because THEY WON'T ACTUALLY SAY ANYTHING on the issue, yet fanboy religion takes this particular tenet as one of its Ten Commandments.

I have never required this. I have been far more respectful toward you than you have reciprocated, but at least stop putting words in my mouth. I made a point of fact based on my observation and it has been met for the most part by personal attack, derision, and accusation. A more paranoid person might think it was because this particular view could somehow be harmful, so tell me, what's the harm in being correctly informed consumer?

 

Why are you guys arguing with this guy? No matter what you say, you will not change his mind. After all this is what he see's inside his little box.

 

It's not that they didn't say anything, it's just that you didn't hear it.

Pardon for the perceived terse, derisive attitude, but you really need to take a step back and think about what you're saying. You keep saying that you're acting logically, as a "correctly informed" consumer, but then in the same breath, you say that Hasbro must have something to hide when you don't hear them say the words you want them to say. That's the exact opposite of relying on the facts. That's making stuff up whole cloth.

Excuse us that various board wipes and server crashes and whatnot have probably wiped out our chat transcripts regarding the exact quote you're looking for to put this discussion to rest, but it did happen. If we had thought "5 years from now, we're going to be dealing with a massive influx of amateur armchair businessmen and raging conspiracy theorists and these exact words would subdue them instantly", then maybe we would have had better backups. But back then, we were just having fun seeing all the cool new toys we were going to get, and all that inner workings jazz was just fun trivia at best.

 

We're not in court, although to borrow from your euphemism, you are 'making a federal case' out of this issue, and I don't accept your judgement of my ability as binding, nor am I obligated to do so. If you don't like what I have to say, stop wasting your time conversing with me, but you cannot discredit a question:

What ARE the real sales demographics and how are they defined?

 

It's true that I don't have any demographics figures regarding what percentage of Transformers consumers are collectors. For what it's worth, here's a market report for Hasbro from 2004. Per the report, adult Star Wars collectors made up to 14% of the consumer base: http://www.ericaaugustine.net/img/mktg/Hasbro.pdf

If lieu of an official statement of some sort, the 10% figure that gets thrown around is open to challenge. However, the salient point is that we are not in a position to steer the franchise.

Claim: they sometimes act deceptively. You have to demonstrate that. It is impossible to prove they aren't doing something.

 

Sadly, though "target market" (14 and younger) and "core market" ("tweens") are defined in this report, the only reference to "adult collector" is the same one you point out and it is annotated to a different report for definition which is not present, so the term is meaningless. I also challenge the notion that a requirement for 'collector' to be an adult; most, if not all, of the collectors present on this board (or anywhere else) began doing so as children.

I wasn't aware that doing so required your permission, but I am tired of the ones in this thread who act as though it requires theirs, too.

"We" cannot agree on exactly what constitutes "we," much less mount any kind of organized consumer action necessary to control a company, nor have I suggested otherwise.

How many examples of cancelled products, deleted accessories, and cut-short themes will that take?

 

How do any of those provide an example of deceptiveness?

Except maybe cut accessories that are otherwise displayed on the package, but that situation is exceedingly rare, and is covered by the general disclaimer "product and colors may vary". If it's such a big issue that the collective fandom is dying to know what's up, then the subject can usually be broached at BotCon.

On top of that, cancelled toylines (well, maybe Transtech) generally aren't the fault of Hasbro in the first place, so now we're right back at blaming Hasbro willy-nilly for stupid stuff.

 

THIS is the part where I remind you about that tidbit not being real. For an idea that is so pervasive, it is strangely absent from any public mention.

No, I am saying I WANT to be a correctly informed consumer. If I were in possession of the actual facts, this discussion would be moot, but since there are no actual, universal, published facts, just insults and accusations, this a lively exchange.

Umm... no? Just read what's written.

Who is "us?"

Oh, I get it, you were pretending to be all apologetic so you could insult me some more.

 

I think that's why you'll find it difficult to track down a precise collector figure, since collectors are self-described as such, and not well defined by age. Generally I would argue that adults are more likely to be collectors because of the additional interest required to appreciate a product designed for and marketed towards a different age group. It's a very unprecise correlation.

I didn't say it did.

"We" is people who elect to be critical of the franchise. I think that's pretty much everyone on this forum to some degree.

As mx said, those aren't examples of deception.

 

...yet it is touted as Gospel otherwise: that collectors are a small percentage of Hasbro's toy consumers in various lines. Why is this idea apparently so readily acceptable to so many posters?

By implication of your comment that the idea is able to be challenged, you appear to also say that if you deemed differently, it would not be so.

Promising to deliver a product and then not delivering that product is deceptive, period. It may be legitimate, as their disclaimer over QC issues addresses, or it may be more insidious as in using the rumor mill of fanboy perception to shape fans' expectations. Both are the only issues with Hasbro I have raised.

 

Was it literally promised? If it was, it's only deceptive if they never planned to release it in the first place.

Otherwise, it's a simple matter of plans changing.

 

I fulfilled the obligation to provide an example. It doesn't matter that you don't accept it.

 

Because, once in a while, it is fun to get into an internet argument, especially with someone who's so adamant about their erroneous stance.

Angries up the blood. Makes ya feel alive.

 

Because Hasbro's own business practices with their various lines support this. If collectors were THAT significant a part of a given line's business, then Hasbro WOULD tailer that line to better satisfy that market.

Assuming said line's sales were weak enough for Hasbro to not really care if collectors made up a majority (like with GI Joe. Collectors may be the majority buyers...but the line has seen the weakest retail support in over a decade. Just because collectors may make up a majority sales doesn't mean they generate the same overall sales as lines driven by kids, like Transformers or even STar Wars)