No, it wasn't. Beast Machines under-performed, but Beast Machines was not Beast Wars. That's like saying the original G1 cartoon tanked because of G2. Beast Wars was so successful they padded out the tail-end with redecos and unused moulds from Animorphs because the name alone sold product at the time. Beast Wars was also a hit in Japan, but petered out because the toys were far too complex for the intended audience (a mistake CR/RID would also make) and the original cartoons were considered sub-par. Takara also chopped the original Beast Wars in half, meaning there was a huge gap between the finale of season 1 and the beginning of "Metals." The concept, and the original toys, were highly well received, it was Takara's mis-handling of the concept under their own roof that caused it to wane. I recommend looking into TFWiki's summaries on the actual Beast Wars page. Sales for Hasbro Beast Wars were solid, and only declined once Beast Machines radically changed everything. Sales were likewise high in Japan until Takara, as mentioned before, ostensibly fucked it up. What I believe Verno is trying to point out is that Beast Wars, most importantly, taught Hasbro and Takara that reinvention is key to maintaining a brand's health. Rather than even risk going down the road of stagnation that leads to cancellation, they did what BW had done and reinvented the brand. They brought back vehicle Transformers unlike what had been see in Beast Machines or G1. (until you got to the redecoes, but CR was also a filler line don't forget) Flipping the entire premise from the previous series and giving us Autobots/Cybertrons that looked more like the dynamic, super-heroic characters from the Brave series than Transformers of old. This is why for years Transformers always had a changing, refreshing line-wide continuity and style, and why you see so many complaining about stagnation these days. The fact that Beast Wars didn't overstay its welcome is evidence of its importance of defining the key to Transformers' success.