Comments on: Unhappy holidays for American toymakers?

By: SSFC

SSFC — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 19:21:39 +0000

You seem to know an awful lot about Hasbro and Metel Michelle. Do you work in the industry?

By: Michelle

Michelle — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 19:07:38 +0000

Hasbro and Matel are not in competition with small toy companies, not even close – all small toy co. sales combined are not even a pin prick to Hasbro and Matel. They are in competition with each other, ipods and video games.

By: CPSIA: furor builds over toyless shelves

CPSIA: furor builds over toyless shelves — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 21:36:53 +0000

[…] our previous posts about the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA), the federal law passed by Congress […]

By: Toyless Yule, cont’d

Toyless Yule, cont’d — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 19:53:31 +0000

[…] two weeks ago SSFN posted an item on the threat to independent toymakers of a new law passed by Congress in response to the […]

By: Fewer Toys for Christmas | OpenMarket.org

Fewer Toys for Christmas | OpenMarket.org — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 16:38:19 +0000

[…] Small toy manufacturers may go out of business thanks to the “Consumer Product Safety Act of 2008,” which Congress hastily passed in response to reports of lead paint in children’s toys produced in China. Its poorly-drafted provisions may require manufacturers to perform $4,000 worth of tests on each lot of toys shipped. […]

By: Mark

Mark — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 17:04:19 +0000

1. SSFC – Congrats on your new (if temporary) gig here- it’s well-deserved!
2. A slight correction – the testing fees will range anywhere from as little as a few hundred dollars to tens of thousands of dollars, depending on the complexity of the product. In the Culture11 piece, I point to the example of a toy telescope that will cost $24,000 to test and which will thus have to be discontinued.
3. @ReformedRepublican: As I discuss in the Culture11 piece, the evidence shows that Hasbro, Mattel, et al lobbied quite heavily for this legislation with only slight modifications, and actively testified in favor of the testing requirement. However, there is some evidence that they are now fighting for regulations that would effectively negate a lot of the worst elements of the law. My research suggests (though it does not confirm) that the reason they supported the legislation was most likely a public relations decision. In essence, they only fought the legislation to the extent it would have been absolutely fatal to their business models. It was probably not an issue of actively trying to use the law to kill small businesses, though – as I said, they now seem to be backing regulatory changes that will negate the worst effects on small business. More likely, they simply had no incentive to spend political capital fighting against provisions to which they can adjust relatively easily (but which require near-impossible adjustments by small and medium-sized businesses). Now that the election is over and the import scandal has faded from memory, the PR winds have shifted a bit. Still, the more salient point is that regulations, in the long run, serve to prop up bigger businesses by destroying potential competitors.

By: Reformed Republican

Reformed Republican — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 16:20:26 +0000

I would like to see someone follow the money. Show me that Hasbro, Mattel, and the like did not have a heavy influence on this law, and I will believe that it is an unintended consequence. I am more inclined to believe it is not a bug, it is a feature.