Words from the Wise

The original edition of The Toy and Game Inventor's Handbook, included "profiles" of some eighty creatives, who could enter "occupation-professional toy inventor" on any application. These were high achievers in the speculative, high-risk world of licensing ideas to industry marketers. Time has taken some of these incredible talents from the industry like Ralph Baer, acknowledged "father of the video game business", and Fred Kroll, who pushed roller carts filled with new toy and game "opportunities" around the old 200 5th Ave. NYC Toy Center for sixty-six years! (Fortunately for Fred and Hasbro, Hungry, Hungry Hippos dropped off one of those carts!)

In our third edition ebook, some profiles have been altered but much of the advice and perspectives from eighty pros continue to ring true. For any inventor, who hopes to create new playthings,  thoughts from these old pros on what makes great toys and games and what sparks their original ideas are invaluable. They live the life captured in quotes of Thomas Edison, "Have a great idea, have lots of them" and "Genius is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent perspiration." Inventors profiled in the Handbook averaged thirty ideas annually. (That's a lot of ideas and a lot of perspiration!)

Recently, several pros offered prospectives on challenges facing toy inventors today. Mary (Game Bird) Ellroy and Hank Atkins feel that "larger companies seem focused on brands rather than unrelated concepts no matter how good they are". Tim Moodie acknowledges, "the loss of larger game companies reduces likely licensees for his ideas." He shares Mary Ellroy's view, "that opportunities are emerging with new, interesting marketers". All three agree, "that new toy and game ideas need to compete with gadget play", and they favor "adding electronics or some novel technology if possible."

There is timeless cautionary advice as well. Seeing the advantage of now popular crowd-funding, Ken Evoy, Canadian licensor of many playthings, counsels,"Never mortgage the house. It is much safer to find venture capital. The worst thing is to spend your money on 10,000 pieces, sell a few thousand, and have the rest end up in your garage." Hank Atkins opines that a single license will not generate sustainable royalty income, saying, "Don't give up your day job." And co-author Richard C. Levy, with over 125 original concepts licensed and approaching 40 years in the business of fun and games advises, "Never give up, never grow up." To meet the challenges of inventing today, it makes sense for creatives to mix into their thinking several dashes of sound advice from the wise--and successful--pros.

25 Ways to Leave Your Idea

Many will recall that popular Paul Simon song from years back, "50 Ways to Leave Your Lover". Tim Moddie, a spirited entrepreneur, has been around toy and game invention over thirty years. He is an original member of the infamous Twin Cities inventors group, Elvenbasch, with Girsch Design, Leisure Design and continuing for seventeen years as an indee inventor and writer. Needless to say, he has presented many toy and game ideas over the years. Reflecting on marketers' negative reactions to many of those licensing opportunities, Tim came up with a list of twenty-five reasons for rejection of big ideas. Perhaps he should have taken a hint from Simon and put those ways of getting rejection into lyrics for a sad, tear jerking country ballad. Why not try to turn all that sadness into a hit tune?
Behind toy and game inventors dreams of big royalty payoffs is the real world of rejection. It is a commonly known stat that marketers will reject 9 out of 10 concepts shown by inventors. Stretching that statistic to the biggest marketers who see so many ideas, the odds of an inventor concept making it to retail shelves might reach 1 out of 1000. Those woeful numbers aren't sweet music to any inventor.
When I was on the acquisition's side of the table from inventors, I tried to be sensitive to their disappointments by offering more detailed reasons for rejection. It might be a thought on what the concept was missing, or a suggestion on how the idea might morph into a different form, or a way to give the idea a new twist. Looking back on what might have been heard on the receiving side of the table, at best, the inventor might do more work on the idea, at worst, the dreaded rejection was being postponed.
Little did I know that Tim Moodie was keeping tabs when I was rejecting or "leaving" his idea. Perhaps I should have shortened the responses and just given him one of the simpler rejections he had heard from other reps like: "No Fun", "Boring", "Pass", "Next". Here are more of Tim's twenty-five rejections. The words are different but all had the same meaning of rejection:"We've Seen This Before"  "Too me, too"  "Too close to an Internal Design"  " Too expensive" "Too Many Costly Parts"  "Won't Sell at the Right Price Point" "Marketing Won't Like It"  "Doesn't Fit Our Marketing Strategy" "Not a Market We Want to Enter""Is This Legal?" "This Would Be a Safety Problem"  "Not Cutting Edge"  "Can't Put a License on It"  "Won't Sell Enough to Justify TV"  "That's the Dumbest Thing I've Ever See"  "It's a Circus Novelty"  "Too Confusing"  "No Kid Would Do That"  "No Play Pattern"  "I Don't Get It"  "Counter Intuitive"
If you are an inventor and wish to add what you've heard to this list of rejections email it to trmoodie@aol.com. Perhaps it will be included if he ever writes a country ballad.


  

No Reading Required

A common message on a toy package is "some assembly required". Those words may result in a parent needing a toolbox, an ability to read blueprints, and possess basic engineering skills before the "knocked down" parts assemble to be the plaything shown on the package. A notice of "no reading required" on a game package is the industry's signal to adults that young players need not know how to read cards, spinners, dice or boards to enjoy game play.  

Reading in games, or more specifically, reading to comprehend rules may determine if consumers ever get to the intended play. With the short attention span of today's consumers, lowered reading levels, and desire for instant gratification, players want to open a box, set up the pieces, and get into play with minimal reference to rules. (Methinks this attitude is one contributor to the popularity of I-games where user friendly symbols and emoticons get players into the action without wading through a page or two of challenging verbiage.)

A rules intensive game like Monopoly was fortunate to appear on the market back when consumers were more patient and tech-less. It is common product acquisition belief that if Monopoly was introduced as a rules-laden board game today, it would likely not become a classic. Its longevity may  partially be the result of what Mike Meyers, former Senior VP of R&D at Milton Bradley/Hasbro Games, dubbed the Rules Shepherds Theory. His contention was that one literate and patient person (the shepherd) reads the rules and then explains how to play to two or three other players. These players in turn pass known rules on to other new players, and familiarity grows exponentially through an oral history. Good shepherds, often parents or grandparents, bring the non-reading players into the game with some familiarity with the basic rules without reading all details of play.

Game inventors Tim Moodie and Richard Levy tried their own unique idea to make rules user friendly in a VCR game marketed by Mattel in 1992 called Wayne's World. Since the game already had the electronic medium, their thinking was to complement printed rules with a riveting audio-visual explanation of the rules right on the VCR with the box of components nearby. Their efforts to make the rules MRR (minimal reading required) may have touched on other comprehension issues that could be called SHR as in "some hearing required". Unfortunately, the short appearance of Wayne's World game on the market made it impossible to determine if consumers would more strongly embrace hearing rules rather than reading them. Check out this You Tube link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=parXcDqvixQ to see an entertaining effort of one of the first audio-visual efforts to market a game with reduced rules reading.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=parXcDqvixQ