1uptoys - Global Toy Industry

811-006-1
1uptoys
Breaking into the global toy
industry
This case was written by Armand Smits and Wynand Bodewes from Maastricht University, with the
support of Charlotte Butler, Research Consultant. It was made possible through the generous cooperation
of 1uptoys. The case is intended for class discussion rather than to illustrate either effective or ineffective
handling of management situations. The development of the case was enabled by a grant from the
European Community (ENT/EFORCE). Sole responsibility of the case resides with the authors.
Copyright 2011 Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
ecch the case for learning
Distributed by ecch, UK and USA

www.ecch.com
All rights reserved
Printed in UK and USA
North America
t +1 781 239 5884
f +1 781 239 5885
e ecchusa@ecch.com
Rest of the world

t +44 (0)1234 750903
f +44 (0)1234 751125
e ecch@ecch.com
This case has been made available as part of the E-FORCE free case collection www.ecch.com/eforce-freecases
811-006-1
One morning, late in December 2006, Ronald Mannak, founder of 1uptoys, a start-up
focused on developing next generation toys, sat at his desk in the firms headquarters in
Rotterdam, the Netherlands and began to open his mail.
A letter franked by SenterNovem1, a government agency that assessed whether or not
new ventures were eligible for a bank loan, caught his attention. Quickly he opened the
letter and started reading. The message was clear, and certainly not the one he had
expected.
He had first applied for a bank loan of 225,000, partly guaranteed by the Dutch state, at
the end of that summer after discussions with potential investors had run into a dead end.
The application had not run smoothly mainly, Mannak believed, due to communication
problems and bad luck. Eventually, in November 2006, SenterNovem had approved the
application but then Rabobank, the bank expected to grant the loan, had refused to
continue. In December, 1uptoys had managed to change banks to ABN-AMRO which,
provided that SenterNovem approved the switch, was willing to lend him the money.
Mannak had expected SenterNovem to quickly confirm the new arrangement. However,
as todays letter informed him, the change of banks meant that 1uptoys application must
be re-assessed, a process that would take at least a month.
The delay would not have been too disastrous if 1uptoys hadnt been sinking into an
increasingly precarious financial state since September that year. In effect, the advance
1uptoys had received from its licensee Silverlit, a Chinese toy manufacturer, to develop
mass-producible prototypes, was fast running out, and the second advance would only be
paid once the prototypes were ready, scheduled for April 2007. However, if there was no
money to pay the two developers their wages, the prototypes would not be completed. In
At the moment of writing, the activities of SenterNovem have been combined with activities of other
governmental agencies. The organization is now called Agentschap NL.
2
811-006-1
November, when Mannak had only been able to pay them part of their salaries, the
teams productivity and morale had plummeted.
A company meeting was scheduled for the next day. Mannak had wanted to use this
meeting to announce that their money problems were over and discuss how they could
still make the April 2007 deadline. However, the letter from SenterNovem made him
reconsider. A serious decision about the future of 1uptoys would have to be made and
communicated in tomorrows meeting. His heart told him to ask his team for their
continued commitment so that they still met the April 2007 deadline. But his mind told
him this would be very unwelcome news. What should he do?
Starting 1uptoys
The idea
On December 7th 2005, Mannak, then a doctoral student, had dinner with his friend
Patrick Grasso and family. Already fascinated by the concept of innovative toys Mannak,
together with several colleagues from Delft University of Technology (Delft UT) in the
Netherlands had been spending his evenings and weekends working on ideas such as a
golf-swing simulator and a Ninja Master; wearable sensors that mimicked ninja sounds.
As Mannak recalled: When I started a doctorate in September 2002, my research project
was a joint initiative between the departments of industrial design and electrical
engineering. Although I learned a lot and met many smart people it was quite boringso
I started developing products and ideas for start-ups in the field of toys and gadgets, such
as 1uptoys. Thats what I really liked doing.
The Grasso dinner took place during the Christmas holiday season, and Grassos kids had
been given some fairly simple air-drums as a present. The toy was based on sensors
inside the drumsticks that produced a sound when moved, so when the children hit the air
with the two drumsticks it produced a drumming noise. Remarkably, the sensors were
similar to the ones used in the application that mimicked ninja sounds. As Mannak
recalled: From my experience with the Ninja Master, I knew it should be possible to
develop far more complex sounds with these same sensors.
3
811-006-1
The episode gave Mannak and Grasso the idea of developing improved air-drums that
could make multiple, far more realistic sounds. The two also realized that one instrument
did not make a band and during a later brainstorm session, the idea of an air-guitar was
born. Finally, inspired by the work Mannak was already doing on peer-to-peer networks
they came up with the idea of a virtual network, where like-minded people could get
together to develop and share music made by the newly-developed electronic music toys.
By the end of 2005, at a time when the world was not yet familiar with Wii and Guitar
Hero, they developed the idea of building a bridge between the toy and video-game
market and introduce next generation toys that were not just fun to play with, but also
had an educational dimension.
The company
By early 2006, Mannak was convinced that putting electronic music toys on the market
would require his full time attention so he decided to drop out of his PhD course. As he
observed: Doing research and setting up a company was hard to combine. I realized I
had to make a choice. While both Grasso and Mannak were willing to invest several
thousand Euros in setting up a company, the latter realized that to make it a success he
would need to draw on all his Delft University technical and design knowledge, as well
as his contacts. However, although several of Mannaks former colleagues were willing
to help him realise his dream, they did not want to risk their money on the chance of a
single toy becoming a hit, so they stayed put in their jobs.
To reduce the risk, Mannak decided first to try and sell the idea and only then to develop
the actual products. As Mannak recalled: I thought it would be a good move to contact a
toy chain and try to get an introduction into the industry from them. Casper Klinkhamer,
the director of Toys R Us in the Netherlands which operated 17 large retail stores, was a
friend of someone I knew. I wangled an invitation to visit him at their Utrecht
headquarters and presented our plan, supported by the Ninja Master and several
schematic drawings though without a working prototype (Exhibit 1). Klinkhamer saw the
potential of the plan and advised us to contact the rising Hong Kong-based toy
manufacturer Silverlit (Exhibit 2). He put me in touch with John Boeyen, managing
4
811-006-1
director of Spectron, Silverlits Dutch importer located in Deventer (Exhibit 3). Boeyen
was willing to introduce us to the Chinese company.
Developing prototypes
In February 2006, Mannak pitched his ideas to Eddie Wong, marketing manager of
Silverlit, and some of Wongs colleagues at the large Nuremberg toy-fair. Again, his
audience was enthusiastic and said they would be interested in seeing a prototype that
could demonstrate every function working together in two months time, when Silverlit
again visited Europe to attend the Paris toy-fair. In February 2006, back in the
Netherlands, Mannak officially founded a company named 1uptoys. He and Grasso
invested a combined sum of 24,000 in the company, Mannak taking a 55% share.
Mannak had three months in which to develop the prototypes, something he could not do
alone within that time frame. Via contacts at Delft UT he managed to set up a small team
consisting of Joris Beets, a graduate student in industrial design engineering and Martin
Luxen, who had just graduated as a microelectronics engineer. Although a number of
technical challenges, such as a sound delay when the drumsticks were moved up and
down, were not resolved to their complete satisfaction, the team progressed steadily. By
the end of May 2006 a prototype of the air-drums was ready for showing to Silverlit in
Paris.
The licensing deal

In June 2006, Silverlit and 1uptoys signed a licensing deal. This deal concerned the first
three 1uptoys products: air-drums, air-guitar, and boombox. Although 1uptoys wanted to
introduce the products in 2006, Silverlit did not believe this was feasible. Finally, the
introduction target date was set for August 2007. This meant that mass-producible
prototypes would have to be ready by April 2007. 1uptoys would develop the concepts
and the embedded software until the final prototypes were ready for mass production.
Silverlits part of the deal involved taking care of sourcing and engineering,
manufacturing, and supplying their network of local distributers in Europe, North and
South America, and Asia. These distributers would be responsible for promoting and
selling the products to local toy shops and retail chains.
5
811-006-1
Silverlit would pay 1uptoys non-refundable advances of US$50,0002 for the air-guitar,
US$50,000 for the air-drums, and US$25,000 for the boombox. These advances would
be paid in three stages: the first when the contract was signed; the second when the
prototypes were ready for mass production and the last when the first shipments to shops
and retail stores took place. Silverlit would pay 1uptoys royalties once sales of the toys
had paid off the advance. Silverlit also guaranteed that a minimum of 100,000 units airdrums, 100,000 air-guitar, and 50,000 units boombox would be shipped for sale.
Mannak tried to convince Silverlit to pay the advances earlier because under the
conditions of the deal, 1uptoys would receive most of the advance only after it had
invested in the development of mass-producible prototypes. However, he failed to
persuade them to alter the terms of what was the standard deal Silverlit offered toy
inventors, one they refused to deviate from. Since Mannak realized that Silverlits first
advance payment would run out within several months, his main priority at end of the
summer of 2006 was finding additional finance to fund the production of the prototypes.
The team
Ronald Mannak
Mannak had always been interested in computers and computer games. Apart from the
technical aspects, he was also attracted by their usability and design. Whilst studying
Architecture at Delft UT he co-founded a web development company, Zappwerk, which
was sold to Total Design and renamed Total Active Media in 1999.
Between 1999 and 2002, Mannak worked as acting Chief Technology Officer for various
internet start-ups including NedCargo, Wannahaves, and TradingCars. As he
himself said, he was earning lots of money at that time.
After the internet bubble burst Mannak returned to Delft UT as a PhD student in the
department of industrial design. But alongside his research, during evening and
2
US$1 = 0.80 (average exchange rate for 2006)
6
811-006-1
weekends, he was busy developing electronic toys. He involved various colleagues,

mostly fellow PhD students, in these projects on an ad-hoc basis.
Mannak was very good at networking. As Martin Luxen observed, I have never met
anyone who could match Ronald as a networker. Unfortunately his negotiation skills
were less well developed. As his start-up coach recalled, Ronald needed to improve
there. He wasnt that good when it came to negotiating contractshe never learned how
to do it, despite all his education and business experience.
Patrick Grasso
Grasso was a part time business administration student at Erasmus University Rotterdam
from 1993 to 2007. During those years he spent most of his time setting up and managing
several companies such as De Beker, which sold commercial space on university
coffee-cups. He also worked as a business advisor and in 2006 became CEO of the public
limited company Royal Delft Porceleyne Fles. Grasso met Mannak at an innovation
event in 2002. Grasso did not work full-time for 1uptoys but provided ad-hoc advice on
marketing, sales, and new concepts. He received no management fee but owned 45% of
the business.
Martin Luxen
Luxen was hired by 1uptoys in May 2006 as a full-time micro-electronics engineer,
following his graduation from The Hague University of Applied Sciences. Luxen had
studied electronics, computer, and data communication but had no prior experience of
either the toy industry or start-ups. He was responsible for developing the electronics for
the new musical toys.
Joris Beets
Beets worked for 1uptoys while at Delft UT where from 2000-2006 he studied industrial
design engineering. He joined 1uptoys right after its creation and focused on designing
hardware interactions. Although an experienced drummer, like Luxen he had no prior
experience of the toy industry or start-ups.
7
811-006-1
The global toy industry

Within the toy industry, as Mannak discovered, a distinction was made between
traditional toys, such as dolls and building sets, and more recent video games. These two
super-categories differed in size and had different growth rates (Exhibit 4). In the early
part of the 21st century the videogames segment was generally growing faster than the
traditional toys segment.
The global toy industry was characterised by highly concentrated seasonality, short
product life cycles, and intense competition on innovation and price.
Most toys were sold cyclically, with sales concentrated in a short selling-window. Sales
and volumes grew exponentially in the fourth quarter just before the Christmas holiday
season. November and December alone were responsible for nearly 45% of annual toy
sales (Exhibits 5, 6, 7).
Toy life cycles were relatively short. Although there were classic brands that had been
around for ages, such as Mattels Barbie, most individual toys did not last longer than
one or two years. This was due to fast-changing consumer preferences. Kids attention
spans had always been short and on the available evidence, were getting shorter. Since
play was mostly driven by stories and characters, successful toys were linked to fastchanging fashions and fads. Demand for toys could move from moderate to skyrocketing
overnight, and then suddenly evaporate when the next hot product came onto the market.
Toy manufacturers competed on innovation and price. Innovation was critical because
95% of new toys did not live up to market expectations. However, the remaining 5%
could include hits that surpassed all expectations. For example, Furby, a hamster/owl-like
electronic toy creature, went through a period of being a must have toy following its
launch during the 1998 Christmas holiday season. Over its three years of original
production, over 40 million units were sold.
8
811-006-1
Price competition was linked with the markets frequent-discount strategy. Falling prices
forced many toy manufacturers to balance the introduction of new concepts with the
production of more retro-toys (old-toys or toys based on old ideas) and toys based on
entertainment licences (toys based on movie characters or television series). Such
products had built-in brand awareness and required lower marketing investment than
completely new ones.
New products in the toy industry

The main activities in commercializing new products within the traditional toy segment
were product concept development, product development, manufacturing, distribution
and sales. Generally, different players were involved in the industry chain at each stage.
Important actors included Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs), retailers, and
independent inventors.
OEMs
A group of (Western) OEMs represented familiar toy names including large players such
as Hasbro and Mattel, and smaller ones like the UKs Vivid and the Chinese-owned
Silverlit (Exhibit 8). Usually, OEMs carried their own brands and designs. These firms
operated worldwide and often covered large parts of the overall value chain. While some
of them operated their own factories, many no longer manufactured toys themselves but
outsourced this activity to so-called vendors. Since the manufacture of toys usually
required relatively simple manual assembly processes, outsourcing to low labour cost
countries was a common strategy. In 2005, about 80% of all toys imported by EU
countries from non-EU countries, which represented over half the products sold, were
produced in China (Exhibit 9).
As a result, Western companies largely lost their flexibility in supply. Production

quantities had to be specified months before the holiday season whilst long transportation
lead times (75 days was not an exception), customs delays, and communication barriers
all made supply management a challenge.
9
811-006-1
The big OEMs, like Mattel, Namco Bandai, and Hasbro, benefited from economies of
scale, brand recognition and the resources necessary to secure licensing agreements.
Smaller players had to compete on new product development, hoping that they stumbled
on a hit. They often lacked the marketing clout necessary to secure shelf space and
market their products effectively through the major retail channels.
However, in an industry characterised by rapid change and relatively unpredictable

consumer preferences, small companies often had speed advantages in product
development that could make the difference between bankruptcy and a hit product. Brand
and market share seldom determined consumer preferences in the toy industry, especially
when the consumer was only six years old. Smaller companies were sometimes able to
make a big impact with a single hot product. The board game Cranium, developed and
launched by the small American firm Cranium, Inc in 1998, sold more copies during its
first week than Trivial Pursuit sold in its first year. By 2006, the game had sold almost
one million units and won several awards.
Retailers
Retailers were mostly involved in product distribution and sales. They could broadly be
divided into toy specialists, such as Toys R Us and La Grande Rcr, and more general
retailers, such as Carrefour and Wal-Mart (Exhibit 10).
Consolidation had taken place among the retailers; in 1998 Wal-Mart, for example, sold
over 17% of all toys in the United States (Exhibit 11). The shifting channel structure and
related market power heavily favoured the large retailers.
Independent inventors
Although many OEMs possessed an in-house product concept and development capacity,
many were also receptive to independent inventors who wanted to see their idea
commercialized but lacked the necessary financial and human resources to do so. In fact,
highly popular toys such as Furby, Aktion Man, Rubiks Cube and Beanie Babies were
all examples of toys created by independent inventors.
10
811-006-1
Generally, an independent inventor licensed the idea to an OEM who paid the inventor a
royalty on every item sold. These payments usually ranged between 2-10% of the item's
ex-factory price.
Because product life cycles were so short, established toy OEMs were always on the
lookout for creative new ideas either from within or outside their company. Large OEMs
even had specific inventor affairs departments. Although the toy business was relatively
welcoming towards inventors, the increased introduction of retro-toys and use of
entertainment licenses, made it harder for independent inventors to co-operate with
OEMs. Several leading OEMs cut costs in several ways; by working solely with a select
group of inventors; by restricting their co-operation to agents and brokers who acted as
go-betweens, or by acquiring smaller OEMs with a proven product.
1uptoys ambitions
At its foundation, 1uptoys ambition was to become a leading inventor of next
generation, highly innovative electronic toys for children and gadget enthusiasts. Mannak
aimed to position the company between electronic toys and video games, since he
anticipated that as toys became increasingly based on complex electronics, opportunities
would emerge to fill the gap between independent inventors and the toy OEMs R&D
departments. 1uptoys believed that although toy companies had highly skilled R&D
units, these were unlikely to invent innovative toys. Independent toy inventors, by
contrast, had the creative freedom and flexibility to design highly innovative toys, but
often lacked the knowledge and resources to utilize the technology fully. Many of
Mannaks former university colleagues believed it would be too difficult for a start-up to
enter such a highly competitive industry but despite such critical reactions, Mannak had
great confidence in his idea. He saw 1uptoys as an inventive company, small enough to
explore innovative concepts yet large enough to prototype mass-producible technology.
11
811-006-1
The product range

1uptoys first product was a line of musical toys that included virtual drums, a virtual
guitar and a boombox (Exhibit 12). It exemplified Mannaks view of the companys
innovations as a combination of existing toy concepts and academic research. So
although toy virtual drums already existed in the marketplace, their user had to press
buttons to select very simple drum sounds. Instead of buttons, 1uptoys used sensor
technology that allowed for more complex sounds. These sensors measured vibration and
distance and were used in the academic world for basic motion recognition.
Sales projections
As an independent company, 1uptoys planned to supply multiple toy OEMs, licensing
toy concepts to them on a royalty per unit basis. However, while licensing would provide
1uptoys with cash flow and a financial basis at the start, in the future Mannak foresaw a
gradual transition of 1uptoys business model from a concept-generation only company
to an organization that conceptualized, developed, produced and marketed next
generation toys.
The licensing deal with Silverlit specified that royalties would be 7% ex-factory selling
price for the air-guitar and air-drum, and 3.5% of the ex-factory price for the boombox.
Given these numbers, 1uptoys anticipated royalty payments from Silverlit of between
US$0.42 and US$0.53 per shipped air-drum and air-guitar, and between US$0.21 and
US$0.26 per shipped boombox. 1uptoys expected that, in total, they could ship 500,000
toys in 2007. For 2008, on the assumption that additional products would be introduced,
this figure was expected to climb to a total of about 5,750,000 toys (Exhibit 13).
Cost projections
1uptoys foresaw that salaries would form the largest part of the companys operational
expenses. Although Mannak had some knowledge of the technical aspects involved in
producing toys, he estimated that initially he would need a full-time software engineer,
12
811-006-1
and a graduate student specialized in hardware design. This team, he believed, would be
able to develop the first three products and new concepts in 2006. To continue operations
in 2007 and beyond, 1uptoys planned further recruitment (Exhibit 14).
The company budgeted for gross salaries ranging from 1,800 to 3,500 per month, an
average early-career salary in the Netherlands. Graduate students would receive 400 per
month up to a maximum of 6 months per student. Mannak would receive a management
fee of 4,000 per month, which was the minimum fee for directors of public limited
companies required by the Dutch tax authorities.
During its first few months of existence 1uptoys was able to use city office space for free.
In May 2006, Mannak began negotiations with the city of Rotterdam for financial
support in the form of two years rent and interior and equipment for an office space, to
be shared with a group of small technical and creative companies. Further cost
projections for the first two years covered office and communication equipment,
computer equipment, legal and accounting, and travel (Exhibit 15).
Financing 1uptoys
Trying to find investors
From June 2006 onwards, Mannak tried to arrange additional financing. 1uptoys,
Mannak believed, would be refused a bank loan because there was no collateral to offer.
Therefore he focused on trying to persuade potential investors to co-invest in 1uptoys.
However this proved easier said than done.
Potential investors saw significant risks in an industry characterized by fads, high

competition, short product life cycles and the problems involved in coordinating with
Asian manufacturers. As one potential investor recalled, It was very hard for me to form
a view of potential toy sales. They seemed to me rather trivial products, whose sales were
influenced by fads so they came and went in no-time just like the fashion industry.
Another saw risks in working with an Asian partner: Mannak had found a potential
Chinese partner, he observed, but this nearly always leads to communication
13
811-006-1
difficulties and misunderstandings over contracts, manufacturing and delivery issues. I

thought there would have been far less risk if he had found a European partner.
In the summer of 2006, a funding offer came from an unexpected source. Joop Boeyen,
father of John and founder and co-director of Spectron (Silverlits Dutch importer)
offered to invest 150,000 in 1uptoys in return for a 30% share in the company. Joop
Boeyen had been in the toy industry for over 20 years and sensed that 1uptoys products
could become a hit. At first Mannak thought the offer ridiculous, and that a 10%
maximum share would be more realistic: In silicon valley, 10% would be very
reasonable for an investment of 150,000 seed capital, he commented. However, given
his lack of progress in attracting investors he was willing to hear what Joop Boeyen had
to say. Unfortunately for Mannak, Boeyen senior and junior failed to agree about
Spectrons strategic direction and eventually decided not to invest in 1uptoys.
The bank loan

Disillusioned, Mannak turned to Bart Blokhuis, the start-up coach assigned to 1uptoys by
Stichting Nieuwe Bedrijvigheid Rotterdam, a foundation for stimulating high impact
entrepreneurship in the city. It was almost September and the first advance payment of
Silverlit was fast running out. Mannak had to find money from somewhere to pay Luxen
and Beets. If they decided to quit because they had not been paid, the prototypes would
not be finished in time and the toys would not be on the market in time for the 2007
Christmas holiday season; or in the worst case nightmare scenario - not at all
Blokhuis advised Mannak to apply for a bank loan under a new government scheme to
stimulate banks to grant loans to small and medium enterprises. Once a credit application
had been accepted, the state guaranteed the pay-back of a percentage of the bank loan,
making it more attractive for banks to lend money to entrepreneurs. An important
condition, however, was that the entrepreneur involved had to guarantee to pay back the
remaining percentage of the bank loan (Exhibit 16).
Mannak took Blokhuis advice and applied for a state guaranteed bank loan of 225,000.
In September 2006, backed by Rabobank Rotterdam, he submitted his business plan for
14
811-006-1
assessment to SenterNovem, the government agency involved in the new scheme.

Although Rabobank had assured Mannak the assessment would only be a formality,
SenterNovem rejected the application. Meanwhile, money was running out and Mannak
had paid last months salaries from his own account.
In an attempt to reverse the decision, Mannak made an appointment with SenterNovem

in The Hague to discuss his application. He was told that his application had been
rejected because the assessor thought Mannak had not put enough effort into searching
for investors. As the assessor explained, A government-backed bank loan should be
used as a supplement to money brought in by investors, not as a substitute. In addition,
it emerged that SenterNovem did not really understand 1uptoys product concepts.
During the meeting, Mannak was able to persuade SenterNovem to reverse its decision
and accept the application. However, the amount of money Mannak had to guarantee was
raised from 40,000 to 80,000.
Optimistically, Mannak returned to Rotterdam only to suffer a further shock when

Rabobank informed him that because his initial application had been rejected, it was no
longer prepared to grant him the loan. After getting over this disappointment and on the
advice of Blokhuis, Mannak took his business plan to ABN-AMRO bank, which agreed
to grant Mannak the state-backed loan.
But by then it was December 2006 and morale among the two developers, and hence
productivity, was at an all time low. In November, there was only enough money to pay
50% of their salaries and 1uptoys was seriously behind schedule. Meeting the April 2007
deadline was becoming more challenging by the day. Backed by ABN-AMRO Mannak
re-submitted the application to SenterNovem, which then had to re-approve it because a
different bank was involved. However, Mannak had regained his optimism and
confidence: SenterNovem had already approved his plans when he was working with
Rabobank. He thought it would take a week at most for the application to be approved.
In the belief that 1uptoyss money problems would soon be history he called a team
meeting just before Christmas to discuss how they could still meet the April 2007
15
811-006-1
deadline. Mannak was already thinking about using the loan money to hire additional
engineers.
But then the day before the meeting Mannak received the letter from SenterNovem
informing him that the application must be re-assessed, a process that would take at least
a month. Distressed and angry, Mannak saw the April 2007 deadline receding even
further into the future.
He now had no option but to take a serious decision about the companys future, and
make it before tomorrow so he could announce it in the team meeting.
On the positive side, there were several signs that the products would become a success:
interest from Silverlit and Spectron both experts in the toy industry; the approval of
SenterNovem, and the willingness of ABN-AMRO to grant the loan. However, if
everyone wanted out, then this was the time to do it, since their total investment only
amounted to several tens of thousand Euros.
If 2007 was a disaster because they had to delay product introduction until 2008 and sales
were lower than expected, it would be difficult for the company to survive. If that
happened, 1uptoys could go bankrupt leaving Mannak with a personal debt of 80,000.
His heart told him to ask for commitment from his team to continue and try to make the
April 2007 deadline. But was this the right thing to do in the circumstances.?
16
811-006-1
Exhibit 1
Schematic drawing first product concepts
Source: 1uptoys
17
811-006-1
Exhibit 2
Silverlit
www.silverlit.com
Since its establishment in 1977, Silverlit has been committed to designing and
manufacturing innovative and quality toys for kids of all ages. In 2006, the organization,
that started as a Hong Kong-based company, also included manufacturing facilities in
China. Its integrated operation included product design, tooling, engineering and
production and was located in a 70,000 square meters factory in Dongguan, China, a 1.5
hours drive from Hong Kong. Silverlit had about 3,000 employees and a turnover of
about US$270 million. North and South America were its key markets; 50% of its
turnover came from these regions. The remaining 50% came from Europe and Asia.
Within Europe, important countries for Silverlit were the United Kingdom, Germany,
and France.
Silverlit was one of the first groups of toy manufacturers to be awarded a Certificate by
the Import and Export Commodity Inspection Bureau in China. This award was given to
those toy manufacturers that had met the safety standards laid down by the Chinese
authorities. In 1994, Silverlit received an ISO Certificate and became the first toy
manufacturer in Asia to attain this quality recognition.
Silverlit's corporate mission has been continuous product innovation. It was felt that this
was the only way the company could survive and grow in the ultra-competitive toy
business. The company had experience with both licensing ideas from independent toy
inventors and taking entertainment licenses.
Source: Based mainly on about us section of Silverlits website
18
811-006-1
Exhibit 3
Spectron
www.spectronsales.nl
Since its establishment in 1982, Spectron has been dedicated to the import and
distribution of products of several worldwide operating toy and gadget manufactures in
the Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxembourg. In 2006, Spectrons head office and
warehouses were based in Deventer, the Netherlands. Additionally the company had a
sales office in Belgium.
Spectron supplied major toy chains, buying groups, department stores, hypermarkets,
mail-order companies, multi-media-stores, hobby shops, gadget stores, and on-line
retailers.
The company had a sales staff, a help desk, a repair department and a public relations
manager. In total, the company consisted of 12 employees. The sales staff took care of
selling to outlets mentioned above. The helpdesk took care of toy-related questions from
both retailers and customers. The repair department took care of all returns and provided
the necessary service on some products. Finally, the public relations manager was
responsible for advertising and contacts with the trade media and journals. Spectron was
founded by Joop Boeyen, who in 2006 was still involved in the company. The Managing
Director of Spectron was Joops 34 year-old son, John.
Source: Based mainly on about us section of Spectrons website
19
811-006-1
Exhibit 4
Overview of the global toy industry
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Traditional toys (market size million US$) 55,000 60,000 61,200 63,700 67,000
9.1
2.0
4.1
5.2
Traditional toys (growth rate %)
25,000 27,000 31,500 34,000 37,500
Videogames (market size million US$)
7.4
14.3
7.4
9.3
Videogames (growth rate %)
Source: NPD Group market research agency
20
811-006-1
Exhibit 5
Overview of global yearly toy sales
January
4.3%
February
4.5%
March
5.4%
April
5.5%
May
5.3%
June
5.6%
July
5.8%
August
September
October
5.5%
5.1%
8.2%
November
17.8%
December
27.0%
21
811-006-1
Exhibit 6
Cyclic behaviour toy OEMs
Year Y
Year X
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Start year Y
Christmas
holiday season
products
introduction to
retailers
Q2
Year Y
Christmas
holiday
season
procurement
Q3
Year Y
Christmas
holiday
season
development
Q4
Year Y
Christmas
holiday
season
selling
Source: Mattel analyst presentation, 2009
22
811-006-1
Exhibit 7
Inventory and accounts receivable toy OEMs
Source: Mattel analyst presentation, 2009
23
811-006-1
Exhibit 8
Characteristics of top 6 toy OEMs and several smaller ones (2005)
Firm
Country
of origin
(1) Mattel
United
States
(2) Namco
Bandai
Japan
Revenues
(million
US$)
5,179
Market
share
(%)^
8.1
# of
employees
(Dec. 31)+
26,000
Important product
lines
3,837
6.0
7,000
(3) Hasbro
United
States
3,087
4.8
5,900
(4) MGA
United
Entertainment States
(5) Lego
Denmark
2,000
3.1
1,500
1,288
2.0
5,000
(6) Takara
1,000
1.6
1,768
Japan
Barbie
Hot Wheels
Matchbox
Fisher-Price
Games and
puzzles
Power Rangers
Ben10
Tamagotchi
Tekken
(videogame)
RidgeRacer
(videogame)
Playskool
ActionMan
Furby
Monopoly
TrivialPursuit
Bratz
LittleDikes
A line of
building sets
Microman
Battle Beasts
China
281
0.4
7,020
A line of
(Hong
electronic
Kong)
learning toys
(y) Silverlit
China
270
0.4
3,000
Picoo Z
(Hong
Kong)
(z) Vivid
United
248
0.4
100
Timmy Time
Imaginations Kingdom
Anymagic
^
Global traditional toy market; lots of smaller players share the rest of the market.
+
Large differences may be based on the extent to which manufacturing employees
are
Included.
Sources: Annual reports and websites
(x) V tech
24
811-006-1
Exhibit 9
Toy imports from non EU-countries into the EU
Country
Year
Asia / Oceania
China
Japan
Hong Kong
Taiwan
Thailand
Other European Countries
Switzerland
Romania
Bulgaria
Norway
North America
United States
Canada
Middle East Countries
Central and South
America
CIS
Others
TOTAL
2003
93.2
78.6
6.2
1.8
1.2
1.3
3.3
1.7
1.2
0.2
0.1
2.7
2.3
0.5
0.4
0.2
Imports (%)
2004
92.0
78.2
4.0
2.4
1.3
1.3
3.7
2.2
1.1
0.2
0.1
3.3
2.8
0.4
0.5
0.3
2005
94.6
79.4
7.3
2.1
1.5
1.3
2.5
1.5
0.7
0.2
0.1
2.1
1.9
0.2
0.5
0.2
0.1
0.1
100.0
0.1
0.2
100.0
0.1
0.1
100.0
Traditional toys accounted for 82.8% in 2005 compared to 87% in 2004 and 78,6% in 2003
Video games accounted for 17,2% in 2005 compared to 13% in 2004 and 21.4% in 2003
Sources: NPD Group, Toy Industry Association, Toy Industries of Europe
25
811-006-1
Exhibit 10
Distribution channel breakdown (%) Europe and US
Toy specialists
Mass merchant/Discount stores
General merchandise
Department stores
Mail order
All other
Europe %
2003
36
24
13
07
05
15
2004
37
24
13
07
05
15
2005
36
24
13
07
04
16
US %
2003
25
51
09
03
04
08
Traditional toys
Sources: NPD Group, Toy Industry Association, Toy Industries of Europe
Distribution channels are defined as follows:
Toy Specialists: Toy chains and toy shops, i.e. Toys R Us, La Grande Rcr,
Toys Center.
Mass merchant/Discount stores: Hypermarkets, Discounters, i.e. Carrefour,
Auchan, Tesco, Wal-Mart, K-Mart.
General Merchandise: Urban non-toys specialists (Book shops, CD shops,
small generalists,
small groceries) i.e. Woolworths.
Department Stores: Stores such as El Corte Ingles, Karstadt, Galeries
Lafayettes.
Mail order: Include companies such as Quelle, La Redoute.
All Other: Non-toy specialists, Catalogue showrooms, Markets, Dedicated
internet shops Others, i.e. Argos, Go Sport.
26
811-006-1
Exhibit 11
Top 10 retailers toy industry
(US$ share, US, 1998)
17.4%
Wal-Mart
16.8%
Toys R Us
8.0%
Kmart
6.9%
Target
4.9%
KB Toys/Toy works
J.C.Penny
1.6%
Ames
1.3%
Meijer
1.2%
Hills
1.1%
Sears
1.1%
27
811-006-1
Exhibit 12
1uptoys first products
1uptoys initial products were two motion-controlled virtual toy instruments and a
boombox. The products were planned to be announced at the Nurnberg Toy Fair
(Germany) in February 2007.
Air-drums
In the air-drums product, sensors placed in the drumsticks sensed when certain spots in
the air were hit and accordingly, made a drumming sound. The product came with a base
station that could be clipped to the belt. The product could be connected to an iPod or PC
so the user could drum along to songs. The air-drums had three built-in play-along
melodies and four different drum kits. For the Netherlands, the product retailed at 29.95
including VAT.
Air-guitar
The air-guitar allowed for playing 48 tones and 48 chords and could be played without
prior musical experience. The product came with a base station that could be clipped to
the belt. The product could be connected to an iPod or PC to play along with songs. The
air-guitar had three built-in, play-along melodies and four different guitar sounds,
including distorted electric and bass guitar. For the Netherlands the product retailed at
29.95 including VAT.
Boombox
The internet ready boombox allowed for mixing and recording songs played with the airdrums and air-guitar. It would also be possible to record voices by using its microphone.
Using a USB connection, self-composed songs could be converted to MP3 or published
on a specific website to be developed by 1uptoys. The boombox retail price was expected
to be in a similar range to the one for the air-drums and air-guitar.
28
811-006-1
The air-drums and air-guitar in action (photo: 1uptoys)
See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YZ6M0Ki29I&feature=related for a YouTube

demo of one of the first prototypes of the air-drums.
Other product ideas and concepts (business plan 2006)

1uptoys had several other ideas and concepts, all using low-end and mass-producible
electronics, to be developed after the market introduction of the music toys. Two
examples were:
C.A.R.R.s: Hybrid radio-controlled and line-following toy cars and the infrastructure for
building race-tracks. The cars would react to stickers placed on the roads and adjust their
speed to the surface when using CoolCars floor elements.
29
811-006-1
WhizzGirl: High-tech toys for computer-savvy girls, such as a journal that unlocked
when the owners fingerprint was recognized. The concept was in development in cooperation with the Institute for Micro-electronics and Submicron-technology of Delft
University of Technology.
30
811-006-1
Exhibit 13
Sales projections (units)
Air-drums
Air-guitar
Boombox
Product X
Product Y
Product Z
2007
250,000
200,000
50,000
2008
2,000,000
2,000,000
500,000
250,000
500,000
500,000
2009
1,000,000
1,000,000
250,000
500,000
1,000,000
1,000,000
Source: 1uptoys business plan, 2006
31
811-006-1
Exhibit 14
Employee planning
Hardware engineer
Embedded software
engineer
Internet engineer
Scientist
Marketing & sales
Support & evangelisation
User experience and
usability
Design & concept
QA & sourcing
Management support
Management
TOTAL
2006
1
1
2007
2
2
2008
2.5
2
2009
3
3
0
0
0
0
0
0.2
0.2
0
0.5
0.5
2
1
1
1
0.5
2
1
2
1.5
1.5
0
0
0
1
3
0.2
0
0
1
6.6
2
0
1
2
15
3
1
1
2
21
32
811-006-1
Exhibit 15
Projected start-up expenses 1uptoys ()
20061
72,000
6,500
11,000
14,500
5,000
7,000
7,500
123,500
Salaries
Rent
Office and communication
Computer equipment
Legal and accounting
Travel
Miscellaneous
TOTAL
1
From February 5, 2006
2007
140,000
11,000
3,000
2,000
4,000
12,000
10,000
182,000
33
811-006-1
Exhibit 16
Government scheme
The government scheme (named BBMKB) was focused on both start-ups and established
small and medium enterprises unable to offer enough in the way of security to get a bank
loan.
Conditions
An R&D statement, which was granted if the enterprise met the conditions
of the R&D support law. In general, this review took about one month.
Payback term
A maximum of twelve years, starting after the credit agreement took effect.
Repayment
First instalment not later than the first day of the fourteenth quarter after
the credit agreement took effect.
Postponement
Twice up to a maximum of four continuous quarters.
Source: BBMKB brochure, translated from Dutch into English by the authors
34

1uptoys - Global Toy Industry

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

1uptoys - Global Toy Industry

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

811-006-1

ecch the case for learning

Distributed by ecch, UK and USA

Rest of the world

governmental agencies. The organization is now called Agentschap NL.

The licensing deal

US$1 = 0.80 (average exchange rate for 2006)

weekends, he was busy developing electronic toys. He involved various colleagues,

The global toy industry

New products in the toy industry

As a result, Western companies largely lost their flexibility in supply. Production

However, in an industry characterised by rapid change and relatively unpredictable

The product range

Potential investors saw significant risks in an industry characterized by fads, high

difficulties and misunderstandings over contracts, manufacturing and delivery issues. I

The bank loan

assessment to SenterNovem, the government agency involved in the new scheme.

In an attempt to reverse the decision, Mannak made an appointment with SenterNovem

Optimistically, Mannak returned to Rotterdam only to suffer a further shock when

Source: Based mainly on about us section of Silverlits website

Source: Based mainly on about us section of Spectrons website

Source: NPD Group market research agency

Source: Mattel analyst presentation, 2009

Source: Mattel analyst presentation, 2009

Sources: NPD Group, Toy Industry Association, Toy Industries of Europe

Source: NPD Group market research agency

The air-drums and air-guitar in action (photo: 1uptoys)

See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YZ6M0Ki29I&feature=related for a YouTube

Other product ideas and concepts (business plan 2006)

Source: 1uptoys business plan, 2006

Source: 1uptoys business plan, 2006

Source: 1uptoys business plan, 2006

Twice up to a maximum of four continuous quarters.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen