I must confess to having a relationship with the performance
of the toy industry that is like a sports fan to football. When they do things
right I leap from my chair and cheer them on. When they are running the wrong
way on the field, I have passionate things to say about that as well!
When it comes to the toy industry and its hit-or-miss
relationship with story development, I see lots of running about wildly on the
field and once in a while, someone making a brilliant touch-down.
As someone who makes
a living as a story doctor for franchise narratives I have some overall
observations to share on why toy companies have on and off struggle with story.
I am sharing these notes not as a harsh criticism but as a
love-letter to the industry that I see so much potential for growth if the
companies can recognize the massive shifts that have occurred and evolve
rapidly to get in front of them.
Every toy company is different and as such, not all of these
points apply to all toy companies because some have started along this growth
curve or have individuals within their organizations with some of these
competencies.
So here’s my top 5 reasons why toy companies struggle with
Story:
1. The Heroic model has evolved
a.
When a toy company conceives of a story, the
model they tend to use for their “heroic” or aspirational characters tends to be overly
simplistic, far too perfect (unflawed) and lacking in relevance. In short, it
tends to be an idealized list culled from mom/kid-research mixed with industry
beliefs about what has worked in the past.
b.
Relevance is achieved by casting and creating
characters who are the heroes that face off against the challenges and fears
kids (and the kid in us all) are all facing today. Those heroes must behave in
ways relevant to the future that parents want and kids are living into. This is
true for conflict based properties. Preschool learning properties have a
different kind of relevance that is no less critical to achieve.
2. Toy companies want maximum Screen time for
plastic
a.
There is a true-ism for toys that goes something
like: “The toys that are on screen more sell more so I want my toyline
maximized on screen.”
b.
Like all trueisms, it’s true…ish. The problem is
that nothing should be put on screen unless it is advancing the story. Even
more important is that it must be meaningful and support the central themes of
the story. When in doubt leave it out!!
c.
There are quality ways to make this work but
they must happen as part of the story’s development in story-friendly ways that
inspire creators and developers.
d.
I have personally watched direct toy input and
notes into stories cause the failure of the narrative (and a lack of success)
of major live action and animated movies and TV shows. This is not a trivial
statement: If notes are not well thought through and rigorously conceived to speak
in story terms, the story development team may find themselves in a box they
can’t get out of. Story is exquisitely hard to crack and relevant/evolutionary
stories especially so. It’s easy to break this process and generally well-meaning
toy folks are telling story people what would drive their toys when they should
be telling them why the toys are helping to advance the creators stories.
3. A Focus on Context not Meaning
a.
In every franchise story there is context and
meaning. Context is all the cool stuff we see and where it all takes place. Meaning
is how the idea of the story impacts our lives.
b. Great context sells toys: Lightsabers,
space ships, Batmobiles, and deep worlds that invite you to play.
c.
They also need compelling characters whom you
want to be, or spend time with. “Collectibility!” that brass ring of the toy
world.
d.
What really makes a story compelling and context
work is the meaning. Characters are only aspirational when they are meaningful!
There are more than a few toy shows and movies that have very weak or non-existent
meaning and as a result, demonstrate limits on success or even failure.
e.
There is a big difference between a powerful, newly
relevant, narrative meaning and a brand’s benefit positioning. I often see the
latter substituted for the former.
f.
Additionally, elements in a story become
powerful, gotta-have, toys only when they are structured into the story
metaphorically and heroically correct. I won’t unbox this here as it is a
larger conversation but it’s important to note that there is a clear process
and skill needed to do this without diluting the story.
4. Story is now King
a.
Stories are the new currency of power in the
world of consumer brands. You only need to look at what drives the growth of
licensing these days to find the proof. Millennial Families “adopt” stories
into their lives and USE them in great variety. “Collecting” or “Playing”
are only a fraction of what use means. They wear them to express the themes
that are meaningful to them. They use the language as verbs and nouns in their
social postings. They gather with others who like them and they decorate their
homes with them. They want to share in them as a family and play…toys…serve
multiple roles in the use of the story for adults, teens, tweens and
preschoolers.
b.
All that being said, the story itself is
paramount and nothing short of excellence can break through in our world of
exploding entertainment choices and become one of the few stories that get
adopted by these families. This is a challenge for toy companies because it
means elevating the health, newness and excellence of the story, to the highest
position in their decision-making behavior (something that is very hard for a
product-driven company to do). There is virtually no risk that toy companies
will not give enough attention to making the toys a success. The risk lies in
making the story a second-class decision.
c.
I believe very strongly in the simple human
truth that “you always get the behavior you incentivize for.” Toy company’s
executive incentives are built around creating, manufacturing, marketing and
selling toys. This means there is not strong incentive to make hard decisions
to make the story better when it seems to conflict with maximizing the toys.
This can be done but it requires learning the rich and complicated craft of
creating, managing and giving input on the development of franchise stories.
That brings me to my next point.
5. There is no training in place to teach
story to toys or franchise to writers/creators
a.
I am not aware of any toy company that has a
program of any depth to teach their executives, marketing staff, designers and
research, the basics of story structuring let alone one that covers the unique
story challenges of world properties and how to develop quality narrative that
intersects with play patterns. I have found that there are individuals with
varying degrees of these skills. They are rare and you find them using those skills at those toy
companies that do these things better.
b.
It is also very fair to say that the world of
entertainment (and the colleges that feed them) don’t have ANY programs to
teach these highly creative/commercial skills either. There are many great
storytellers who don’t fall into the much smaller subset of great world
builders. And of the great world builders, there are even fewer who
instinctually create in ways that enable big franchises and play.
c.
I believe the big opportunity is for both toys
and entertainment to intentionally and constantly invest in learning these very
specific skills so that the entertainment can be excellent and drive commercial
opportunity as well. Both sides of this equation must be speaking the same
language in order to achieve this.
Net/net, there’s big opportunity for companies that make
stories and make things based on stories to supercharge their business by
evolving their story competencies and incentivizing their management to do so.
Hope you enjoyed the post. Definitely a personal passion for
me. Cheers to all.
Kevin
PS: come join us for our seminar “Creating A Franchise Story”
in Santa Monica on November 13th.
