I'm not sure tactic #1 would make a huge difference to most consumers. I would guess that MOST consumers have no idea who the CEO of Mattel is, wouldn't be aware of a mass sacking, and would have no awareness of the replacements or their reputations. (Though surely these new replacements would do things that consumers would notice.)

What do I think they CAN do, that consumers would be aware of? Make it easy to return recalled products and get some sort of voucher or replacement. Make it VERY clear on their web site what they are doing to replace recalled toys. Searching through the Mattel web site just now, I can't find anything that says what they are actually DOING to replace the toys. (Obviously toy replacement is secondary to the potential lead poisoning, but it's still a big concern to parents.)

As a parent/consumer, even though I do not own any of the recalled toys, I want to know how they're handling this. If they're making it hard for parents to get replacments (requiring proof or purchase or receipts, for example), that's going to affect my opinion of the company. If they're quickly sending out vouchers to those affected, that will positively affect my opinion. And not making it clear what they're doing? To me, that has the same effect as making it hard for parents to get replacements.

ADD -- most likely.

Nothing happened, so it will be easy to forget.

The pet food deaths are a little harder to forget, and a little less easy to crow over.

So what was the design flaw? Requiring too much lead in the paint? Not telling the Chinese manufacturers that lead is bad for children?

Mattel has now sent a very powerful message to its customers: Our special relationship with China is more important than the safety of your children.

Sounds like a 180 on Tylenol. Times change, I suppose.

So what was the design flaw? Requiring too much lead in the paint? Not telling the Chinese manufacturers that lead is bad for children?

Mattel has now sent a very powerful message to its customers: Our special relationship with China is more important than the safety of your children.

Sounds like a 180 on Tylenol. Times change, I suppose.

Well, if consumers are going to put up with this as long as Mattel gives 'em more toys—as Diane and Andrea quite credibly suggest—times have changed indeed.

"Mommy, I want a Little People house for my birthday!"
No honey, we don't buy toys from Mattel.

"Can I get a Barbie doll?"
No honey, we don't buy toys from Mattel.

"Mommy, can I get a Hot Wheels car if I'm good at the grocery store?"
No honey, we don't buy toys from Mattel.

"What about a Matchbox car instead?"
No honey, we don't buy toys from Mattel.

"Would Jack like an Uno game for Christmas?"
No Mom, we don't buy toys from Mattel.

"I'd like to buy Janie a nice doll for Chistmas. What about one of those high-quality American Girl babies?"
No mom, we don't buy toys from Mattel.

Continue on and on with Fisher Price baby gear, Disney and Sesame Street toys, Scrabble and other board games, etc.

People will continue to buy Mattel products. I myself ordered three online yesterday as birthday presents.

Andrea:

We should be angry at the very monopolistic relationship you describe, between corporations and schmucks like us.

To my mind, we should be outraged ON PRINCIPLE when we see a company abusing its power or sacrificing consumers (and in this case, even their own credibility as a U.S. company) to protect next quarter's profit.

Doesn't it enrage you that you feel you CAN'T casually boycott Mattel without ruining your relationship with your children?

David - yes, it does bother me that, as you say, I really can't casually boycott Mattel. Many of the toys I mentioned are high-quality toys (except for potential lead poisoning, I guess) that actually have at least some educational value. I've always felt good about buying Fisher Price toys, for instance. It also bothers me that people who DO wish to casually boycott may not realize when they're buying Mattel. Who would have ever guessed that Mattel owns Hot Wheels AND Matchbox? Not I. (And what's left? Crappy store-brand die-cast cars. And they are crappy, believe me.) Or Uno cards. Or American Girl dolls.

Honestly, if Mattel had handled this better, I wouldn't have been upset about the actual recall. As someone commented on your previous post, I don't think there has been any evidence of actual lead poisoning, and Mattel is (supposedly) taking steps to prevent such problems in the future, including (again, supposedly) testing every batch of paint that is to be used. For me, I guess it's not a huge deal that the toys are manufactured outside the U.S. Just about everything is these days, isn't it?

But for the CEO of Mattel to apologize to CHINA? Huh? An MSNBC.com article said "Debrowski acknowledged that the 'vast majority of those products that were recalled were the result of a design flaw in Mattel's design, not through a manufacturing flaw in China's manufacturers.'" Now, if I believed THAT (which I don't), I might be afraid to buy Mattel toys. Because that tells me that the way Mattel MEANT for the toys to be manufactured was a problem, not that the toys were a problem because they weren't manufactured the way Mattel intended.

So we've established that most of our children's toys are manufactured by self-interested creeps, almost NONE of whose statements about their own business practices we believe.

And that's our children's toys.

(Who's making the cigarettes and guns?)

In the fantasy world in which I have children, we make their toys together. And they listen to radio classics where they have to use their imaginations.

Yes, I am old. Very old.

A century old.

Not sure I'm joining the bandwagon on this one. In fact, I believe Mattel has done quite a few things right.

Here's what Mattel says about the apology:

http://www.shareholder.com/mattel/downloads/09-21-07%20China%20Meeting%20Media%20Statement.pdf

Hey! Not really. There are people who do these things, you know.

Robert, what do you think they did right? These press statements strike me as too dense, too late.

(Shameless plug alert):

David, I wrote about Mattel in my online column this week. Here's the link to the column (it's brief) so I don't have to repeat things.

http://www.richmond.com/business/output.aspx?Article_ID=4832154&Vertical_ID=127&tier=1&position=5

But, as your blog's title indicates, these things are rarely black and white.

I don't know, Robert--your piece focuses on a lot of mechanics but not on Mattel's content or style, which has been:

1. All over the map.

2. Nervous-looking.

3. Not particularly candid-seeming.

4. Never-ending. This is the crisis that won't quit—started early August, still developing in late September, as the CEO plans another trip to Beijing. That's not ALL Mattel's fault, but it seems to me they might have communicated more clearly and completely early on and avoided, or shortened the international crisis.

What is the right or wrong?

1) Mom teaches, "Never blame innocent people. " In this case, don't blame who were hired by Mattel to earn money using their honest labor--Chinese workers.

2) Mom teaches, "Men created equal. Don't always think yourself deserves better attention than the others." In this case, dangerous China was regarded as murder of our precious US kids.

Mattel own their Chinese factories, hire their own people, design their own toys, buy their own supply, and inspect their own quality before selling to US kids. Questions,

1)Who made a fortune using those Chinese resources?

2)Who shall be blamed when Mattel toys hurts or kills?

Sourcing from China is hurting some of our jobs, but is providing the luxury life we can't afford using our own labor.

Don't grudge on a couple of incorrect sourcing practices made by certain careless companies, and use this as a weapon to hurt the other people's feeling. That's unfair, and wrong.