Viewpoint - John Baulch

John is publisher of Toy World magazine

The Great Toy Fair debate

The summer always seems to bring out a spate of controversial LinkedIn posts – it’s almost as if some people are bored and just fancy making a little mischief. They’ve have been out in force recently – I’ve just sat back with my metaphorical popcorn and watched as the debate gets livelier (and blunter) with each post.

Across the summer, many of the LinkedIn mischief-makers have been back to one of their favourite topics – the timing of global trade fairs. I tend to be more of an observer than an active participant when it comes to the debate around international events. But I do try to see all sides, rather than having a specific personal agenda to push. So, while I can certainly see that some of the points being made have merit, I also see why other people might have a different perspective.

I have been thinking a bit about why the perspectives differ so greatly and have reached the fairly obvious conclusion that it is because individual suppliers and retailers often have very different needs and approaches. As an example, I read a comment from someone (who I respect greatly) who claimed that Nuremberg is too late because “all the UK retailers have made their decisions” by then. That surprised me, but on reflection, I guess it comes down to how you interpret the phrase “made their decisions.” Has every UK retailer officially confirmed selections in writing to suppliers by that stage? Do they physically have written orders? From what I have heard anecdotally for the past few years, that would seem unlikely (although do feel free to prove me wrong by showing me the order confirmations for autumn winter selections dated January).

That would therefore infer that those suppliers may have been given verbal indications about selections. Fair enough, but…if they don’t have anything in writing, could the buyer’s mind be changed, or their head turned by things they see in London or Nuremberg? Of course, the more established and successful the company, the less likely that is to happen – but nevertheless, as they say, “it ain’t over ‘til it’s over.”

Although, there is another way to look at it…and for this next section, I have Kids Know Best’s Rob Lough to thank. Talking to Rachael for this month’s Pre-Christmas marketing feature, he spoke about his “50-30-20” rule, which is a way of apportioning spend on proven tactics, calculated risks and experimentation. Now, what if we ascribe the same thinking to retail buyers? In their case, the 50% figure would represent carry forward lines and brands, the perennially successful performers; the 30% calculated risks are the new launches and emerging brands; and finally, the 20% are the ‘punts’.

Is it fair to say that by the time the January fairs start, the buyers may well have decided on their 50% safe bets, but that the 30% risks and 20% punts are still very much up for grabs? Would this explain why some people feel “it is all done and dusted” by the turn of the year, while many other companies and retailers still see opportunities at the January and February shows? Presumably it depends whether you work for a company with established partnerships and ongoing guaranteed selections, or a company looking to grow market share and grab new opportunities?

That theory would at least go some way to explaining why some people claim the early year shows are too late to influence selections, yet Walmart and Target visited Nuremberg last year in February - that is a lot of time, cost and effort right there if all their selections were firmly locked down. And if that were really the case, why has the London Toy Fair already sold out, with a waiting list (and bear in mind that space had already been extended for the 70th anniversary show in 2024)?

I have reached the conclusion that essentially everyone is right – if they are looking purely at their own business. But as each business is different, that explains the variance in belief about the timing of shows. Not exactly rocket science to be fair, but I only detail my thoughts for the benefit of those who post about their own experience, with the belief that it is universal.

My plan is to visit the New York Toy Fair later this month to assess the impact that the change of date has on the show – both positive and negative. I would rather do that than pontificate in advance and potentially be proved wrong. Indeed, Toy Association president Steve Pasierb’s interview a few pages before this article is rather illuminating, especially when he states that realistically, there are only two timings that would work for the show – September or February. Clearly there is a split in opinion and coming down on one side or the other – which the Toy Association has to do – will inevitably please some people and not others.

I have previously drawn the metaphor of how the toy market selection period operates like an athletics race, with a start and finish line that may be as much as six months apart. There is certainly a healthy conversation to be had as to whereabouts along the race each individual show wants to locate itself –some exhibitors obviously believe the best place to be is at the start of the race, while others may prefer to showcase their new lines closer to the finishing line. I also believe there is a debate to be had about the difference in timing between a preview and a fully-fledged Toy Fair, while it's also undeniable that different retailers have different timescales – and that clearly has a knock-on effect on the thinking of the suppliers which are close to those particular retailers (as we have seen with the large US toy companies which have the majority of their business with Walmart and Target).

The challenge may well be that a perfect one-size-fits-all approach isn’t achievable, so compromise is required. The $6m question is – what does that compromise look like? And who is prepared to be flexible and who has made their mind up that their way is the only way…?