I had planned on ignoring the What Was the Most Important M.U.S.C.L.E. Event of 2011. I figured people were tired of those types of topics, especially since the 2016 post was pretty recent.
But out of desperation I clicked on the 2011 post. I was instantly drawn to the Joe Morrison interview. My memory of that interview makes it feel like it happened very recently. It was incredible to realize it happened in May of 2011. Wow.
I reread it. I forgot how delicately I had addressed some topics. Many people had spoken poorly of Joe and that he was kind of a jerk. My discussion with him made me understand how people could feel that way. I didn’t mind his style, but I can certainly imagine his style might cause some friction.
I also forgot how dismissive he was of M.U.S.C.L.E. as a flanker brand and Nintendo having any influence on toys. I can accept his resistance to the flanker label, but Nintendo was certainly a game changer in the industry.
I also reread the implications. I wish I would have stressed that I pushed him as far as I could without becoming an obnoxious pest. He was never going to give me a specific goal for M.U.S.C.L.E. being “successful.” Looking back, I believe the gross may have been good but the net was not nearly enough.
I believe that Colors were the zero-labor cost solution to keeping the brand “fresh.” Had they introduced new figures, as possibly originally planned, it would have had a labor and operational cost. I don’t believe Mattel believed the return would be worth the investment.
The Non-Poster figure explanation still confounds me. It does not make any sense. I should probably believe Joe, but it is so incredibly illogical.
Can anyone any offer an explanation that makes Joe’s statement make sense?