Link This |
Email this |
Blog This |
Comments (6)
One Big Focus Group: The Chicago Toy and Game Fair
November 19, 2007
I stood at the entrance to the Chicago Toy and Game Fair (Chi-Tag) and let my eyes scan the room. I saw parents and I saw grandparents. I saw newspaper people and local television stations. Most importantly I saw children. Lots of children! I saw Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts and even little girl dancing groups.
All around the convention floor, tables were set up with board games and most of the time people were playing them. Kids were engaged with dolls, building towers out of construction sets, and in general enjoying themselves.
For those of you unfamiliar with it, Chi-Tag is the only toy and game fair in the United States designed for consumers. It is a chance for manufacturers to interact directly with adults and children, to create buzz and to generate vital consumer feedback on their products.
It was essentially one big focus group, and those who knew what they were doing gained valuable information at a small fraction of the cost of doing focus groups on their own. Buffalo Games and Fundex told me they were very happy with their results as they were likely to make changes in rules and packaging as a result of what they learned at the show.
There were, however, some smaller companies who were not happy. They had come to the show expecting to sell enough products directly to the public at the show to at least off-set their costs of exhibiting. That, to the most part did not happen. People did buy, one exhibitor I spoke with sold six cases of their product, but not to the degree that these exhibitors anticipated. if your purpose in being there was to make sales directly to the public you were going to be disappointed.
So, here are my recommendations for future Chi-Tags:
- If you are a manufacturer on a tight budget, this may not be the show for you. The smart way to work this show is to use it as a learning opportunity. This means that you need to pay attention to what consumers are telling you actively and passively. You have to listen to what they say, observe their body language, and take notes. Lots of notes! You cannot effectively do this if you are focused on selling.
- Chi-Tag needs to make certain that new exhibitors understand that making sales to consumers is the secondary, if not tertiary, purpose of the show. It is important that any anticipation of revenues coming at the show be tempered.
- Chi-Tag should set up a store on premises with the exhibitors products on display. This should be the only place that sales take place. This will free exhibitors to better interact with and learn from attendees.
- Chi-Tag needs to have seminars for exhibitors on line and / or at the fair to teach them how to effectively use the show to gather data and create buzz.
- Chi-Tag should also have a whole day prior to the show just for inventors and start up manufacturers. There was a inventor’s seminar in the morning on the Friday before the show and I counted 140 people in attendance. This is obviously a real opportunity for the toy industry to create more sources of new products and for inventors to get educated about designing for the toy industry.
- The toy industry, as individual companies and as an organization needs to get behind this show. It is potentially a highly valuable show for the industry but it needs far more support from the TIA and its members. Everyone will benefit.
- Finally, I recommend that manufacturers formalize the focus group aspect by actually conducting controlled focus groups on site. I believe that many parents and their children would be happy to participate in focus groups for the cost of a game or a toy.
One final note: Where were Mattel, RC2 and Megabrands? Here was a chance to actually meet the consuming public without the media getting in the way. It was a missed opportunity for these companies to gain credibility by talking to parents and grandparents about steps being taken to make their toys safer. More importantly, it was a chance to look a consumer in the eye and say “I’m sorry.”
Posted by Richard Gottlieb on November 19, 2007 | Comments (6)