BMC 3524 International PR (Mar2014 intake): Assignment 1

Word count: 704

Company: Mattel, China

For Barbie’s 50^th anniversary, Mattel launched its flagship Barbie concept store called “House of Barbie” in Shanghai in March 2009. It was Mattel’s attempt at developing the market of its most popular doll into China. The store had six floors, complete with a stairway decorated with 875 Barbie dolls and a Barbie bar that was designed by one of Shanghai’s premier restaurateurs. It also featured a cosmetics department, a fashion runway and a spa. The concept was that Barbie would be a lifestyle symbol and cultural icon for girls and young women (Wang, 2012).

BBC News Business (2011) offers information saying Mattel was hoping to counterweigh decreasing sales in traditional markets affected by the financial crisis at the time. Longid (2011) stated that Mattel did not cite a reason for its shutting down though it had reduced the outlet’s sales targets by 30 percent within the first eight months of the store’s opening in Shanghai. According to Pierson (2011), the closure was a surprising revelation for a store that seemed to embody the spirit of a city that was on an unstoppable material rise.

Mattel unveiled a doll especially for the opening – a Chinese character called Ling, who had black hair and was dressed in a traditional Chinese outfit. According to Wang (2013), local Chinese girls actually preferred the original blonde Barbie to the Chinese Barbie. ­This highlighted a debate of what beauty meant to them and whom they wanted to relate with. Wang (2012) also stated that numerous experts pointed out the fact that Barbie is a Western doll and was dubbed as “too sexy” for Chinese girls. Rauhala (2011) gave information that analysts concluded that Mattel had failed to localize their product to cater to local consumer preferences and habits enough to successfully expand their market.

Based on research done by Wang (2012), one of the mistakes that Mattel made was to open a standalone store before they established Barbie as a strong brand in China. In the U.S., Barbie is an iconic symbol of “femininity” for young girls. Over the years, the Barbie brand was a strong force as the doll assumed many different roles of women. However in China, Barbie is just another doll. She does not have any cultural significance for Chinese girls and young women. Because of that, Chinese consumers do not care about Barbie-branded products as much as Americans do. In an interview done by Wang (2012) with the general manager of Barbie Shanghai, Gar Crispell, it was pointed out that Mattel had wrongly planned the concept of the store. Had Barbie been a cultural icon and an established lifestyle brand in China, the House of Barbie would have done much better.

As stated by Rauhala (2011), Mattel hoped to attract the Chinese demographic by focusing on Barbie-branded merchandise. However, Mattel didn’t understand enough of what Chinese girls and young women want to achieve that. The Chinese concept of “femininity” is not the same as that of Americans’. In China, “feminine” is more related to sweet and soft instead of smart and strong. Although Mattel created a Chinese Barbie, the firm still failed to understand what Ling would represent in order to properly appeal to the Chinese market. According to Wang (2012), Mattel could have made Barbie an aspiring brand that empowered Chinese girls. If Barbie or Ling could become a role model for Chinese girls, Mattel would have had a better chance of succeeding in China.

Apart from that, Mattel wanted to bring a 50-year old brand to a new market that had just been introduced to Barbie. In the U.S., everyone knows Mattel and Barbie. In China, it is still new and relatively unknown (Longid, 2011). According to an interview done with Ben Cavender, a Shanghai-based analyst at China Market Research Group (Longid, 2011), Mattel should have set up their stores in malls instead of occupying a whole building as it would have increased awareness of the brand.

The magic of Barbie didn’t play out nearly as much in China as in her homeland. Chinese culture is significantly different from that of America. Without understanding this, it was no surprise that the House of Barbie closed its doors so soon after its opening in Shanghai.

Reference list:

1.    Longid, F 2011, ‘Barbie Packs Her Bags as Mattel Closes Shanghai Dream House’, Bloomberg News, 7 March, viewed 18 April 2014, .

2.    Pierson, D 2011, ‘Barbie’s flagship store closes in Shanghai’, Los Angeles Times Business, 7 March, viewed 18 April 2014, .

3.    N.a. 2011, ‘Mattel shuts flagship Shanghai Barbie concept store’, BBC News Business, 7 March, viewed 18 April 2014, .

4.    Rauhala, E 2011, ‘In Shanghai, Barbie’s Dream House Crumbles’, TIME, 8 March, viewed 18 April 2014, .

5.    Wang, H H 2013, ‘Can Mattel Make A Comeback In China?’, Forbes, 17 November, viewed 18 April 2014, .

6.    Wang, H H 2012, ‘Why Barbie Stumbled in China and How She Could Re-invent Herself’, Forbes, 24 October, viewed 18 April 2014, .

Financial PR (Mar2014 Intake): Assignment 1

Final Word Count: 504

This essay seeks to summarize and discuss the financial activities of a company and how it affects a company’s public relations.

Hulbert (2014) discusses the drop in shares of Twitter in the duration of the next four years that is based on a scale that tracks growth of sales. It indicated that there would be more struggles in store for Twitter’s financial future. The article also discusses Facebook’s finances in brief.  

According to the Hulbert (2014), Twitter’s shares have gone down 45% from recent highs while Facebook’s shares are down 19%. Grounded on a common evaluation formula that predicts where freshly public stocks will be trading five years after their initial public offerings, Mark Hulbert, the founder and editor of Hulbert Financial Digest, concluded that Twitter and Facebook may be in for more bad news. The sales-based formula that was used in the assessment was constructed on the basis of how fast a company’s income will develop over its first five years as a public listed corporation and what its price/sales ratio will be. It was stated in the article that spokespersons from both corporations failed to comment on the results of the estimates, which suggested that Twitter and Facebook shares would be much lower than where the messaging services currently trade.

The article referred to previous research on speed of sales growth of newly public companies carried out by Jay Ritter, a finance professor at the University of Florida and Martin Kenney and Donald Patton, both from University of California, Davis. It was from Ritter’s records that Twitter’s stock in November 2018 and Facebook’s stock in May 2017 were calculated. Based on the results of possible 45% and 50% drops in stocks for the companies respectively, Ritter stated that it would not be unmanageable for them to avoid that outcome. According to him, Twitter, along with social network giant Facebook would either have to increase their sales quicker than average or increase their price/sales ratio. While both situations are possible, they also pose as risky acts.

Hulbert (2014) suggests that investors may instead gamble on high-tech companies that have more practical evaluations, as the Internet sector is more likely to change unpredictably than the overall stock market in comparison.

Based on the article, it seems to be that investors are now more cautious or more rational toward what they are buying. In my opinion, both companies did not put enough emphasis on their sales strategies. While it is inherently important and smart that they invest in their future growth now, they are simultaneously sacrificing their earnings, which in the long run may not be beneficial to the finances of both corporations. From a public relations angle, as the spokespersons for Twitter and Facebook refused to comment on the findings, there is a risk of both companies’ reputations being scarred. From the article, it is evident that both corporations need to be able to prove two things to investors; that they can dramatically improve communications with advertisers and they can increase engagements with users.

Reference list:

1. Hulbert, M 2014, ‘Twitter shares four years from today – down 45%?’, Market Watch, 12 April, viewed 13 April 2014, http://www.marketwatch.com/story/twitter-shares-four-years-from-today-down-45-2014-04-12.