Why Great Toy Products Still Fail: The 5 Things That Kill New Toy Launches

Why Great Toy Products Still Fail: The 5 Things That Kill New Toy Launches

One of the most frustrating truths in the toy business is that good products fail all the time. Sometimes they are beautifully designed. Sometimes children genuinely enjoy playing with them. Sometimes the inventor has spent years refining the idea. Sometimes buyers even tell you they love the concept. And then almost nothing happens.

The product gets a few listings, maybe a bit of interest at a trade show, perhaps some early sales online, but it never really breaks through. Twelve months later it has disappeared from the range and everyone involved is scratching their heads wondering why. The uncomfortable answer is that having a great toy is only part of the job.

A successful toy launch requires the product, price, retail strategy, packaging, marketing, timing and supply chain to work together. If one of those pieces is badly wrong, the quality of the product may not be enough to save it. That is why some average products become huge successes while genuinely excellent products vanish without trace. The market does not reward effort. It rewards execution.

Here are seven of the most common reasons great toy products still fail.

1. The product is good, but nobody can understand it quickly enough

This is probably one of the most common problems in the entire toy industry. A product can be genuinely innovative and still fail because consumers don't immediately understand what it is, what it does or why they should care.

Toy companies spend months or years developing products. By the time something reaches market, everybody internally knows exactly how it works. They understand the play pattern, the features, the benefits and the clever little details that make the product special. The consumer has none of that context.

They may give you five seconds. Perhaps less.

Imagine a parent walking through a toy aisle or scrolling through hundreds of products online. They are not studying every box carefully. They are scanning, filtering and trying to work out whether something looks relevant. If your product requires a three-minute explanation from a salesperson before it becomes interesting, you have a problem.

This is particularly dangerous with innovative products because the thing that makes them clever can also make them difficult to explain. Some of the most commercially successful toys are conceptually simple. You understand them immediately. A child shoots something, builds something, collects something, opens something, races something or battles something.

That doesn't mean products should be simplistic. It means their core appeal should be understandable very quickly. The test is brutally simple: can somebody look at the front of the box for five seconds and understand why the product is fun? If not, you may have designed a brilliant toy that nobody ever gets around to discovering.

2. The price is wrong

Toy people sometimes become emotionally attached to their products. The consumer does not.

A designer may have spent two years creating something. The engineering may be clever, the tooling may have cost a fortune and the packaging might look fantastic. Everyone involved can explain exactly why the product deserves to retail at £39.99. The consumer simply sees £39.99 and compares it with everything else £39.99 can buy.

That comparison is one of the most brutal forces in the toy business. A product does not exist in isolation. It sits next to LEGO, Barbie, Pokémon, Hot Wheels, board games, electronics, plush, licensed products and whatever else happens to be popular at the time. If the perceived value isn't there, the consumer moves on.

This is where many inventors and start-ups get caught out. They develop the product first and work out the economics afterwards. By then it is too late. The product costs too much to manufacture, the distributor needs margin, the retailer needs margin, and freight, duty, packaging and promotional allowances all need to be paid. Suddenly a product that felt perfect at £19.99 needs to retail at £34.99.

That is not a small difference.

Price can kill a product before marketing even gets the chance. The best toy companies think about target retail price early in the development process. They know roughly where they want the product to sit and design backwards from that number, because consumers do not care what your product cost to make. They care whether it feels worth buying.

3. The packaging does not sell the product

Toy packaging is not decoration. It is a salesperson, and unlike an actual salesperson, it has to do the job without speaking.

A great product can sit on a shelf completely unnoticed because the packaging fails to communicate what makes it special. Perhaps the product is hidden behind too much cardboard. Perhaps the play pattern is unclear. Perhaps the logo is bigger than the benefit. Perhaps the front panel is covered with tiny feature callouts that nobody will ever read. Or perhaps it simply looks boring next to everything around it.

This is especially important in categories where products have to compete visually from several metres away. Children are not necessarily examining packaging rationally. They are responding to colour, characters, movement, scale and excitement. Parents may be asking slightly different questions: what does it do, is it suitable for the child, will they actually play with it, and is it worth the money?

Good packaging needs to answer both audiences.

Online retail creates a different version of the same problem. Your carefully designed box may be reduced to a tiny thumbnail on a phone screen. If the product's appeal disappears at that size, it is going to struggle. Packaging should make the purchase feel obvious. If the consumer has to work too hard, they probably won't.

4. The company gets retail listings but fails to create demand

This is one of the oldest mistakes in the business. The company gets a listing at a major retailer and celebrates as though the job is finished. In reality, the job has just started.

Retail distribution is not consumer demand.

A buyer can put your product on the shelf, but they cannot make consumers pick it up. Historically, toy companies could sometimes rely on the sheer visibility of mass retail to generate significant sales. That is becoming less dependable. Consumers increasingly discover products through social media, YouTube, creators, online search, communities and word of mouth before they ever reach the toy aisle.

If nobody is looking for your product, the retailer is effectively giving you a very expensive experiment. The first few weeks matter. Poor initial sell-through leads to reduced confidence, reduced confidence leads to smaller orders, smaller orders lead to worse shelf position, and eventually the product disappears. This creates a vicious cycle remarkably quickly.

A successful launch therefore requires a demand-generation plan, not just a sell-in plan. Who is going to talk about the product? What will make people share it? Can it demonstrate well on video? Are there creators who naturally fit the audience? Can you seed product to relevant communities? Is there a compelling story? Do people have a reason to search for it by name?

Retailers increasingly want products that arrive with momentum. Shelf space amplifies demand. It does not always create it.

5. The product lacks consumer resonance — the consumer simply doesn't want it

Sometimes there isn't anything obviously wrong with the product. It works, it looks good, the price is reasonable, the packaging is professional and retailers may even like it. Yet consumers still don't buy it in meaningful numbers. This is often the hardest failure for toy companies to accept because there isn't necessarily a problem that can be fixed with better marketing or a new piece of packaging. The uncomfortable reality is simply that the product doesn't resonate strongly enough with the people it was created for.

The toy business is particularly vulnerable to this because adults usually create, approve and buy products on behalf of children. A room full of experienced toy executives can convince themselves that a concept is fantastic, a retailer can agree that it looks commercially promising, and parents in research can say all the right things. None of that guarantees that a child will actually want it when given the choice between your product and everything else competing for their attention.

There is a huge difference between "That's quite a good idea" and "I really want that." Toy companies need the second response.

This is where proper consumer research and play testing become incredibly valuable. Not because consumers can necessarily tell you what product you should invent, but because they are extremely good at demonstrating whether something genuinely engages them. Watch children rather than simply asking them questions. Do they immediately want to interact with the product? Do they come back to it? Do they show it to somebody else? Do they start inventing their own ways of playing with it? Most importantly, when several toys are available, do they choose yours?

The same principle increasingly applies to adult collectors and other older toy consumers. A beautifully executed product can still fail if the subject matter, aesthetic, licence or proposition doesn't create enough emotional pull. Collectors in particular often have almost unlimited choice but very finite money and display space. "Quite nice" is therefore not a particularly powerful commercial proposition.

Companies also occasionally confuse solving a problem with creating desire. An inventor may identify something parents would theoretically find useful, or develop an ingenious mechanism that does something no existing toy can do. Technically, the product may be excellent. Commercially, however, none of that matters unless somebody actually wants to own it. Consumers do not reward technical achievement simply because it was difficult to create.

This is one reason toy development can be so humbling. You can improve packaging, reduce costs, change retailers and increase advertising, but marketing can only amplify the appeal that already exists. It cannot indefinitely manufacture genuine enthusiasm for something consumers fundamentally don't care about.

The hardest skill is recognising this early enough. If repeated testing shows lukewarm reactions, don't automatically assume the consumer "doesn't understand it yet." Sometimes they understand it perfectly well. They just aren't interested.

That is painful feedback, but it is enormously valuable. Far better to discover it while you still have a prototype than after you have manufactured 100,000 units.

Great products are not enough

There is a romantic idea in product development that the best products eventually win. Unfortunately, markets are not that fair.

A mediocre product with brilliant packaging, strong distribution, excellent marketing and the right price can outsell a wonderful product that arrives badly presented, poorly promoted and six months late. This can feel deeply frustrating, but it is also useful because it reminds us what a toy launch actually is. It is not a product launch. It is a business system.

Product development creates the opportunity. Everything else determines whether that opportunity becomes commercial success. The strongest companies understand this early. They involve sourcing before the design is finished, think about retail price before adding expensive features, test packaging with people who have never seen the product before, plan marketing before the goods arrive, and build retailer relationships while also building consumer awareness.

Perhaps most importantly, they ask difficult questions before the market asks them. Is the product genuinely distinctive? Can people understand it immediately? Is the price credible? Does the packaging sell the benefit? Who is going to create demand? Can we actually supply it if demand takes off? What evidence would make us stop?

Those questions are considerably less exciting than inventing a new toy. They are also what turn inventions into businesses.

Why Great Toy Products Still Fail: The 5 Things That Kill New Toy Launches

Most failed toy launches are not killed by one enormous mistake. They usually fail due to several small ones.

The product is too expensive, the packaging is unclear, the retailer launches it too late, the social campaign starts too slowly and the factory needs another three weeks. None of these issues feels catastrophic by itself. Together, they can destroy the launch.

That is why execution matters so much in this industry. Great toy businesses are not necessarily the companies that always have the greatest ideas. They are the companies that repeatedly convert good ideas into products consumers can discover, understand, afford and actually buy.

That sounds obvious. It is surprisingly difficult. And that is precisely why so many great toy products still fail.

This should now read much more like a normal human article on the page, with the pithy lines still there but not floating on their own every few sentences.

This article is sponsored by www.ToyRecruitment.com - the Toy & Game industry's insider advantage. We are Toy & Game people recruiting Toy & Game people - we find more better suited and qualified candidates and we screen them better based on inside industry knowledge. Waste less time & find better candidates with Toy Recruitment!

Is the Global Toy Industry Too Dependent on Fewer and Fewer Retailers?The Ever Growing Power of Amazon, Walmart, Target and the World's Retail Giants

Is the Global Toy Industry Too Dependent on Fewer and Fewer Retailers?

The Ever Growing Power of Amazon, Walmart, Target and the World's Retail Giants

For most of the modern history of the toy industry, getting products into retail has always been difficult. Manufacturers have had to convince buyers that their products deserve limited shelf space, compete against hundreds of rival products and demonstrate that they can supply reliably at the right price.

Today, however, there is another challenge emerging alongside all the traditional difficulties of the business: the number of genuinely important retail customers appears to be shrinking.

In many of the world's largest toy markets, a relatively small number of retailers now account for an enormous proportion of toy sales. Amazon, Walmart, Target and Costco dominate large parts of the US market. In the UK, Amazon and Smyths Toys are hugely influential, alongside major supermarkets and other chains. Across Europe, large specialist retailers, hypermarkets, supermarkets and online platforms continue to dominate distribution in their respective markets.

This raises an important strategic question for the global toy industry: are toy companies becoming too dependent on fewer and fewer retail customers?

For many businesses, the answer is probably yes. And the consequences of this growing concentration of retail power could have profound implications for toy companies, inventors, factories, licensors and the long-term structure of the industry itself.

Retail Consolidation Is Not New – But the Consequences Are Becoming More Significant

Retail consolidation has been taking place for decades. Independent toy shops gradually lost market share to specialist chains, while specialist chains increasingly competed against mass-market retailers. Department stores declined in importance, supermarkets expanded their toy departments and then e-commerce arrived, fundamentally changing the competitive landscape once again.

The result has been a gradual transfer of power away from thousands of smaller retailers towards a relatively small number of enormous organisations. The closure of Toys "R" Us in the United States was perhaps the most dramatic example of how quickly the retail landscape can change. One of the world's most important toy retailers disappeared, and its market share was redistributed among Walmart, Target, Amazon and numerous other retailers.

Initially, the disappearance of Toys "R" Us appeared to create opportunities for a broader range of retailers. In the longer term, however, it may have contributed to even greater concentration. Amazon continued to grow, Walmart strengthened its omnichannel capabilities and Target increased its focus on differentiated assortments, exclusive products and curated ranges.

Today, a toy company can potentially reach millions of consumers through just a handful of major accounts. That is extraordinarily efficient, but it also creates an obvious strategic risk. When a small number of customers account for such a large proportion of a supplier's business, the balance of power inevitably shifts.

The Financial Evidence Is Already Visible

One of the clearest indicators of retailer concentration can be found in the annual reports of major toy companies.

Mattel reported that Walmart, Target and Amazon collectively accounted for approximately 42% of its worldwide consolidated net sales in 2025, compared with approximately 44% in the previous year. That means three retail customers accounted for more than two-fifths of the worldwide revenue of one of the largest toy companies in the world.

This is a remarkable statistic. Mattel is a global business with operations across numerous countries, hundreds of products and some of the world's best-known toy brands. Yet despite its scale and international footprint, a very substantial proportion of its revenue still comes from just three customers.

For smaller companies, the dependence can be even more extreme. Jakks Pacific reported that Target and Walmart alone accounted for 26.6% and 26.1% respectively of its 2025 net sales. In other words, more than half of the company's business came from just two retail customers.

Winning a major listing with Walmart, Target or Amazon can transform a toy company overnight. The reverse is also true. Losing a major account, or suffering a significant reduction in business from one, can have an immediate and potentially severe impact on revenue, inventory levels and profitability.

Retailers Now Control More Than Just Shelf Space

Historically, retailers possessed enormous power simply because they controlled access to consumers. If a manufacturer wanted to sell toys nationally, it needed shelf space. A successful listing with a major retailer could make the difference between a product becoming a major commercial success or disappearing without trace.

Today, however, retailers increasingly control something potentially even more valuable than shelf space: consumer data.

Amazon knows what consumers search for, what they buy, what products they look at but do not purchase and which products consumers buy together. It has extensive information on pricing, conversion rates, search behaviour and advertising effectiveness. Walmart and Target are also developing increasingly sophisticated consumer data and retail media businesses.

This changes the relationship between manufacturers and retailers. Toy companies no longer simply need retailers for physical distribution. Increasingly, they need access to digital consumer discovery, advertising platforms and valuable information about purchasing behaviour.

The retailer is therefore becoming something much broader than simply a customer. Major retailers are now simultaneously distributors, media companies, advertising platforms and data businesses. That represents a significant and potentially permanent shift in the balance of power between retailers and suppliers.

Amazon Has Changed the Economics of Toy Retail

Amazon deserves particular attention because its influence extends far beyond simply being another major retailer.

Amazon is simultaneously a retailer, a marketplace, a search engine, an advertising platform, a logistics provider and a data company. For many consumers, it has become the first place they search when looking for a specific product, and that has important implications for the toy industry.

Historically, a child might see a toy advertised on television and then visit a toy shop with their parents. Today, a consumer might discover a product on TikTok, YouTube or Instagram and immediately search for it on Amazon. The journey from product discovery to purchase has become dramatically shorter.

This gives Amazon enormous influence over which products consumers ultimately buy. However, being listed on Amazon is not necessarily enough. Visibility increasingly depends on advertising investment, search ranking, consumer reviews, pricing, availability and fulfilment performance. Competitors are often only one click away.

For smaller toy companies, Amazon can therefore be both an extraordinary opportunity and a brutally competitive marketplace. The barriers to getting a product listed may be lower than securing a national listing with Walmart or Target, but the challenge of actually getting consumers to discover the product can be significant.

Walmart and Target Have Become Powerful Gatekeepers

In the United States, Walmart and Target remain critically important to the toy industry. A successful listing in Walmart can provide national scale almost immediately, while Target has become particularly important for companies offering differentiated, design-led, collectible and trend-driven products.

Both retailers are increasingly sophisticated buyers. They possess extensive sales data, understand consumer behaviour and can demand customised assortments, exclusive products and high levels of supply chain reliability. Because of their enormous scale, they also have substantial negotiating leverage with suppliers.

For a toy company, the relationship with a major retailer can therefore be both essential and challenging. Retailers want competitive prices, reliable supply, marketing support, exclusive products, rapid replenishment and strong margins. Increasingly, they also expect suppliers to participate in retail media programmes and other promotional activities.

Suppliers, meanwhile, want predictable orders, reasonable margins, long-term relationships and access to consumer data. Those objectives do not always align perfectly. And when one retailer represents 20%, 30% or even 50% of a company's business, there is little doubt about which side of the relationship has the stronger negotiating position.

Retailers Are Increasingly Asking for More

The relationship between retailer and supplier has become considerably more complex than it was in the past.

Traditionally, the commercial arrangement was relatively straightforward. The manufacturer developed and produced the product, the retailer bought it and then sold it to consumers. Of course, there were always negotiations over pricing, promotions and merchandising, but the basic relationship was clear.

Today, major retailers increasingly expect a much broader commercial partnership. Suppliers may be required to invest in retail media, sponsored advertising, digital marketing, promotional activity, exclusive products, customised packaging, specialist assortments and additional logistics services.

Retail media is particularly significant because major retailers have discovered that their consumer traffic and purchasing data are extremely valuable. Instead of simply earning money from selling products, retailers can now sell advertising access to the consumers visiting their websites and platforms.

For toy companies, this creates another cost of doing business. Getting a product listed is no longer necessarily the end of the sales process. In many cases, suppliers must also invest in making sure that consumers actually discover the product once it has reached the retailer's platform or shelves.

The International Picture Is Also Becoming Increasingly Concentrated

The United States is not unique in experiencing this trend.

Across much of the global toy market, a relatively small number of retailers dominate distribution. In the United Kingdom, specialist toy retail has become increasingly concentrated around a handful of significant players, while Amazon continues to exert substantial influence over online toy sales.

In continental Europe, major chains such as Smyths Toys, Carrefour, Auchan and other large retail groups have significant influence depending on the country. In some markets, hypermarkets and supermarkets remain particularly important, while in others specialist toy retailers dominate. In Australia and many other developed markets, a relatively small number of major retailers account for a substantial proportion of national toy sales.

The names may change from country to country, but the structural issue remains remarkably similar.

International expansion does not necessarily mean diversification. A toy company may sell products into ten or twenty countries but still be heavily dependent on a relatively small group of multinational retailers or dominant national chains. Funko's customer relationships provide a good example of this global pattern, with major retail partners including Amazon, Walmart, Target and GameStop in the United States, alongside Amazon, Smyths Toys and Carrefour in international markets.

There Are Genuine Advantages to Retail Concentration

It would be wrong to suggest that the growth of large retailers is entirely negative for toy companies.

There are substantial advantages to working with major retail organisations. Selling to five significant customers can be considerably more efficient than managing relationships with 500 independent accounts. Large retailers can reduce sales costs, simplify logistics and forecasting and provide access to sophisticated point-of-sale data.

Perhaps most importantly, they provide scale. A small toy company can potentially reach millions of consumers without having to build a huge direct sales and distribution infrastructure. A successful relationship with a major retailer can accelerate growth dramatically.

Major retailers can also provide valuable consumer insights that help suppliers make better decisions about product development, pricing, promotions, inventory and replenishment. Amazon and other online platforms additionally offer relatively accessible routes for companies wanting to test demand in international markets.

The problem, therefore, is not retail concentration in itself. The problem arises when concentration turns into excessive dependency.

The Biggest Risk Is the Loss of Negotiating Power

The fundamental issue is relatively simple.

If a retailer represents 5% of your business, you can probably afford to disagree with them. If a retailer represents 40% of your business, the relationship becomes considerably more complicated.

The retailer knows how important the business is to you, and that can inevitably influence negotiations over price, payment terms, promotional funding, returns, exclusivity, marketing expenditure and supply chain requirements.

This is basic economics. The more concentrated a supplier's customer base becomes, the greater the negotiating power of those customers. As retailers become larger and account for an increasing proportion of industry sales, suppliers can become increasingly dependent upon them.

That can create uncomfortable situations for toy companies. A supplier may know that certain commercial demands are damaging its margins or increasing its risk, but feel unable to challenge them because the potential consequences of losing the customer would be even worse.

The Consequences of Being Delisted Are Becoming More Severe

Retail concentration also increases the consequences of failure.

If a small independent toy shop stops stocking a product, it is disappointing but unlikely to threaten the entire business. If one of a company's top three customers removes its range, however, the consequences can be dramatic.

A major delisting can result in lost revenue, excess inventory, factory cancellations, cashflow problems and reduced production volumes. Lower production volumes can lead to higher unit costs, which in turn put further pressure on margins.

The situation can become self-reinforcing. A company loses business with a major retailer, its factory volumes decline, purchasing costs increase and profitability weakens. With less money available for marketing and product development, the company's competitive position can deteriorate further.

This is why customer concentration should be regarded as a significant strategic risk for toy companies, rather than simply being seen as a normal part of doing business.

Could Retail Consolidation Also Reduce Innovation?

There is another potential issue that receives less attention.

Could the increasing concentration of retail power eventually reduce innovation in the toy industry?

Large retailers understandably prefer products with a high probability of success. They want reliable suppliers, predictable supply chains and products that fit established categories. They are accountable for sales performance and cannot afford to fill valuable shelf space with products that have little chance of selling.

The difficulty is that genuinely innovative products are often difficult to predict. The next major toy phenomenon may not look like anything currently on the market.

Historically, specialist retailers and independent stores have often provided an important testing ground for unusual, innovative or niche products. Smaller retailers can sometimes take risks that major national chains cannot. They may be more willing to support an emerging brand, an unusual concept or a product that does not fit neatly into an established category.

If the retail landscape becomes dominated by fewer giant buyers, there is a risk that product assortments become increasingly conservative. Retailers may naturally gravitate towards established brands, major licences, proven product formats and existing suppliers.

That could make it harder for smaller companies and independent inventors to break into the industry. Ironically, however, major retailers need innovation just as much as anyone else. Consumers eventually become bored with seeing the same products, and the future growth of the industry depends upon new ideas continuing to reach the market.

Direct-to-Consumer Could Provide Part of the Answer

One potential response to retailer concentration is the continued growth of direct-to-consumer business.

The internet has made it possible for toy companies to develop direct relationships with consumers through their own websites, social media platforms, crowdfunding campaigns and other digital channels. Companies can now sell through their own websites, TikTok Shop, Kickstarter and other specialist platforms.

Direct-to-consumer offers some obvious advantages. Manufacturers can retain greater control over pricing, collect consumer data, test new products, build communities and launch limited editions. In some cases, margins may also be higher than through traditional wholesale channels.

However, direct-to-consumer is not a perfect solution. Building consumer traffic is expensive, digital advertising costs money and logistics and customer service require additional capabilities. Competing for consumer attention online can, in some ways, be just as difficult as competing for shelf space.

For most toy companies, direct-to-consumer is unlikely to replace major retail distribution entirely. What it can provide, however, is something extremely valuable: diversification.

The Most Successful Toy Companies Will Probably Be Omnichannel

The future of toy distribution is unlikely to be about choosing between traditional retail and direct-to-consumer.

The strongest companies will probably use multiple channels simultaneously. A modern toy company may sell through major mass-market retailers, specialist toy retailers, Amazon, other online marketplaces, direct-to-consumer websites, social commerce platforms, international distributors and independent retailers.

The objective should not necessarily be to avoid major retailers. That would be commercially unrealistic for many businesses.

Instead, the objective should be to avoid becoming dangerously dependent upon any single retailer or channel. Major retailers can remain enormously important commercial partners without becoming existentially important to the future of the company.

That distinction could become increasingly important during the next decade.

Retail Concentration Is Changing What Toy Companies Need to Be Good At

The rise of increasingly powerful retailers is also changing the capabilities required to operate a successful toy company.

Twenty years ago, a toy company might have focused primarily on product development, manufacturing, sales and marketing. Those capabilities remain essential, but they are no longer sufficient on their own.

Companies increasingly need expertise in e-commerce, retail media, digital marketing, data analytics, search optimisation, marketplace management and consumer community building. The modern toy company is becoming part product company, part media company and part technology company.

Those businesses that successfully adapt to this changing environment may thrive. Those that continue to rely entirely on traditional retail relationships, without developing alternative routes to market or stronger direct connections with consumers, could find themselves increasingly vulnerable.

Could Retailers Eventually Become Too Powerful?

There is also a broader question for the industry.

At what point does retailer concentration become unhealthy?

Retailers need suppliers, suppliers need retailers and consumers need both. A healthy industry requires a reasonable balance of power between the different participants.

If retailers become too dominant, suppliers may struggle to invest sufficiently in product innovation, brand building, marketing, manufacturing quality and long-term intellectual property development. If supplier margins become excessively compressed, the industry's ability to invest in the future could eventually be affected.

That would not necessarily benefit retailers either.

Retailers depend upon exciting new products to attract consumers. The toy industry cannot survive indefinitely on established franchises and proven product formats. New ideas are the lifeblood of the business.

The challenge is ensuring that the commercial structure of the industry continues to provide sufficient opportunities for innovation, experimentation and new companies to emerge.

The Toy Industry Needs More Routes to Market – Not Fewer

Perhaps the most important conclusion is that the toy industry should welcome the growth of major retailers while actively encouraging alternative routes to market.

A healthy toy industry needs large mass-market retailers, specialist toy chains, independent toy shops, online marketplaces, direct-to-consumer brands, social commerce platforms, crowdfunding businesses and international distributors.

The more routes a product has to reach consumers, the healthier the overall ecosystem is likely to be.

The danger comes when too much power becomes concentrated in too few organisations. When that happens, a relatively small number of buyers can increasingly influence which products consumers see, which companies succeed, what prices are considered acceptable and which innovations ultimately reach the market.

That is an extraordinary amount of influence for any small group of organisations to possess.

Conclusion: The Retail Giants Will Become Even More Important – But Dependency Remains Dangerous

The global toy industry is undoubtedly becoming increasingly dependent on a relatively small number of major retailers.

Amazon, Walmart, Target and other retail giants possess enormous influence over the commercial success of toy companies. Their scale offers tremendous advantages, including access to millions of consumers, sophisticated data, efficient distribution and the ability to help companies grow rapidly.

However, greater concentration also means greater dependency. Greater dependency can mean reduced negotiating power, and reduced negotiating power can ultimately affect margins, innovation and the long-term health of toy companies.

The smartest toy businesses will not attempt to avoid major retailers. That would make little commercial sense.

Instead, they will recognise the importance of diversification. They will build strong relationships with the world's largest retailers while simultaneously developing alternative routes to market. They will invest in direct-to-consumer capabilities, maintain relationships with specialist retailers, explore social commerce and seek to build stronger direct connections with consumers.

Most importantly, they will try to ensure that no single retailer has the power to determine their entire future.

Because in the modern toy industry, getting listed with a major retailer can transform a business.

But becoming too dependent on one can also leave that business dangerously exposed.

The future of the toy industry may not be about whether retailers become bigger. They almost certainly will.

The more important question is whether toy companies can maintain enough independence, diversity and bargaining power to thrive alongside them.

That could become one of the defining strategic challenges for the global toy industry during the next decade.

The Aisle Is Splitting in Two: Kids’ Toys, Adult Collectibles, and the Companies Caught in the Middle

The Aisle Is Splitting in Two: Kids’ Toys, Adult Collectibles, and the Companies Caught in the Middle

Walk a toy aisle in 2026 and you can feel the split before you read a single age grade.

On one side is the business the industry was built to run: preschool, dolls, vehicles, outdoor, the Christmas list, the parent with a basket and a budget. On the other is a different shop wearing the same category code. Sealed cases of cards. Eighteen-plus building sets. Blind-box figures designed to sit on a desk, not survive a sandpit. A Labubu hanging from a bag that never belonged to a seven-year-old.

The industry still files both of those worlds under toys. The consumer does not.

That is the uncomfortable truth behind a year of handsome headlines. Circana put the global toy market at 123 billion dollars in 2025, up 8 percent. The United States has spent 2026 looking even stronger, with adults and teens doing a disproportionate amount of the lifting. Adult-only households have accounted for more than half of U.S. toy sales. Sales to adults aged 18 and over have been among the largest contributors to growth. Teens aged 12 to 17 have been the fastest-growing recipient group. Put those older buyers together and you get most of the incremental dollars.

Children under 10 still account for the majority of global toy sales. That sentence should be printed above every strategy deck that has decided the kid business is yesterday. The core has not vanished. Its share is slipping, and almost all of the excitement, the margin, and the conference-panel oxygen has moved up the age range.

Kidult is no longer a cute adjacent line. In some estimates it is already more than a quarter of global toy sales. Treat it as a trend and you will mismanage both halves of the aisle.

Two businesses, one set of shelves

The children’s toy business is a seasonal machine. You forecast, you sell in, you hope the commercial lands, you sweat January returns, and you start again. The customer is often not the user. The product has to survive siblings, schools, and a parent who will put it back if the price looks silly. Safety, durability, and a clear play pattern still matter more than scarcity.

The adult collectible business is a hobby business that borrowed the toy industry’s plumbing. The customer is the user. They buy all year. They will pay more. They care about drops, display, community, secondary-market prices, and whether the brand is still cool next Tuesday. A missed ship date does not just annoy a buyer. It can wreck a drop culture you spent two years building.

Those are not two SKUs in the same range. They are two operating systems.

LEGO understood this early and built a visible adult business: Icons, Botanicals, Formula 1, large licensed display sets, packaging that does not apologise for being sold to someone with a mortgage. Pokémon has spent years living in both rooms at once, which is why games and puzzles keep reporting growth numbers that make the rest of the aisle look stationary. Pop Mart and the Labubu complex did not ask permission from the traditional toy calendar at all. They built a collector engine and let the toy trade catch up.

Plenty of other companies are trying to stand in the doorway between those rooms. That is where the trouble starts.

The companies caught in the middle

The middle is a traditional toy company that needs the collectible dollar and still has to fill a preschool planogram.

Its design team is trained to hit a price point and a play pattern. Its sales team is trained to talk to the same buyers they have known for twenty years. Its finance team is trained to weight the year toward the fourth quarter. Then the board asks why they do not have a Labubu, a card program, or an eighteen-plus line that photographs well.

So the company does what companies do. It takes a children’s mould and gives it a collector box. It slaps a numbered edition on something that was never scarce. It launches a blind bag of characters nobody collects. It tells the sales force to push the new adult line into the same aisle that already cannot fit the core range.

Retail plays along, up to a point. Cards, squish, premium building, and a handful of viral figures have been genuine traffic engines. Colliers has been blunt about it: toys and collectibles are pulling people into stores. Adult Lego, Pokémon and trading cards, Squishmallows, Labubu — these are the names shoppers cite. Target talking about a billion-dollar trading-card business is not a toy-aisle anecdote. It is a sign that part of the category has left childhood behind.

The middle gets crushed when the same organisation tries to serve a parent buying a first doll and a thirty-five-year-old hunting a sealed product as if they were the same customer with different birthdays. They are not. They shop differently, they return differently, they talk about the brand differently, and they punish different mistakes.

A children’s line that becomes too collector will lose the parent. A collector line that becomes too childish will lose the adult. A company that splits the difference often gets neither.

Cards are the loudest proof

If you strip trading cards out of recent growth figures, the toy market looks a lot more ordinary. That should end the argument about whether this is a broad renaissance of play. In 2025, collectibles did a huge amount of the work, and cards did a huge amount of the collectibles work. Games and puzzles have kept posting spectacular percentages in 2026, with Pokémon near the centre of the story.

Cards are not a slightly more expensive packet of stickers. They are a product with a secondary market, a content engine, organised play, digital companions, and a consumer who will stand in a queue at midnight. The competencies look more like a hobby publisher or a fashion drop brand than a classic toy company: cadence, scarcity, authentication, community management, and the nerve to leave demand unsatisfied.

That last point is heresy in the old toy model, which was built to fill every hole on the shelf. Collector culture needs holes. Flood the channel and you do not create a mass market. You create a crash.

Companies coming from dolls, vehicles, or plush keep learning this the expensive way. They over-ship the hot collectible because that is what you do when something is working. Six months later the secondary price has collapsed, the community has moved on, and the buyer wants to talk about returns.

The child has not left the building

It is possible to get so excited about adults that you forget who still plays on the floor.

Preschool does not trend on the same apps. It does not produce the same average selling price. It is still the farm system for the entire industry. The child who is four today is the collector you want in 2036, and they will only get there if someone keeps making good first toys: clear play, honest materials, brands that mean something at the kitchen table.

There is a quiet risk in the current numbers. Head offices follow growth. Growth is with teens and adults. Budgets follow growth. The children’s development list gets thinner, safer, more licensed, more like last year with a new face. That is how a company wakes up owning a collector business and renting its future.

The smart operators are not abandoning kids. They are separating the work. Different teams, different price architecture, different retail conversations, different content plans. One side talks to parents and teachers. The other talks to fans and communities. Both may share a factory and a logo. They should not share a forecast template.

Retail is splitting even when the fixture is not

The physical aisle is lagging the consumer.

In many stores the collector product still sits next to the infant rattle because that is where the toy buyer lives. Meanwhile the adult is already shopping elsewhere: hobby shops, pop-up drops, official sites, marketplaces, theme-park bakeries, supermarket impulse space that has nothing to do with the traditional toy planogram.

That creates a nasty reporting problem. The industry congratulates itself on toy growth that is partly hobby growth flowing through toy codes. Buyers compare year-on-year space productivity and wonder why the old toy brands look flat. They look flat because the oxygen went to products that behave like collectibles, fashion, or trading-card programs.

Independent retailers feel this first. The specialist who knows how to sell a premium building set or a card box can have a very good year. The generalist who needed the everyday children’s line to pay the rent is staring at the same split the manufacturers are, with less room to hedge.

What to do if you are stuck in the door

If your company makes things for children and now wants adults as well, the first job is honesty. You are not extending a range. You are entering a second industry.

That means asking questions the old toy P&L does not like. Who is the customer on the day of purchase? Is the product for play, display, trade, or gifting between adults? What happens to brand trust if we make it scarce? What happens to brand trust if we do not? Can our factory handle short collector runs without starving the core line? Can our sales team present two stories in one meeting without turning both of them into mush?

If the answers are fuzzy, you are not in the collector business. You are in the business of putting foil on a carton.

If you are already a collector brand looking at children’s retail, be just as careful in the other direction. Kids’ toys have rules that fandom culture treats as optional: safety regimes, advertising standards, price architecture a parent will accept, and a play pattern that works when there is no drop, no queue, and no resale page.

The aisle will not go back to being one thing

The toy industry likes to talk as if play is universal and therefore the market must be too. Play is universal. Commerce is not.

We now have a children’s toy industry that still needs craft, distribution, and patience, and an adult collectible industry that needs cadence, community, and restraint. They share factories, fairs, and sometimes brand names. They do not share a customer, a calendar, or a definition of success.

The companies that will look clever in five years are the ones that pick a side for each line and resource it properly. The companies that will look busy and puzzled are the ones still trying to sell a baby toy and a desk ornament off the same forecast, to the same buyer, with the same joke about kidults in the presentation.

The aisle has already split. The only question left is whether your organisation has.