5. Founded in 1923, Hasbro is one of the world’s
biggest toy producers. It is widely admired for its
product branding; examples include G.I. Joe, Nerf,
Transformers, and My Little Pony, and that
diversification enabled Hasbro to enjoy over $4.07
billion in revenue and $375 million in net income in
2009. Hasbro is particularly well known for its
ability to expand its brands beyond physical toys;
Transformers has gone from a simple toy line to a
movie franchise with billions in box office revenue.
There are also video game and television animation
subsidiaries in the Hasbro family of products.
Hasbro competes in the highly mature toy market
and currently stands as the third largest
manufacturer, behind Mattel and LEGO. That
position actually represents a drop, as Hasbro was
previously second. In consumers’ minds, Hasbro is
perceived as a well-established toy maker, though
much like Mattel, it lacks LEGO’s immediate brand-
to-product connection. Competitive advantages in
the market primarily come from desirable licensing
agreements, such as Hasbro’s recent agreement
with Disney to produce Frozen toys.
However, at this point, none of the large toy Few
However, few toy producers have pursued a
significant sustainability initiative, but doing so
represents a potentially enormous advantage. This
is where the Hasbro Toy Box comes in; it will be a
self-serve toy rental service kiosk. Building on
Hasbro’s existing brand equity, inventory, and
shifting cultural trends (emphasizing sharing), the
Toy Box will enable children to rent the toys they
desire at a fraction of the cost, thus fulfilling
multiple needs for both the children and their
parents. And as these children grow up consistently
using the kiosk and participating in a personally
relevant sharing economy, the hope is they will
eventually become more educated and socially
responsible global consumers.
The Hasbro Toy Box was developed with Living
Principles (LP) Analysis attributions in mind, and
with its introduction, Hasbro’s vision for
sustainability will become much more far-reaching
than it is currently, and the hope is that the Toy Box
will shift consumers’ behaviors in a more
sustainable direction while simultaneously building
communal trust.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1
6. The Empathize mode starts the design process by
identifying the target market and gain valuable
consumer insights on the thoughts, attitudes, and
emotions underlying consumer need.
We began the process by each gathering some
initial media and consumer reports on Hasbro.
Hasbro’s media representation is generally very
positive, and the reports we found featured stories
on Hasbro signing licensing agreement with Disney
to produce Frozen toys and using 3D printing
technology to put children’s faces on action figures
(Grant, 2014; Townsend & Palmeri, 2014). In the
Living Principles Analysis we came to the
conclusion that Hasbro is generally doing a good
job in terms of sustainability but is not publicly
vocal about its efforts, i.e. Silent Good. To gain a
deeper understanding of our customers and how
we can develop a sustainable product or service for
them, we used the Empathy Map to help us
organize the information we have.
We have identified our first customer segment as
boys aged 5-12. Boys at this age are exposed to TV
programming, games, movies, commercials and
internet advertisements that urge them to demand
the latest toys. They compare and compete with
friends, and they want recognition for getting the
cool toys before everyone else. The biggest pain
the boys feel is risk of not fitting in their groups of
friends. This is followed by their inability to
purchase the toys themselves and the fact that
their parents won’t buy everything they want.
Another target segment that we have identified
was the parents of boys aged 5-12. The parents
typically don’t have a large discretionary toy
budget to get every toy their kids want. Similarly,
they are very likely to be frustrated that the kids
will only play with a toy for a limited time and
asking them to buy new toys for them.
EMPATHIZE
BOYS 5-12
• Desire power within friend group
• Always want new stuff – and need it
earlier than their friends
• Unhappiness with inability to purchase
the toys themselves
• Knowledge that parents will not buy
everything they want
• Very little awareness of sustainability
• See toys as infrequent rewards
PARENTS OF BOYS 5-12
• Possess limited budget for toys
• Overwhelmed and confused by the
changing trends for children
• Limited storage space in home
• Limited access to recycling, time to be
socially responsible
• Always in need of distraction for
children (to devote time to other tasks)
2
7. After the Emphasize stage, we moved on to defining
our problem.
Based on the LP analysis, our overall feelings
towards Hasbro were that as a company, they had
taken significant steps towards changing their
actions to be more sustainable. However, they were
missing the connection between their sustainable
actions and the sustainable actions of their
customers. We realized that Hasbro was in the
unique position where their target market was
almost split between kids age 5-12 and parents of
those children. We kept this in mind as we though t
about defining our problem.
Before we began, we asked Professor Luchs about
something confusing about our LP Analysis. We had
stated that because Hasbro was so heavily based
on physical products, toys, it would be nearly
impossible to change from a product to service
model, and when we were generating ideas w e
were struck on the assumption that the service has
to be something Hasbro is directly providing.
However, he had commented on our paper that this
was was actually a big opportunity. When we asked
for clarification, he introduced us to the idea of a
toy library. The moment after he explained what it
was, we all felt that the Product to Service element
was definitely one that needed to be considered.
Individually, each member of our group wrote down
two categories of the LP analysis that they wanted
to focus on. We had a lot of overlap and between
the four of us only had six categories. With a round
of voting, we were able to narrow it down to four:
visions, disassembly, behaviors, and product to
service.
From there, we individually developed “How Might
We” (HMW) statements for each of the individual
categories. For each category, once we had a board
full of “HMW” questions, we each voted for our top
three. We continued to vote until we narrowed it
down to one statement. Ultimately, we concluded
that the “HMW” question for vision was
encompassed in the three other categories. In the
end, addressing Hasbro’s vision was our goal and
the three other questions presented different
opportunities towards reaching that goal.
HMW Outcomes:
1.Vision: “HMW convey our vision about
sustainability”?
2. Disassembly: “HMW re-use parts of toys”?
3. Behaviors: “HMW encourage kids to recycle”?
4. Product to Service: “HMW promote community
engagement”?
Key Insights/Take Aways:
As this was our first real attempt at the design
thinking process, we were initially hesitant. We did
not have a concrete empathy output like the
annoying child at the airport example. The customer
insight we started with was not specific enough to
generate targeted HMW questions, and the initial
statements we came up with are similar low-
hanging fruit-type questions. Only one of our
members had experience with the process, so it
was mostly new and unfamiliar. We had the easiest
time coming up with questions for the Vision
element, which was what later lead us to
understand the relationship between Vision and our
other three elements. We left this stage with many
“HMW” statements that we felt could all best be
answered by the implementation of a toy library or
something similar. We looked forward to the
opportunity to further think and elaborate in the
Ideation stage.
DEFINE
3
8. To begin the Ideation phase, we started with the
question: “How might we encourage sustainable
behaviors in kids?” To answer this question, we
used a multi-step process. The first phase of the
process had three steps. First, our team individually
wrote possible ideas and solutions on yellow sticky
notes and put them up on the board. After about
five minutes, we moved onto the next step, which
involved individually writing outlandish ideas on
pink sticky notes. Finally, we again used the yellow
sticky notes to try to turn any of the outlandish
ideas into practical solutions. We removed all of
the pink sticky notes at the conclusion of the first
phase.
In the next phase, we organized all of our sticky
notes into a matrix. Along the x axis was “ease of
consumer use” and along the y axis was
“sustainability”. This was to determine how
sustainable compared to how customer friendly
the idea was. The last stage involved us grouping
the sticky notes with the same general idea into
groups. This resulted in four main nodes: Ideas to
make sustainability playful, Incentives and rewards
to encourage sustainability, Ways to track customer
purchases and habits, and Ways to up-cycle.
Next, we followed the same process except with
the question “How might we create sustainable
communities through the use of toys?” Overall, our
group found this question much more interesting
and was able to generate a lot more possible
solutions. The final sticky notes were again
grouped based on commonalities and the following
categories resulted: community events promoting
sustainability, incorporation of sustainability into
educational aspects, incentives for the community
to recycle, and programs to share resources. Within
the category of sharing resources was the idea for a
toy library. This was an idea that we discussed early
on and one that we felt both solved improved
Hasbro’s company from a sustainability aspect
while directly aligning with their mission. We had
been doing our best to keep an open mind;
however, after looking at all of our ideas for both
“HMW” questions, the toy library still seemed like
the best idea.
IDEATION
4
9. We began discussing how toy libraries worked and
how it would work for a library if it were to offer
only Hasbro toys. Discussion around the idea of
renting led us to consider other rental services and
how they worked. One such service was Red Box,
and soon enough we had come up with the idea to
create our own “Red Box for toys.” This idea was
similar to the toy library but overall seemed more
plausible, more modern, and more exciting. Some
of our initial ideas were that it would be placed
outside grocery stores, and it could operate like an
arcade game where there is a claw to grab the toy.
With the Toy Box idea we saw the potential to
combine different categories of ideas such as
sharing a service, localized distribution, and
incentives for sustainability. Our initial concerns
were how we would address competitors such as
Toys R’ Us.
Summary Outcomes:
1. Brainstormed solutions to “HMW encourage
sustainable behaviors in kids through toys”?
2. Brainstormed solutions “HMW create sustainable
communities through the use of toys?”
3. Analyzed all solutions by how sustainable and
how customer friendly the ideas were
4. Decided to bring the idea of a toy Red Box into
the prototyping stage.
Key Insights/Take Aways:
Our group found the structure of the Ideation
workshops to be extremely productive because it
promoted both individual and group thinking
simultaneously. Having group members individually
post sticky notes with answers to the “how might
we” questions promoted diversity and deferred
discussion and critique in the idea generation
process.
IDEATION
Coming together afterwards to discuss all the
ideas led to a very robust discussion where
everyone had equal input. We left this stage very
confident in the idea we were bringing into
Prototyping. The idea for a toy library had been in
the back of our minds since the Define stage. The
fact that we were able to keep an open mind and
further develop other potential ideas is how I
believe we were able to improve upon the idea of
a toy library (something that already currently
exists).
This idea was similar to
the toy library but overall
seemed more plausible,
more modern, and more
exciting.
5
10. While we did leave the Ideation stage with a few
ideas, we all felt our strongest idea by far was
creating a “Red Box for toys.” We set out to
prototype and concentrated on both the physical
box as well as the logistics. In order to physically
represent the logistics, we used large cork squares
and paper to illustrate what a customer would see
on the screen as they went to either rent or return
a toy.
Having to create a physical box raised a lot of
questions that we may not have otherwise thought
of. Among these were how the toys were going to
be sanitized, packaged and displayed. Ultimately,
we decided that there was going to have to be a
worker who would come weekly to empty the box
and take the toys back to be cleaned. Packaging is
something we discussed heavily, and the problem
went hand in hand with how the toys would be
displayed. Because the same toy was going to be
constantly moving from machine to consumer, it
would need to have some sort of secure packaging
each time. We debated between having plastic or
paper packaging that we would then encourage the
customers to recycle or if we should have
packaging that was durable and reusable. We
ultimately decided to repackage the toy in paper or
plastic packaging after each time it was rented. We
would advertise that the customer could remove
the packaging right then and there and deposit it to
a designated bin in the Toy Box. Because each toy
would be packaged aesthetically, we could just
display the toys “as is.” The last physical feature we
discussed was what type of toys were going to be
offered. Because the toys were going to passed to
multiple users, we wanted the toys to be durable
and simple so as to limit the opportunity for lost
parts. We browsed Hasbro’s website and
determined our main toy categories would be
Tonka, Nerf, Action Figures, and electronic games
such as Catch Phrase.
Writing out the text to be displayed on the user
screen interface as a customer was in the process
of renting a toy was extremely helpful in getting us
to think about logistics. When deciding how we
wanted the process to work, we had to consider
what would be most attractive to customers but
secondly, if we could convey the message in a
simple and coherent manner. Our biggest
discussion arose around price. We tried to think
about what price level customers would be willing
to commit to while also thinking about making it
simple enough that customers would be very
willing to try the Toy Box out for the first time.
Ultimately we decided on a membership based
system. We also began talking about the policy for
broken toys in regards to what terms and
conditions we would have the customer would
accept when renting a toy. We came up with the
idea of the “Super Perks Club.” If a customer joined
this free club, it would act as a forgiveness program
for if they had damaged or missing pieces. The
program worked on a sliding scale where a
customer would be either rewarded or punished
for consistent behaviors.
PROTOTYPE
6
11. If a customer rented a certain number of toys and
returned them safely, they would work their way
up to a free toy. Conversely, if they consistently
damaged toys, they would be moved down into the
“red zone” and would have to pay an increasing
amount for the damages.
Summary Outcomes:
1. Created a prototype of the physical Toy Box
which illustrated how the toys would be displayed,
including touch screen interface
2. Decided the types of toys to be offered: Tonka,
Nerf, Action Figures, and electronic games
3. Had a thorough discussion about the price point
(membership), sanitation (weekly), as well as
policies for broken/damaged toys
Key Insights/Take Aways:
Creating a physical prototype helped us
tremendously in determining what we wanted the
physical structure of the box to look like as well as
what our rules and policies for the box would be.
We were really forced to focus on customer ease of
use. Because we were writing out “exactly” what
would be displayed on the different screens, it
forced us to read it in the shoes of the customer
and ask ourselves if it was clear.
Overall, we were sometimes focusing a little too
much on very specific logistics instead of the
general, big-picture information that would be
needed in order to pitch our idea to a potential
customer. An example of this is that we were
getting a little bit tied up in how the toys would be
stored in the machine and dispensed – an
engineering issue. But this helped us to think about
what type of toys we would put in the box – which
was a question very frequently asked by some of
our peers.
PROTOTYPE
7
12. We had the valuable opportunity of pitching our
idea to an audience for feedback on two separate
occasions. First, we were able to present our idea
to our entire class. Because we had a lot o f
logistical things to cover, it was a little bit
challenging to find a balance between explaining
our overall idea and how it promotes sustainability,
but also explaining the logistics of our machine and
how we believed it would be attractive to
customers.
The main feedback we received from our peers was
about pricing, the policy for broken toys, and
sanitation. There were a few suggestions to base
our machine on a pay-as-you-go system as
opposed to a membership system. And after
discussing the matter as a team, we believed
changing our model to pay-as-you-go (per unit)
would ultimately attract more customers and
persuade them to “try out” the Toy Box for the first
time. We anticipated some of these questions but
we did not have time to go over all of our solutions
and address their concerns, so the feedbacks were
really helpful when we tried to modify our pitch
and decide to address the issues the customers
cared about, such as sanitation and pricing, instead
of less important features such as how the screen
looked.
The second largest issue that was addressed in the
feedback forms was about the policy in regards to
broken toys. This ended up being our most debated
and difficult topic. We received a lot of questions
about how we would inspect the toys and Upon
future discussion, we decided to change from the
“Super Perks Club” to a more simple policy where a
customer would only have to pay for the damages
if they were greater than 10% of the toys total cost.
concern for our customers and peers, so we made
sure to emphasize that the toys would be sanitized
after each use. However, we still received a lot of
questions about how the toys would be sanitized in
process-wise and where it would occur. When we
met the following week to review our feedback, we
researched ways toy libraries sanitized their toys.
While the toy libraries did not get into explicit
details, they did emphasize that all toys were
cleaned, sanitized, and disinfected. In order to
assure our customers of Hasbro’s sanitation
standards, we decided to implement a 100% “like
new” guarantee. We promoted this guarantee
during the second round of evaluation and received
many fewer questions about sanitation.
Two other aspects that we reviewed as a team
after the first round of feedback was packaging and
toys offered. We had been closely looking at Red
Box policies in terms of broken or damaged disks,
which lead us to think about their packaging. Red
Box uses plastic cases that are reused customer
after customer. We felt this was more sustainable,
easier for Hasbro terms of storage, time, and
money, and easier for the customer because it
emulates something they are used to.
Professor Luchs had mentioned thinking about the
types of toys we offered in relation to our
customers, not just from a logistical standpoint. We
began discussing the importance of offering
customers toys they would not get attached to, but
would use for a week and happily return. This
resulted in the expansion of toy offerings to include
Hasbro’s version of the Lego “Kre-O” and board
games. We felt that children would build their Kre-
O or play a few rounds of “Connect Four” and then
be ready to return the toy for something else.
TEST
8
13. The second feedback stage proved to be the most
valuable for a variety of reasons. First, it was
extremely helpful to listen to the other class give
their pitches, so we knew the important aspects to
emphasize. Additionally, we were able to receive
unexpected feedback from mothers of two
different families. That was extremely insightful
because they were directly in our target market, as
opposed to our college student peers. They were
extremely supportive of the idea and both children
and parents said they would use the Toy Box.
The most important piece of feedback we received,
once again, regarded handling of broken toys. It
was suggested that we could offer “insurance”
where if you paid extra for a toy, you would be
covered for damages. We liked this idea and took it
back to our group discussion the next week.
Ultimately, we decided that because the total cost
of the toys offered in the machine would not
exceed $30, any insurance policy would basically
have to cover damages for the entire cost of the
toy. If we do not cover the cost of the whole toy,
the pricing scheme would be too complicated for
customers to understand.
After deliberation, we decided to go with a simpler
system. The first time someone returned a
damaged toy, they will be forgiven. The second
time, it will be a $10 fine. And any time after that
will be flat $20 fine. Because customers have the
option to buy the broken toy, it made sense to set
the limit at $20. We believed this system was
straightforward and easy to both understand and
apply, unlike our original 10% value proposal,
which was hard to quantify. The rest of our
feedback was very positive, and any questions that
were raised we felt was a matter of us further
elaborating on the matter when speaking as
opposed to adjusting it.
Summary Outcomes:
1. Used feedback from our first presentation to our
individual class to adjust our price to a pay-as-you-
go (per unit) system, changed our broken toy policy
to only address customers who broke or lost
greater than 10% of toy value, further researched
sanitation methods, changed to reusable
packaging, and expanded toy offerings
2. Presented our idea to the other section of the
class and received positive feedback.
3. Adjusted our broken toy policy one final time to
a tiered fine system.
TEST
Key Take Aways:
The opportunity to receive feedback from others
was extremely influential. For the most part, our
peers were highly supportive of the Toy Box
concept. Most of the suggested feedback was
about specific policies or logistical matters and the
rental process. Because we had spent a lot of time
discussing and debating certain aspects, we
became very familiar with the ideas, so it was
beneficial to have a fresh set of eyes and ears hear
our proposal and give their immediate reaction.
[Parents] were
extremely supportive
of the idea, and both
children and parents
said they would use
the Toy Box.
9
14. The overall design experience for the Hasbro Toy
Box was smooth and natural. We had a similar
understanding of what Hasbro has been doing in
terms of sustainability, so we picked out
appropriate LP criteria quickly. Coming up with the
toy sharing idea (Product to Service) and later
iterations were heavily facilitated by the group
dynamic. By having someone act as the daily
“Process Champion”, we were able to stay on track
of what we were supposed to do and not get
caught up in irrelevant conversations and critiques.
And even though we had taken a liking to the Toy
Box idea from very early on in the design thinking
Process, we explored another HMW statement and
generated other ideas to possibly supplant or
supplement our initial thoughts. Eventually, we
decided the Toy Box had the most potential - the
business model is familiar to a lot of people, the
service provides unique values to the customers,
and it helps to develop a sharing economy.
Since the general service idea is easy to grasp, we
mostly focused on the logistic issues surrounding
the Toy Box, such as pricing, cleaning, and
returning. We anticipated questions surrounding
these issues and we were able to address them in
our pitch to the class and to the conference. But
since the feedback are mostly about the logistics of
the Toy Box, we realized we needed to do a better
job conveying our solutions in the pitch.
We deliberated heavily on logistical details, even to
the point where Professor Luchs had to tell us to
focus on the overall idea and leave those issues for
down the line. The conference was especially
helpful for us not only because we were able to
pitch our idea in a more focused way, but also
because several families stopped at our board
REFLECTION SUMMARY
10
15. and listened to our pitch. Since our target market
was children and parents, feedback from the
families were far more valuable, insightful, and
relevant than those from our peers. It was also
very encouraging and galvanizing.
Our final product, the Hasbro Toy Box, is special in
that it’s not the typical “green” good. It’s far more
socially sustainable than it is environmentally
conscious. Additionally, the service model is based
on addressing customer needs, not solely on
environmental attributes, so our service did not
encounter the obstacles that some groups may
have run into, such as lack of consumer trust in
claims or an overly high price point.
Based on the feedback we have received from the
parents at the conference, the Toy Box is already a
designed service that they would want to buy –
independent of sustainability impact. The fact that
using the service would help teach children about
sustainable values and sharing economy is value
added for the customer and society. This was an
important revelation for us and provided an
effective business case for the idea.
In addition, when dealing with the logistic issues at
earlier stages, we have already addressed some of
the obstacles that hinder sustainable consumption,
such as consumers’ (occasionally) faulty
perceptions that sustainable products are inferior
in quality and/or functionality. It could be that we
very luckily (and unintentionally) got it right from
the beginning, but we think it would be helpful to
emphasize that the teams are trying to “design
something the customers would want to buy -
independent of the sustainable attributes” in the
Ideation stage.
Another suggestion we have for the overall design
experience is to switch orders of the Emphasize
stage and the introduction of the sustainability
frameworks/LP Analysis. Having the initial
consumer insight is crucial to the following modes
in design thinking, and we just think it would be
more helpful if the empathy outcome is fresh when
we enter the Define stage.
REFLECTION SUMMARY
Design something
the customers
would want to buy
- independent of
sustainability
impact.
11
16. Happy wallets,
happy kids,
less clutter,
less waste…
More value!
HASBRO TOY BOX
12
The Hasbro Toy Box is a revolutionary entry into
the growing toy rental service market. Featuring
Hasbro’s renowned innovation and ever-growing
family of world-renowned brands, the Toy Box will
instill a sense of community and develop a more
sustainable generation of consumers through its
embrace of the sharing economy.
Toys from Hasbro’s well-known lines will be
offered, including (but not limited to) Transformers,
Kre-O, Tonka, Nerf, and family games such as
Monopoly and Catchphrase. These toys will be
thoroughly inspected weekly. They will also be
cleaned, sanitized, and disinfected during that
time. Toys that are in an unsuitable condition will
be donated to local shelters and children’s
museums and will be replaced with offerings from
Hasbro’s latest attractive product lines.
A large part of Hasbro’s strategy to encourage
engagement in a sharing community will be an
accident forgiveness program. Simply put, it is an
adjustable fine system. The first time a child breaks
a toy or loses a part to it, they will be forgiven, and
the toy can be returned at no additional cost.
However, the second infraction will net a $10 fine,
and the third triggers an increase to $20. Every
accident thereafter will also be fined $20. Since the
price to purchase toys offered in the Toy Box will be
no more than $20, such a hefty fine will
disincentivize reckless play.
The Hasbro Toy Box is a
revolutionary entry into
the growing toy rental
service market.
18. Product: The Hasbro Toy Box is a one-stop rental
service for toys; customers can rent and return
without stepping into a store of any kind. It is a
large electronic kiosk (along the lines of Best Buy
Express) which will be painted over with Hasbro
licensed properties, e.g. Mr. Potato Head, Captain
America. It will hold toys which may be rented by
the week or outright purchased. These toys will be
organized internally through a proprietary “flex-fit”
system which will enable varying weekly
combinations of toy quantity and size. The Toy Box
will also include an online membership experience
and touchscreen interface.
The key feature of the Hasbro Toy Box is its
sustainability initiatives and how it can empower
children with social awareness. It will serve as a
learning tool for children and will teach them both
about the environmental impact of toys and
societal gains from adopting a sharing economy
approach. It can serve as a complement to current
sustainability lessons in school. We believe that
while the short term impact of the Hasbro Toy Box
is the easy rental and return of popular toys, the
long term product is actually the education of a
new, more responsible generation of youth. These
lessons will be reinforced through the display of
easy-to-read green facts throughout the rental
process.
Price: Toys will be rented out by the week, with
most rentals coming out at an average of $3,
though the exact cost will depend on the specific
toy in question. Newer, more popular toys will be
priced at a higher rate to reflect higher demand.
There will be an option to purchase at the machine
at slightly reduced pricing (because the toys will
not be new). Any ”overdue” rentals will be fined at
a rate of $1 daily. Additionally, if children take a
liking to something, customers will have the option
to renew or buy their current rented toys online.
There are no direct competitors with a toy rental
model because most locales do not have any form
of a toy library service. However, even in markets
with libraries, Hasbro’s product offerings will also
be superior and thus reflect its high relative value.
As a result, competitor-based pricing is not an
option; $3 is solely a value-based price point based
on the comparative dynamic of buying a toy to
keep versus briefly renting it for a week. It is
subject to change in accordance with market
performance and customer feedback.
Promotion: The Hasbro Toy Box will be promoted
using a pull strategy; once we get the word out,
customers will come because this is a product they
want. In the initial stages of the product life cycle,
promotion will principally be used to inform
children and their parents about the Toy Box and
its benefits. As the product matures and
establishes a foundation of customers, promotion
will instead focus on loyalty programs and the
specific toy offerings. However, to reach our target
consumer, it is crucial to create advertisements
that actually appeal to a child.
4Ps ANALYSIS
14
19. Advertising will principally be done through
television, particularly during Hasbro-created
content, such as My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic
and Transformers: Rescue Bots. However, online
and mobile promotion are also key, and as today’s
kids, even those from lower income households,
are using more tablets and phones than any
previous generation (and this trend is rising),
Hasbro will also advertise extensively in popular
mobile games and applications. We will also try to
implement native advertising on websites
frequently visited by the child target market.
Additionally, the Toy Box itself is actually a form of
promotion. People will be curious about the large
blue box outside their favorite grocery stores and
will approach it with an open mind. We are hoping
this magnetic effect will attract those families who
are neither heavy Internet users nor television
viewers. We will not be promoting the Hasbro Toy
Box on more traditional channels such as print and
radio.
Place: The Hasbro Toy Box will initially be exclusive
to the Pawtucket, Rhode Island community (home
of Hasbro headquarters) as a trial run before
nationwide expansion. Within the town, machines
will be placed at several types of locations,
including grocery stores, airports, and malls. These
are places that children do not necessarily want to
find themselves and therefore will be very
receptive to a toy, i.e. something that can entertain
and distract them from the mundane. The
machines will be strategically placed at the
entrances of grocery stores and/or any other areas
of high foot traffic in malls.
Specialists” who will service the machines on a
weekly basis; their responsibilities include cleaning,
restocking, and determining the remaining lifespan
of particular toys. These employees are highly
important to the Toy Box’s operation and will be
extensively trained and report directly to Hasbro.
Each will have a distinct geographic area which
they are accountable for.
4Ps ANALYSIS
We are hoping [the Toy
Box’s] magnetic effect
will attract those families
who are neither heavy
Internet users nor
television viewers.
15
20. The Hasbro Toy Box is a breed of its own. No other
major company in the toy industry has a rental
service for toys. This makes the Hasbro Toy Box
superior to what is currently available in the
market. The Toy Box is less impactful to the
environment because it supports reusing. It also
benefits the economy by allowing a higher return
per a unit at a cheaper price. This allows a wider
spectrum of consumers to engage in the service.
Additionally, the community is called upon to
facilitate a sharing economy.
Hasbro’s competition operates on the standard buy
and sell method. The method currently in the
market today is more harmful to the environment
because it produces waste and causes a larger
constraint on the consumer and environment. An
economy such as this is unsustainable in the long
run. Furthermore, it does not instill a cultural vision
of sustainability.
Another current avenue on the market today is the
toy library. Toy libraries provide the ability to
borrow a certain toy for a period of time. To
libraries are great for the environment but are not
realistic in terms of shifting smarter consumption,
as the Toy Box. They have been around for a while
and have not created a cultural shift in a
sustainable direction. Ultimately they lack
meaningful impact on the community and
economic incentive to slow production. The market
they target is too small to promote a sharing
economy, unlike the Hasbro Toy Box.
Initially, when starting this service, we focused on
four components of Hasbro’s Living Principles
framework: Product to Service, Disassembly,
Behaviors, and Vision. These dynamics of the
framework were found in the Environment,
Economy, and Culture sections.
Product to Service:
Hasbro’s capabilities were initially evaluated at a
poor rating of 1. The lackluster rating was a result
of there being no concrete Product to Service
offering readily and publicly available. This area is a
big opportunity in the market for a toy service
industry. The industry had no rental model in place
before the creation of the Toy Box. With the
creation of the Toy Box, Hasbro now receives a
superb rating in that category simply from offering
one of the only toy rental services available – and
the only one from a large toy producer.
LIVING PRINCIPLES ANALYSIS
16
21. Behaviors:
In the Environment section, Hasbro scored a 2 on
Behaviors. This neutral score was because they
lacked the effort and actions to protect and restore
the environment. The Hasbro Toy Box provides the
ability to utilize a sharing community. With renting
toys, less have to be produced by Hasbro and each
toy receives maximum use. These factors raise the
Behaviors score to a 4.
Disassembly:
Hasbro also creates products that are not easily
disassembled once discarded, earning it an initial
score of 2. For instance, more complex toys are
usually made with multiple parts that are not
clearly labeled. Being one of the largest suppliers of
toys, Hasbro has the ability to encourage an
enormous amount of diverse people to behave
sustainably. However, he Toy Box still provides the
same stylistic toys that Hasbro produced from the
initial LP Analysis. In this area, the Hasbro Toy Box
stays the same, at 2, because the parts are still not
environmentally friendly.
Vision:
Hasbro received a low score of 1 in the Vision
dynamic because it did not provide customers with
inspiration or relevant incentives to make
individual sustainable life choices. The majority of
Hasbro items were considered, at best, occasional
treats and at worst, luxury goods. The Hasbro Toy
Box changes that perception by granting those with
a lower socioeconomic standing to participate in
the joy of playing with a Hasbro toy. The service
also promotes a sharing economy and community
atmosphere. We envision this new dynamic will
compel consumers to make more socially
responsible decisions and visualize the impact of
their choices on the community around them. With
the Hasbro Toy Box, the Vision score rises to 4.
LIVING PRINCIPLES ANALYSIS
17
22. Autobots [Photograph]. Retrieved November 30, 2014 from http://thisisinfamous.com/wp-
content/uploads/2014/06/Autobots-United-bots.png
Buzz Lightyear [Online Image]. Retrieved November 30, 2014 from
http://static.giantbomb.com/uploads/original/0/4938/889948-buzzlightyear_high.jpg
Captain America [Photograph]. Retrieved November 30, 2014 from
http://img534.imageshack.us/img534/3741/marvelavn10inultimateav.jpg
Hasbro Avengers [Photograph]. Retrieved November 30, 2014 from http://acecomics.co.uk/wp-
content/uploads/2012/12/hasbro-avengers.png
Hasbro Logo [Online Image]. Retrieved November 30, 2014 from http://rebelsreport.com/wp-
content/uploads/2014/02/Hasbro_2009_1382391128.jpg
Hulk [Photograph]. Retrieved November 30, 2014 from http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-
e9Par4JiMSM/UAeb5Ev7gtI/AAAAAAAAITs/o1yH0PNUxao/s1600/IMG_1846.JPG
Kre-o Battleship [Online Image]. Retrieved November 30, 2014 from http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-
y1Z8z8t_RI4/T4_gm6aU73I/AAAAAAAAAt4/B6j9PI4GnV0/s1600/9b66da885056900b10b0e127134066e3-
001.jpg
Kre-o Power Ranger [Photograph]. Retrieved November 30, 2014 from
http://th07.deviantart.net/fs71/PRE/i/2013/037/d/2/kre_o_power_ranger_by_t4m32-d5u0ujz.jpg
Monopoly [Photograph]. Retrieved November 30, 2014 from
https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7380/11513424364_f48b8cb877.jpg
Monopoly Token Hat [Photograph]. Retrieved November 30, 2014 from http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-
zWCbXz06yoc/UQGnal-yiDI/AAAAAAAAB-s/I8neBdSVCrM/s1600/monopoly_token_hat.png
Monopoly Token Ship [Photograph]. Retrieved November 30, 2014 from http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-
3hfDf86m9AM/UQGna9EhDWI/AAAAAAAAB-4/hVpypVNfBWo/s1600/monopoly_token_ship.png
Mr. Potato Head Wolverine [Photograph]. Retrieved November 30, 2014 from http://news.toyark.com/wp-
content/uploads/sites/4/2013/02/Mr-Potato-Head-Wolverine-001_1360370575.jpg
WORKS CITED
18
23. My Little Pony [Photograph]. Retrieved November 30, 2014 from
http://www.hasbro.com/common/productimages/pt_BR/70da5ba450569047f5e95a352fd0d022/converted47
22d128677f22a590a5937c7b71637be531b308.jpg
My Little Pony Nightmare Moon [Photograph]. Retrieved November 30, 2014 from http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-
Orh_NsLSLh0/UdNUhNGZFXI/AAAAAAAASBk/ibnYVjZXb64/s1600/TRU_ENTERTAINMENT_EARTH_SDCC_2013
_EXCLUSIVE_MY_LITTLE_PONY_NIGHTMARE_MOON.jpg
Optimus Prime Kre-o [Photograph]. Retrieved November 30, 2014 from
http://www.tfw2005.com/transformers-news/attach/4/1/7/2/7/001-Beast-Blade-Optimus-Prime-Kre-
O_1360102601.jpg
Spiderman [Online Image]. Retrieved November 30, 2014 from http://www.mureview.net/wp-
content/gallery/spider-man/marvel-spider-man-3-75-mission-spider-sense-sm-38326.jpg
Toy Story 3 Aliens [Online Image]. Retrieved November 30, 2014 from
http://www.thelittleactivitychest.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/toy-story-3-aliens.jpg
WORKS CITED (cont’d)
19
