Controversial opinions on dinosaur toys

[Pachyrhinosaurus]

I think the big thing with Safari lately is the quantity of new figures we've been seeing the past few years. 2016 saw 5 new prehistoric figures, as was typical before the Carnegie Collection was retired. Then we had a surprising 13 new pieces the following year in 2017. Then another 13 in 2018 and 10 in 2019. 9 in 2020 before it went down to 3 in 2021 and 2022 (not including Dino Dana licensed products). I never expected Safari to keep churning out 13 prehistoric figures a year, since they were making up for the loss of the Carnegie, but it was an abrupt change from what we were getting used to at the time. Five out of the last six new figures are theropods and the other is also a saurischian dinosaur, not including the majungasaurus for this year. I don't think the quality has really declined at all. Some are better than others, but in my opinion, there's not a downwards trend in quality of the figures themselves. I think what Safari hasn't been as good with is species variety. I think three figures a year would look better if two of them were bothriolepis and kannemeyeria (for example).

@Gothmog the Baryonyx I don't know if you have them in-hand or not, but I think they're in-line with the quality of what Safari has been putting out in the years prior. The cryolophosaurus from last year looks pretty sharp. The paintwork on some of them isn't the most flattering, though.

[Faelrin]

Yeah lack the lack of variety (both temporally and clade wise) from them is the thing I've been disappointed about most post covid/2020.

2019 (excluding the repainted T. rex):
-1 pseudosuchian (Triassic)
-1 sauropod (Jurassic)
-1 thyreophoran (Jurassic)
-4 theropods (1 Jurassic, 3 Cretaceous, 1 feathered)
-1 ceratopsian (Cretaceous)
-1 pterosaur (Cretaceous)
-1 mammal (Pliocene-Pleistocene)

2020:
-1 archosauromorph (Triassic)
-1 icthyosaur (Triassic or Jurassic)
-4 theropods (1 Jurassic, 3 Cretaceous, 1 feathered, 1 tyrannosaurid)
-1 pachycephalosaurid (Cretaceous)
-1 ornithopod (Cretaceous)
-1 pseudosuchian (Cretaceous)

2021 (excluding repaints and the armored/fantasy figures):
-3 theropods (Cretaceous, 1 tyrannosaurid)

2022:
-3 theropods (1 Jurassic, 2 Cretaceous, 2 tyrannosaurids)
-1 pachycephalosaurid (Cretaceous)
-1 thyreophoran (Cretaceous)
-1 sauropod (Cretaceous)

One can also notice a trend with a number of tyrannosaurids. On one hand, many were lacking decent options on the market (outside of BotM's upcoming 1:18 scale articulated ones), but I hope we get a bit of a break from them this year. I've also been longing for a new mammal in particular for quite a while, even though we got a sizable batch of them in 2018. That was also like 5 years ago though. In particular I want to see an accurately painted Megaloceros giganteus/Irisk elk and Aenocyon dirus/dire wolf from them. Anything else non-dinosaur would be welcome too.

[suspsy]

I would be perfectly happy if Safari did an assortment that didn't include any dinosaurs whatsoever. Same goes for CollectA. Between invertebrates, fish, amphibians, pterosaurs, sea reptiles, land reptiles, and synapsids, it'd be very easy to come up with an exciting selection.

[Sim]

I think three figures a year would look better if two of them were bothriolepis and kannemeyeria (for example).

I disagree.  Those species are niche choices that I don't believe would sell well.  They have no appeal to me.  My unpopular opinion is that Safari's three theropod lineup was fine, it was the execution of the figures that wasn't great.  Also, I don't get the complaining about dinosaurs or theropods being made.  They are generally the best sellers and the most popular prehistoric animals and it's right that they get made as often as they do.

[ceratopsian]

If I were a parent who knew nothing about dinosaurs and was confronted with three theropods - all pretty similar to the untutored eye - I would perhaps buy only one of them.  But if I was confronted by three dinosaurs of very different appearance, of which one was, say, a theropod, one a sauropod and one a ceratopsian, then I would be more likely to buy all three for my offspring.  So I think that there is actually a good sales rationale in producing diverse genera within dinosaurs.  (And yes, I'm sure dinosaurs are always going to sell better than non-dinosaurs, much as I would like more Permian/Triassic etc non-dinosaurs!)

I think three figures a year would look better if two of them were bothriolepis and kannemeyeria (for example).

I disagree.  Those species are niche choices that I don't believe would sell well.  They have no appeal to me.  My unpopular opinion is that Safari's three theropod lineup was fine, it was the execution of the figures that wasn't great.  Also, I don't get the complaining about dinosaurs or theropods being made.  They are generally the best sellers and the most popular prehistoric animals and it's right that they get made as often as they do.

[Halichoeres]

I am sure that dinosaurs sensu stricto sell better, and probably theropods sell better than other dinosaurs. Perhaps Safari was trying to hedge their bets during a difficult stretch by only releasing what they saw as safe bets.

More broadly, if all companies are competing on the same ground, namely dinosaurs and especially theropods, there has to be a point of diminishing returns. Certainly it's reducing my enjoyment of those groups. I have this vague feeling that during the 90s, when the technical definition of "dinosaur" became more widely known, and entry-level pedants started saying "AKSHULLY..." whenever someone used "dinosaur" in a more colloquial, metonymous sense, a lot of people somehow decided that dinosaurs sensu stricto were the only prehistoric animals worth caring about. I'm pretty sure that 2001 was the year with the greatest variety of prehistoric life available in figure form, even though there are many more companies operating now.

There's obviously nothing wrong with liking dinosaurs best, or theropods best, or whatever. In the same way, there's nothing wrong with liking hamburgers best. But if every restaurant offered nothing but hamburgers, I would find the culinary scene pretty disappointing. Of course, to a kid, an all-hamburger diet might sound great! And maybe kids like dinosaurs sensu stricto best, and if so it's just an unfortunate fact of our hobby that kids don't know much and generally have terrible taste.

Anyway, to @Stegotyranno420's original point, for me Safari peaked in 2010 or 2011, when they released the Prehistoric Crocs Toob, the Prehistoric Sharks Toob, the plants, Inostrancevia, Kaprosuchus, and several other gems. But I'm not necessarily evaluating based on quality, more on some ineffable 'interesting-ness.'

[Stegotyranno420]

@Halichoeres i could see why 2011 was the best. 2011 was very special for me as lot of my first influences to safari and Non-cheaposaur figures came from those figures(As my 4 year old self spent my freetime looking at pictures of the figures online, absolutely awestruck byt the diverse animals. I adored the gorgonopsid, but the kaprosuchus alaays frightened me) There was something wholesome and hearty about that period, another "X-factor" I can only attempt to describe.

[Gwangi]

If I were a parent who knew nothing about dinosaurs and was confronted with three theropods - all pretty similar to the untutored eye - I would perhaps buy only one of them.  But if I was confronted by three dinosaurs of very different appearance, of which one was, say, a theropod, one a sauropod and one a ceratopsian, then I would be more likely to buy all three for my offspring.  So I think that there is actually a good sales rationale in producing diverse genera within dinosaurs.  (And yes, I'm sure dinosaurs are always going to sell better than non-dinosaurs, much as I would like more Permian/Triassic etc non-dinosaurs!)

I think three figures a year would look better if two of them were bothriolepis and kannemeyeria (for example).

I disagree.  Those species are niche choices that I don't believe would sell well.  They have no appeal to me.  My unpopular opinion is that Safari's three theropod lineup was fine, it was the execution of the figures that wasn't great.  Also, I don't get the complaining about dinosaurs or theropods being made.  They are generally the best sellers and the most popular prehistoric animals and it's right that they get made as often as they do.

That's a good point. If a parent is buying dinosaurs for their kid, with no knowledge of dinosaur genera, they're probably going after figures that look different. I remember hearing it often as a kid, and it's something I repeat to my daughter..."you have one already that looks like that". To a parent, just about every theropod is just another T. rex or a variation of it. Also, kids and parents alike want to complete sets. They want a sauropod, a ceratopsian, a stegosaur, and also a theropod or two to terrorize them. You need the herbivores to battle the carnivores, or to at least give the carnivores something to eat. I'm not convinced that kids that like dinosaurs only want theropods.

[Sim]

To avoid a misunderstanding, I never said or thought that kids only like theropods.  I think that theropods tend to be the best-selling figures, but dinosaurs in general tend to sell well.  I also don't think Safari's three 2021 figures looked much alike.  The jaw shape of Daspletosaurus and the sail of Spinosaurus set them apart from the others.  Kids liking dinosaurs most also isn't terrible taste.

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

Running a gift shop here I can say that most kids want ALL the dinosaurs, but given a limit they do tend to go for theropods. Rex,Spino and Raptors is the big sellers. Mostly with boys but not always. Girls like sauropods and hadrosaurs, ceratopsians fit the bill when kids what something to fight. Poor stegosaurs and ankylosaurs are the ones picked last. Toss in a smattering of pterosaurs ( they prefer flying ones overall ) and some marine creatures, mosasaurs and sharks. You will always have that one guy/girl or kid that wants something different though. Maybe they just heard about the species on the Youtube Kids video they saw. It's another reason I like to keep adding more to the park, kids learn about one then they might want a model of if it makes a strong impression. 

[Faelrin]

@Gwangi As far as branded dinosaur figures went back, when I was a kid, I only really knew about the JP toys. When the JPIII toys came around, I was 10 years old, and I absolutely wanted the Triceratops, and the Brachiosaurus, and the Pteranodon (which I missed out on), in addition to the T. rex, Spinosaurus, Dilophosaurus, and raptors, and possibly some of the film species that didn't get toys (hard for me to remember, it was over 20 years ago). Then again, I was also the kid that absolutely wanted them all, so maybe I'm not setting the best example here?

Though to use a more contemporary example, my three nieces adored the variety I brought over, some of which I gifted to them, such as the Mattel Brachiosaurus, Mosasaurus, etc.

[Gwangi]

To avoid a misunderstanding, I never said or thought that kids only like theropods.  I think that theropods tend to be the best-selling figures, but dinosaurs in general tend to sell well.  I also don't think Safari's three 2021 figures looked much alike.  The jaw shape of Daspletosaurus and the sail of Spinosaurus set them apart from the others.  Kids liking dinosaurs most also isn't terrible taste.

No, the 3 theropods released in 2021 weren't particularly similar. But then Safari released a "Nanotyrannus" and Albertosaurus hot on the heels of the Daspletosaurus and to most parents they're all just T. rex (one of them actually is). Not that I'm complaining, I'm thrilled to have Daspletosaurus and Albertosaurus in my collection. I'm just trying to look at it from a marketing perspective.

[Stegotyranno420]

@Blade-of-the-Moon interesting point you bring up about different dinosaurs appealing to different children.
Have you noticed any other differences certain groups and which dinosaurs they pick most often, if any?

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

@Blade-of-the-Moon interesting point you bring up about different dinosaurs appealing to different children.
Have you noticed any other differences certain groups and which dinosaurs they pick most often, if any?

hmm let me think.

Younger kids are more apt to impulse buy and have a lot of indecision. Parents try to get away cheaper or they set a spending limit. Grandparents and people on vacation spend more than others.

The Jurassic World items we have tend to sell pretty well, or did last year. They are a bit more pricier for us to stock though.

Kids from around 5 to 9 like the slime eggs with dinos and the dig kits where they can chip out their dinosaur or fossil/gem stone.

As far as specific age/gender in relation to specific species there isn't much more than what I mentioned above that I noticed.

[Shane]

I'm just trying to look at it from a marketing perspective.

From a marketing perspective, there's a reason that Mattel keeps 3 or 4 different T. rexes on the shelves at any given time.

Anything T. rex or T. rex adjacent appeals to kids.

As much as collectors are a driving force in this market, it's still kids, parents and grandparents who are driving the prehistoric toy figurine industry.

[bmathison1972]

I'm just trying to look at it from a marketing perspective.

From a marketing perspective, there's a reason that Mattel keeps 3 or 4 different T. rexes on the shelves at any given time.

Anything T. rex or T. rex adjacent appeals to kids.

As much as collectors are a driving force in this market, it's still kids, parents and grandparents who are driving the prehistoric toy figurine industry.

Yup; I try to explain that to people all the time when they complain when common extant animals are produced. A lot of sales are in museums, aquariums, and zoos. And Joe Q Public and their kids are more likely to go for what's familiar. An elephant will always sell more than a duiker!

What's funny is that Safari's Wild Safari/Doug Watson style are my favorite for theropods. So if anyone is going to pump out theropods, I want it to be Safari 

[Gwangi]

I'm just trying to look at it from a marketing perspective.

From a marketing perspective, there's a reason that Mattel keeps 3 or 4 different T. rexes on the shelves at any given time.

Anything T. rex or T. rex adjacent appeals to kids.

As much as collectors are a driving force in this market, it's still kids, parents and grandparents who are driving the prehistoric toy figurine industry.

I get that. And I take your word for it given your position within the company. But from my position, as a parent, I'm not buying my kid another T. rex if they already have one or two. And I'm not buying them an Albertosaurus or Daspletosaurus either because to my untrained eye, they're just more T. rex. If I'm at a gift shop, or browsing Safari's online catalogue, I'm thinking "not that one, it looks like the T. rex my kid already has", I'm looking for something they don't have. But, that's just me, and maybe other parents don't mind buying repeats, or are allowing their kids more freedom to choose.

[Shane]

I get that. And I take your word for it given your position within the company. But from my position, as a parent, I'm not buying my kid another T. rex if they already have one or two. And I'm not buying them an Albertosaurus or Daspletosaurus either because to my untrained eye, they're just more T. rex. If I'm at a gift shop, or browsing Safari's online catalogue, I'm thinking "not that one, it looks like the T. rex my kid already has", I'm looking for something they don't have. But, that's just me, and maybe other parents don't mind buying repeats, or are allowing their kids more freedom to choose.

Right, and that's why there are things that aren't T. rex or T. rex adjacent items available as well. But as bmathison touched on, retailers want the heavy hitters on shelves. Because that's what a lot of customers are drawn to.

And not always the same old, same old. They want what's fresh, yet familiar. Mattel doesn't always release the same T. rex, they release different versions with different features, paint, articulation, etc. Hasbro always wants to keep Darth Vader on the shelves too, while the seasoned collector may tire of seeing Vader over and over, it doesn't change the fact that they know Vader moves units.

[Lynx]

I can say confidently that my Mum doesn't like buying repeats for me. For example, take Giganotosaurus and Carcharodontosaurus. To her, those are pretty much the same animal, when she saw not long ago that I already had a Carnegie Giganotosaurus, she didn't wanna buy a Carcharodontosaurus because they were "too similar." The same goes for stuff like Tyrannosaurus and Sauropods. I ask for a Safari LTD or CollectA Tyrannosaurus, but she doesn't want to get one because I also have the excellent Carnegie version, so why would you, from anyone's perspective, may I ask, would get another version of a toy that your child is already happy with, especially if it's so similar?

To her, it's just the same creature, thus it's not worth getting another version. This Christmas, instead of getting the several triceratops, tyrannosaurus, and giganotosaurus on my list, she said she'd prefer to get ones I didn't have. Thus I ended up with Safari LTDs Ankylosaurus, Papos Gorgosaurus, and Therizinosaurus. (which I am thankful for mind you  )

There's a reason why I have yet to get a Safari LTD Tyrannosaur from my parents, and I personally think it's purely due to similarity. Why get a Daspletosaurus when you have the look-alike Tyrannosaurus Rex? Why get the Albertosaurus when you already have a Gorgosaurus? It's worth some thinking.

Of course, I do not wish for my perspective to overflow. Many little children I have seen (though not all) vastly prefer theropods, even if it is a look-a-like. These same children are also going to be making up most of the audience. So while I don't doubt Tyrannosaurs every year is a good marketing strategy, I want to see if anyone shares my parent's perspective of "my child already has that one, why would I buy another instead of a toy they don't have yet?"



I also completely understand the wish to get on shelves. If it looks like T.rex, it'll hopefully sell like T.rex. If you don't mind me asking, how well do the Tyrannosaurus "look-a-likes" sell in stores? I know the Yutyrannus does well, or at least from the website, but I'd like to know about the rest from pure curiosity.

The marketing strategy of releasing new Tyrannosaurs every year is an extremely smart way to go, in my opinion. It appeals to both audiences. The theropod-hungry children and parents, and collectors looking for obscure species that haven't been made into a good figure. While it can get annoying for those not interested, you can't deny it's a very good outcome. We still get wonderful models and accuracy, and while the lack of diversity is annoying, these recent releases have been some of their best sculpts.

The Daspletosaurus and Albertosaurus are just beautiful. I disagree that they should stop producing tyrannosaurs every year, however, I do agree that parents may not be interested in these similar creatures. Good models of non-theropods are still being produced, and I don't doubt this year will be plenty of diversity. And so, while I don't think my mom or dad will be interested, I can not deny that the tyrannosaur releases, once again, is a smart one, purposeful or not.


So in conclusion, I have a very mixed opinion. I don't mind the releases, it's not changing my life, and I don't really care if we're having two or three more theropods than usual. While I doubt I will be purchasing these models for a long time, that doesn't apply to everyone.

[Halichoeres]

I get that. And I take your word for it given your position within the company. But from my position, as a parent, I'm not buying my kid another T. rex if they already have one or two. And I'm not buying them an Albertosaurus or Daspletosaurus either because to my untrained eye, they're just more T. rex. If I'm at a gift shop, or browsing Safari's online catalogue, I'm thinking "not that one, it looks like the T. rex my kid already has", I'm looking for something they don't have. But, that's just me, and maybe other parents don't mind buying repeats, or are allowing their kids more freedom to choose.

Right, and that's why there are things that aren't T. rex or T. rex adjacent items available as well. But as bmathison touched on, retailers want the heavy hitters on shelves. Because that's what a lot of customers are drawn to.

And not always the same old, same old. They want what's fresh, yet familiar. Mattel doesn't always release the same T. rex, they release different versions with different features, paint, articulation, etc. Hasbro always wants to keep Darth Vader on the shelves too, while the seasoned collector may tire of seeing Vader over and over, it doesn't change the fact that they know Vader moves units.

Maybe it's just the sort of person I am, but even when I was a kid this drove me up the wall. I was into Batman, but I didn't want all the different iterations of Batman with different costumes and gimmicky weapons (Sanitation Worker Batman, Roman Centurion Batman, etc.). I wanted a [singular] Batman and I wanted a Rogue's Gallery for him to fight with. The only time I ever saw a Poison Ivy on the shelf was at a bookstore in Mexico, and luckily I had enough pesos in my pocket to pick it up.

Anyway, the way I see it, this buttresses my thesis that kids have terrible taste. (I include myself, I don't really care for Batman anymore either.) I'm willing to allow that some of the bad taste can be chalked up to their parents, aunts, uncles, and grandparents, but I don't care for children and won't pass up an opportunity to cast aspersions on them.