Is it time to stop glorifying the brand and focus on the designer?

[CAF]

In Hollywood, it is often the lead actor that makes the movie. The actor is the main ingredient that makes the recipe come together and be a success.

Is the world of Transformers collecting ready for the designers name to adorn the label? I mean in BOLD print, so that internet searches will yield the toys designed by your favorite designer instead of a specific brand.

[Sun Swipe Prime]

No.

I don't goto the movies to see an actor. I go to see a good movie, a story well told.

Good actors have made crappy movies and crappy actors have made good movies, so I judge based on a case by case basis.

Putting a designers name on something is branding it like Hollywood brands a Michael Bay movie a Michael Bay movie. Or how they branded the Lone Ranger a Johnny Depp movie.

Buying something solely based on a brand name slash designer name is silly.

[CAF]

I think you are taking the question to the extreme.

The question is not if the toy should be labelled as the designer. The question is whether the designer should be acknowledged on the box much in the way as a movie poster will acknowledge the actor as a form of letting the patron become aware of the content.

[FreedomGundam]

I don't know if it's actually "glorifying" the brand, but I would be totally up for having the sculptor or designer's name on the packaging.

Hot Toys figures have been doing this for years. They list the sculptor, painter, etc, like this:
http://marveltoynews.com/wp-content/...2445795587.jpg

[CAF]

Yes, the way Hot Toys does this is a great way for the patron to know who is behind the sculpt ect. Great example FreedomGundam

[Pascal]

I'm with you on this one Newt.

[Masta_Skidz]

nope I could care less who designed the toy but that is just me I am a Transformers collector not the specific designer. So that part of it for me is really nothing.

[Goaliebot]

Fail, Kobayashi, fail!

[Sun Swipe Prime]

Ok, lets look at it from a different angle. Why would a big company want to do something like that? It's elevating the status of a designer, not the sole designer, just the lead one.

In sports when someone gets a big name, what happens to their salary? It goes up, because now the team isn't just paying for performance, they're paying for a name.

And just like sports, a name doesn't always guarantee performance.

For smaller companies it may be worth it to promote the designer, because it can be a selling point to get attention. But for large companies like Has/Tak who don't need attention, it's better for them to be relatively unknown, so they can be easily replaced. In addition, Has/Tak doesn't have to take more flak than it already does because a toy or toy line wasn't designed by a fanboy's favorite designer.

Sure the info right now can be simple to find if one is curious, but why put your foot into the fire when you don't have to?

And finally, companies want you to buy say a Hasbro brand product, or a Transformer's brand Product, and think of it that way. They don't want you thinking you're buying a Desinger Bob product, because if Designer Bob leaves, then brand loyalty goes with him.

[CAF]

This is what's wrong with the world. When artisans become less admired than the companies they made become what they are, society has failed.

Creative brilliance should never be homogenized. IMO, a creative splendor can not be easily replaced.

Let's look at your sports analogy- Do you think Gretzky was nothing? That it was all because of Edmonton and that nobody should ever want a 99 Jersey now?

Ever wonder why Ozzy did better than Sabbath after they kicked him out of the band?

Queen fizzled out when Freddy died.

Artistry is not corporate generic fodder.