February 12, 2026
wolterke/Depositphotos.com
Can Mattel Regain its Footing Versus Hasbro, and How?
In a tale of two toy companies detailed by Forbes senior contributor Joan Verdon, the recent fortunes of competing giants in the space — Mattel and Hasbro — were examined.
Hasbro has been exhibiting strength as of late, driving $2 billion in revenue last year. An enormous portion of that revenue was generated by the continuing interest in Magic: The Gathering (MTG), a collectible card game that has since expanded into a major IP. The acquisition of Wizards of the Coast, the publisher behind both MTG and the also-lucrative Dungeons & Dragons property, in 1999 has paid off massively for Hasbro, alongside other strong IPs in its roster. Hasbro’s most recent earnings report, filled with good news, caused the stock to soar.
Mattel’s share price, by contrast, has cratered during the same time frame — down ~23% over the past five days.
“The sharp contrast between the back-to-back earnings reports, and Wall Street’s reactions to them, highlighted the ways in which Hasbro is winning in this new age of play, and Mattel is playing catchup,” Verdon wrote.
Mattel To Follow Hasbro’s Move Into IP-Heavy Operations (He-Man, TMNT) and Digital Products
In a potential acknowledgment of Hasbro’s successful pivot into IP-driven, digital-first business operations, Mattel signaled a willingness to refocus efforts in this regard — particularly targeting adult collectors as a lucrative shopper demographic.
Mattel CEO Ynon Kreiz noted that the acquisition of full ownership of the Mattel163 mobile games studio (previously a joint effort, operating in tandem with partner NetEase) was one step toward “the continued expansion beyond physical product.”
“We see content, licensing and digital games as key high-margin growth drivers and the acquisition of Mattel163 is an important building block of this strategy,” Kreiz added.
Mattel is also making bold moves into popular IPs, including an upcoming licensing partnership with Paramount around the ever-popular Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles property. Action figures and licensed products are slated to hit shelves next year, with theatrical releases also planned for 2027 and 2028.
For this year, Mattel will be hoping they will have the power as “Masters of the Universe” hits cinemas June 5, while the John Cena-led “Matchbox: The Movie” is expected to fill theaters in October.
“Other licensing partnerships Mattel is betting on to drive sales include KPop Demon Hunters with Netflix, DC with Warner Bros, Disney Princesses, Minecraft, and WWE,” Verdon wrote.
BrainTrust
Neil Saunders
Managing Director, GlobalData
Gene Detroyer
Professor, International Business, Guizhou University of Finance & Economics and University of Sanya, China.
Scott Benedict
Founder & CEO, Benedict Enterprises LLC
Recent Discussions
Discussion Questions
Is is likely that Mattel will regain lost ground against Hasbro by borrowing elements of the latter’s success? Why or why not?
What untried or unique approaches might Mattel make to differentiate itself further from Hasbro? Are there any properties it might look to acquire?
Poll
Loading …
A lot of Hasbro’s success is related to collectibles and associated IP rights. The collectibles segment is on fire across so many different franchises, and that has been of huge benefit. By comparison, Mattel is still more of a traditional toys and games company. There is nothing inherently wrong with that, but it’s simply not where the growth is – especially as Mattel doesn’t have much exposure to the ‘kidult’ trend. Mattel is pivoting more into licensing, but new franchises take time to embed themselves.
I have a problem with saying Mattel is “borrowing elements…of success”: haven’t toy companies always done well – or poorly – based on their ability to discover (and then proprietarize) the latest “hot” item? The key, of course is finding (and then exploiting) that particular fad. So to simply be looking for it in the same place someone else found one is no guarantee.
Yes, the toy business today is all about “HOT” and “cold”. Next year, we could be writing about Hasbro and Mattel while flipping the scenario.
It is difficult to compare Mattel and Hasbro’s growth directly right now because Hasbro is coming off a significantly low base following several years of underperformance. While Hasbro’s triple-digit spikes in digital gaming and collectibles are impressive, they represent a statistical rebound that can make their overall momentum look stronger than it is in absolute terms. Mattel, by contrast, remains a traditional toy powerhouse with high-volume legacy brands that lack the same ‘volatile’ growth spurts seen in high-margin IP. The real test is whether Mattel can successfully bridge into the ‘kidult’ and digital space without sacrificing the stability of its core retail operations. Ultimately, we should be looking at three-year CAGR (Compound Annual Growth Rate) rather than year-over-year percentages to see who is truly winning the long game.
Mattel can regain ground against Hasbro, but simply borrowing elements of Hasbro’s success won’t be enough on its own. The widening gap between the two companies today reflects deeper structural differences — particularly Hasbro’s stronger push into digital gaming, entertainment licensing, and recurring-revenue ecosystems tied to its intellectual property. Recent results show Hasbro benefiting from its gaming and entertainment strategy while Mattel continues to wrestle with the volatility of traditional toy cycles and inventory-driven promotions. If Mattel leans too heavily into imitation — for example, trying to replicate Hasbro’s digital pivot without a clear identity — it risks diluting what makes its own brands distinctive. The opportunity isn’t to copy Hasbro, but to reinterpret its portfolio through a broader IP ecosystem that connects toys, storytelling, gaming, and lifestyle licensing in ways that feel authentic to brands such as Barbie, Hot Wheels, and Fisher-Price.
Where Mattel could differentiate is by leaning into its lifestyle and fashion DNA, which has historically set it apart from Hasbro’s gaming-centric identity. The “Barbie playbook” demonstrated the power of cultural storytelling, and expanding that model — through experiential retail, creator collaborations, and cross-category licensing — could unlock new growth lanes that don’t require direct competition with Hasbro’s tabletop and digital game dominance. Mattel has already begun investing in digital gaming and entertainment extensions, but long-term success will likely come from building multi-platform brand universes rather than product lines alone. Think less about copying Magic: The Gathering-style ecosystems and more about creating “phygital” play experiences that bridge physical toys with media, AI-driven storytelling, and social engagement.
As for acquisitions or new properties, Mattel’s smartest moves may not be traditional toy brands at all. The industry is increasingly driven by IP ecosystems—gaming franchises, streaming properties, creator-led brands, and global entertainment licenses that can span multiple formats. Hasbro’s success with licensed universes and gaming partnerships shows the value of owning or controlling storytelling pipelines, and Mattel could look toward partnerships or acquisitions in adjacent creative spaces — digital studios, gaming platforms, or youth-culture media properties — that allow its existing characters to expand into new formats rather than compete head-to-head in legacy categories. Ultimately, Mattel doesn’t need to become Hasbro to win; it needs to become the best version of itself — a culturally relevant IP company that connects play, fashion, entertainment, and technology in a way that only its brand portfolio can deliver.
The comparison between Mattel and Hasbro is a bit of a moving target; while Hasbro is surging, its growth is coming off a lower base following years of underperformance. Mattel, meanwhile, is a house divided. While Hot Wheels and the post-Barbie movie momentum are keeping them in the game, the continuous degrowth in Fisher-Price highlights the struggle of maintaining legacy ‘kid-focused’ brands in a market that is rapidly shifting toward ‘Kidults’ and digital IP.
We are witnessing a fundamental shift in the industry model:
- Demographic Pivot: The transition from kids to kidults is no longer a niche; it’s the primary growth driver.
- IP Over Innovation: Organic toy innovation is being replaced by aggressive co-branding and licensed IP (like Mattel’s new TMNT and Disney deals).
- Gaming as a Vertical: Mattel’s full acquisition of Mattel163 shows they finally realize they aren’t just selling plastic; they are selling ecosystems.
The real question for the group: With Mattel’s budget tied up in massive IP acquisitions and movie production, can they maintain their core retail margins, or will the cost of ‘buying’ growth through licensing lead to inevitable price hikes at the shelf?
More Discussions
Will a Hybrid Pharmacist Role Help Solve Labor Issues for Walgreens?
Will a Hybrid Pharmacist Role Help Solve Labor Issues for Walgreens?Should Burger King’s President Be Giving Out his Cell Phone Number?
Will this move by Burger King’s Tom Curtis drive meaningful results?How Much Of A Discount Drives New Grocery Trial?
How Much Of A Discount Drives New Grocery Trial?
A lot of Hasbro’s success is related to collectibles and associated IP rights. The collectibles segment is on fire across so many different franchises, and that has been of huge benefit. By comparison, Mattel is still more of a traditional toys and games company. There is nothing inherently wrong with that, but it’s simply not where the growth is – especially as Mattel doesn’t have much exposure to the ‘kidult’ trend. Mattel is pivoting more into licensing, but new franchises take time to embed themselves.
I have a problem with saying Mattel is “borrowing elements…of success”: haven’t toy companies always done well – or poorly – based on their ability to discover (and then proprietarize) the latest “hot” item? The key, of course is finding (and then exploiting) that particular fad. So to simply be looking for it in the same place someone else found one is no guarantee.
Yes, the toy business today is all about “HOT” and “cold”. Next year, we could be writing about Hasbro and Mattel while flipping the scenario.
It is difficult to compare Mattel and Hasbro’s growth directly right now because Hasbro is coming off a significantly low base following several years of underperformance. While Hasbro’s triple-digit spikes in digital gaming and collectibles are impressive, they represent a statistical rebound that can make their overall momentum look stronger than it is in absolute terms. Mattel, by contrast, remains a traditional toy powerhouse with high-volume legacy brands that lack the same ‘volatile’ growth spurts seen in high-margin IP. The real test is whether Mattel can successfully bridge into the ‘kidult’ and digital space without sacrificing the stability of its core retail operations. Ultimately, we should be looking at three-year CAGR (Compound Annual Growth Rate) rather than year-over-year percentages to see who is truly winning the long game.
Mattel can regain ground against Hasbro, but simply borrowing elements of Hasbro’s success won’t be enough on its own. The widening gap between the two companies today reflects deeper structural differences — particularly Hasbro’s stronger push into digital gaming, entertainment licensing, and recurring-revenue ecosystems tied to its intellectual property. Recent results show Hasbro benefiting from its gaming and entertainment strategy while Mattel continues to wrestle with the volatility of traditional toy cycles and inventory-driven promotions. If Mattel leans too heavily into imitation — for example, trying to replicate Hasbro’s digital pivot without a clear identity — it risks diluting what makes its own brands distinctive. The opportunity isn’t to copy Hasbro, but to reinterpret its portfolio through a broader IP ecosystem that connects toys, storytelling, gaming, and lifestyle licensing in ways that feel authentic to brands such as Barbie, Hot Wheels, and Fisher-Price.
Where Mattel could differentiate is by leaning into its lifestyle and fashion DNA, which has historically set it apart from Hasbro’s gaming-centric identity. The “Barbie playbook” demonstrated the power of cultural storytelling, and expanding that model — through experiential retail, creator collaborations, and cross-category licensing — could unlock new growth lanes that don’t require direct competition with Hasbro’s tabletop and digital game dominance. Mattel has already begun investing in digital gaming and entertainment extensions, but long-term success will likely come from building multi-platform brand universes rather than product lines alone. Think less about copying Magic: The Gathering-style ecosystems and more about creating “phygital” play experiences that bridge physical toys with media, AI-driven storytelling, and social engagement.
As for acquisitions or new properties, Mattel’s smartest moves may not be traditional toy brands at all. The industry is increasingly driven by IP ecosystems—gaming franchises, streaming properties, creator-led brands, and global entertainment licenses that can span multiple formats. Hasbro’s success with licensed universes and gaming partnerships shows the value of owning or controlling storytelling pipelines, and Mattel could look toward partnerships or acquisitions in adjacent creative spaces — digital studios, gaming platforms, or youth-culture media properties — that allow its existing characters to expand into new formats rather than compete head-to-head in legacy categories. Ultimately, Mattel doesn’t need to become Hasbro to win; it needs to become the best version of itself — a culturally relevant IP company that connects play, fashion, entertainment, and technology in a way that only its brand portfolio can deliver.
The comparison between Mattel and Hasbro is a bit of a moving target; while Hasbro is surging, its growth is coming off a lower base following years of underperformance. Mattel, meanwhile, is a house divided. While Hot Wheels and the post-Barbie movie momentum are keeping them in the game, the continuous degrowth in Fisher-Price highlights the struggle of maintaining legacy ‘kid-focused’ brands in a market that is rapidly shifting toward ‘Kidults’ and digital IP.
We are witnessing a fundamental shift in the industry model:
The real question for the group: With Mattel’s budget tied up in massive IP acquisitions and movie production, can they maintain their core retail margins, or will the cost of ‘buying’ growth through licensing lead to inevitable price hikes at the shelf?