"How much did Barbie’s convertible really change since I put He-Man stickers on the one belonging to my sister?"

In recent weeks we’ve discussed the risks associated with putting product innovation on the back burner in order to better address current economic dynamics. In respect to how some companies are dealing with the situation, a recent Wall Street Journal posting caught my eye. And while the application might not sound as severe as if it were military, aerospace or consumer electronics applications, it still left me with mixed emotions.

Basically, the March 3 reports states that in an effort to cut costs, stay profitable and maintain their competitiveness, many toy makers are re-launching brands from as long ago as 20 years.

The dilemma they potentially face is offering consumers “new” toy options that are not on par with the capabilities of more advanced options, like video gaming systems. This approach also flies in the face of long-standing thoughts on how toys are somewhat recession-proof, as parents will cut their own expenses before those of their children.

So, on one hand I understand the value in legacy products that could be re-introduced to new generations of consumers.

I mean, how much did Barbie’s convertible really change since I put He-Man stickers on the one belonging to my sister? And does the look and feel of the latest My Little Pony really impact the enjoyment my daughters get while throwing them down the stairs, bouncing them off three walls and then laughing uncontrollably about how poorly that Pegasus flew?

I guess if I can make my kids happy at a lower cost and help these companies weather the storm with these “vintage” offerings, it’s really not that big of a deal, is it?

You bet your Red Rider BB gun it is! Instituting such an approach means innovation is being stifled and consumers are being robbed of better product offerings.

One of my favorite toys growing up was GI Joe, but have you seen these toys today? They’re awesome! They’re a little bit bigger, they have more accessories and the story behind the characters is much more involved. It’s created a playing experience that is richer and, I assume because I can never convince my daughters to pick them out over some sort of Disney Princess gadget, more fun.

Exposing children to new and advanced concepts is what will stimulate their minds to dream and think and imagine how even their favorite toy might be better. That question of “what if?” is what inspires and helps form our next generation of problem solvers. Pushing the envelope, even in the area of toys, has a great impact in the realm of innovative thinking – and at the most elementary and important of levels.

I guess I’ve stood on this soap box a time or two before, but it’s important to champion the causes feeding product innovation. Although some older components can find new homes and older products can be treasured by newer generations, these should simply be options, not deliberate strategies tied to company success.

I recently spoke with Gadi Amit, the principle and founder of New Deal Design (www.newdealdesign.com). He said that during these tighter economic times sometimes it can make more sense to try and re-define a new project instead of simply taking a hard-line yes or no approach. To those toy manufacturers considering cuts to their R&D, I’d echo these remarks and hope they can work towards the continued development of new and better instead of easy and available.

However, if those metal-tipped weapons packaged as summer fun, aka Lawn Jarts, can be brought back to help stimulate the toy economy – I’m in for two, and don’t change a thing.

What's your take? Send comments jeff.reinke@advantagemedia.com