When Packaging Goes 'Wicked': A Cautionary Tale in Product Research
A version of this post was published in my weekly email for marketers.
Get marketing news you’ll actually want to read!
Just when we thought the Ku Klux Klandle Scandal from Bath & Body Works topped the charts for totally avoidable marketing mishaps, we find that Mattel this season might have just taken the cake (or the snack in this case… ok, bad joke).
For those who missed the spectacle, Mattel released dolls inspired by the upcoming Wicked movie, a Universal Pictures production starring Cynthia Erivo as Elphaba and Ariana Grande as Glinda. Since the movie hits theaters this week, of course, the action figures are hitting the shelves in time for Christmas. And a Barbie that sings the songs is the big draw this holiday season:
However, because Mattell didn’t test the packaging (eesh!) they are having to recall the toys because they inadvertently printed the URL "wicked.com" on the back. Wickedmovie.com was the actual URL they were going for. Wicked.com takes you to an unsavory, definitely not G-rated adult site where Snow White and Cinderrella and possibly even the Wicked characters have very different looks and costumes—ones you don’t want your children to see!
Image source: Fox News
In addition to the recalls, retailers like Target, Walmart, Amazon, and Macy’s removed the dolls from their shelves.
Ironically, the recalled dolls have become hot commodities on resale platforms. While the dolls retail for $27.47, some listings on eBay reach up to $800 (The Daily Dot). This TikTok reel shows a Walmart employee overriding the system to sell the doll anyway—so hit up Walmart, folks, you might get lucky (is that pun too much? nahhhh).
And just when you think “Barbie buyers likely don’t really read the back of the packages, do they?” - turns out, they do. In fact, this adult site gives Pop-u-u-lar a new meaning, as the site saw its highest surge in traffic in 12 years, according to the New York Post and The Cut.
Naturally, this sent Mattel scrambling to do damage control, there will be a landfill of barbie packages, and Wiked.com’s SEO team is likely sending a fruit basket to Mattel this holiday season. So how does a titan like Mattel miss such an obvious red flag?
Because they thought they didn’t need to spend their marketing budget on testing.
Big mistake.
If Mattel had asked even just one savvy mom with a Wi-Fi connection, this would’ve been caught faster than the citizens of Oz could gossip about this scandal.
For me, this brings back memories of Regulations.gov years ago launching its Regulations Exchange without testing the URL, only to realize that RegulationsExchange.gov is spelled the same as RegulationsSexChange.gov. And yes, they got hacked. There was a porn site involved here too. I know because I was on the team testing the site after fixing the mess. At least the government learned its lesson - thought we’d be able to say the same about a titan of consumer packaged goods.
This gaffe underscores the critical importance of thorough product and package testing.
And it’s not going to break your budget either. Think of how much money this could have saved Mattel if they didn’t have to pull every one of these boxes off the shelf. Think of what they just lost in reputation—not to mention money.
But for now, let’s talk about the money…
How Much Will the Wicked Fiasco Cost Mattel? The ROI of Testing Your Products and Packaging
While Mattel has not publicly disclosed the exact financial impact of the recall of their "Wicked" dolls, that doesn’t stop us from running some numbers…
Our best guess: This recall will cost Mattel somewhere in the ballpark of $15 million - $35 million.
How much would package testing have cost by a third party provider like Bixa? At most, this would have been 0.5% of this loss.
Here’s the breakdown…
There were hundreds of thousands of units recalled (Vanity Fair). Previous recalls of similar size often involve costs of $10 to $30 per unit for logistics, destruction, and repackaging (McKinsey).
Retailers will, of course, require refunds for unsold stock and claim compensation for lost shelf space. This compensation can add millions (Retail Dive).
Printing and replacing corrected packaging costs $5–$10 per unit, especially if redistribution is involved (Supply Chain Brain).
And then there’s damage control: A comprehensive PR campaign to mitigate brand damage typically costs $1–$5 million for big brands like Mattell (PR Week).
On top of that, we have to consider the opportunity cost of lost sales around the holidays. This is a critical sales window for kids toys. Missed sales opportunities for a movie tie-in toy around the holiday could total tens of millions (NY Times).
Some other benchmarks:
Fisher-Price Rock ‘n Play Recall (2019): Costs exceeded $40 million for 4.7 million units (CNBC).
Mattel’s 2007 Lead Paint Recall: This recall of 9 million toys reportedly cost over $110 million (Reuters).
Here’s the breakdown of the cost estimates… all because Mattel didn’t test their package!
Logistics and Destruction: $7 million
Retailer Compensation: $5 million
Repackaging and Redistribution: $4 million
PR and Damage Control: $3 million
Lost Sales: $10 million
Testing Methods to Avoid Wicked Results
Here are some techniques that market research company Bixa uses to ensure that companies companies (yes, like yours!) can avoid similar pitfalls:
Video Diaries: Engage real consumers to document their unboxing experiences. This virtual ethnography offers insights into how packaging is perceived and interacted with in real-world settings.
In-depth Interviews: Show the product concept (images are fine) to a possible customer in the right demographic, and facilitate one-on-one discussions to delve deep into their reactions and gather feedback.
A/B Testing: Present different packaging designs to segments of your target market to determine which performs better in terms of engagement and appeal.
Bias Alert: Why Third-Party Testing Matters
Even the most rigorous testing can fall prey to internal biases, as product teams often overlook potential issues due to familiarity or cognitive blind spots. That's why partnering with an independent third-party research firm like Bixa is invaluable. External experts bring objectivity, ensuring that feedback isn't influenced by the company's preconceived notions or internal politics, reducing the risk of embarrassing oversights and the need for public apologies.
Moreover, it's essential to test with the right audience. Even if Mattel did testing, it’s clear they didn’t have the right participants. If they had involved actual consumers who might visit the website listed on the packaging, they could have caught the error before it got printed.
A third-party research firm focuses on delivering results, not sparing feelings. They provide unbiased insights, ensuring that avoidable mistakes don’t make it out the door—and neither do unnecessary apologies to baffled parents.
Closing Thoughts to Avoid a Wicked Fate
The moral of the story? If your packaging of a kids toy sends buyers to a site they can’t explain to their kids, you’re doing it wrong.
Package testing isn’t just about color schemes and font sizes—it’s about protecting your brand from, say, being linked to the adult entertainment industry's biggest comeback story.
And while it's easy to chuckle at Mattel's misstep, it's a stark reminder that meticulous product and package testing is not just a formality—it's a necessity. After all, NOT testing your product and packaging is like making Elphaba in charge of PR and setting yourself up for a crash landing.
Want to see how market research can help your company?
Book a free 30-min consult with a researcher at Bixa below: