| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/03/2007 12:13:08 AM · #1 |
1. Im pissed because two toys i boiught for the little one are recalled
2. I went to a site for toy recalls and it had 3 pages of toys within the past three months recalls
3. Are our kids guinnea pigs? Lets release the toy, and then we can always recall it. (Kinda like Microsoft does, just instead of recall it upadtes it products)
4. Seems like almost all of the blame is going to these companies in China. I think responsibility lies equally, if not more, on Mattel (or whoever else). They know very well that contracting some obscure company that makes super cheap products probly doesnt have any type of quality control. SO they make crappy things they bought at dubious costs and then blame the makers.
|
|
|
|
10/03/2007 01:14:36 AM · #2 |
I'm no expert, but I've always thought that mistakes are going to happen as a fact of life, and it's better to put the information out there so that consumers can be safe.
If things you've bought have been recalled, they almost always have something in place where you can get a replacement that is safer, or a voucher for something, for compensation. |
|
|
|
10/03/2007 07:56:02 AM · #3 |
While I can appreciate your frustration, you should take solace in the fact that there was a recall, since it at least demonstrates that the problem was identified and remedial action undertaken.
Much better this scenario than one where your little one might have suffered some harm.
It does make me wonder however how people my age ever survived playing with pointed sticks and other dangerous objects, but that is another story altogether.
Ray
Message edited by author 2007-10-03 07:56:33. |
|
|
|
10/03/2007 08:34:28 AM · #4 |
Ray,
I agree with you on that. I prefer to have kids play with sticks and rocks, rather than have some toxic plastic toy that some company put out on the market and got caught, and then say 'sorry' and recalled it.
|
|
|
|
10/03/2007 09:03:00 AM · #5 |
Having been involved with both product development and more than a few product recalls (not on things I developed BTW), perhaps I can offer some insight.
A recall is a very poor mechanism for protecting the public. Typically, most recalls are lucky if they recover 30-40% of the product that has been sold to the public. Simply because a recall has been issued, it doesn't absolve the company of liability. Recalls, while better than doing nothing, are not only ineffective, they are expensive both financially and in terms of the firm's image in the eyes of its consumers. Although, if handled well, the consumer's image of the company can actually be improved.
The best protection is compliance with product safety standards, usually both internal and governmental. Unfortunately, many products are complex and most companies do not control every aspect of manufacturing their product. They purchase refined raw ingredients such as resin beads for injection molding or sub-assemblies. Some companies have no manufacturing capability at all, they subcontract everything. Every part may come from a different company, which may buy from any number of suppliers.
I remember one particular recall where a safety device failed to trip during a fire. The cause was not the manufacturer of the product, nor the manufacturer of the subassembly. It was the manufacturer of the insulated wire used in the device. They had an unrelated incident where they had to shut down production of wire due to an unrelated incident. When they restarted, some number of feet of the wire was inadequately protected. Unfortunately, it was only possible to trace it back to the batch number, which consisted of thousands of feet of this wire. The wire looked OK and when it was spotchecked during quality control, the affected portions were buried deep in the center of a spool and impossible to detect. With only a few inches of wire in each product, it was impossible to narrow to less than several thousand individual products that had been sold. All of those had to be recalled. Any such machines that were in inventory had to be contained and re-worked so they could be sold. |
|
|
|
10/03/2007 09:05:18 AM · #6 |
| Recalls are also fairly common, I suspect these received much more attention than usual for political reasons. |
|
|
|
10/03/2007 09:38:33 AM · #7 |
Thanks for the insight on the process.
I just think that in the case of sub contracting (as in most thing you buy), if, for example, you buy copper wire at .10 per meter normally, and you switch to a supplier who is selling it for .01 per meter, you should know you are geting what you paid for. The company that sells the final product IS liable, as you said, but they are also unethical in doing this in the first place. I wouldnt be surprised if there was cost analysis weighing out the money saved on buying the parts vs. potential pay offs in lawsuits. (as was done with the Pinto car).
You also said that the publicity is done for political reasons, and I agree with that. Children in danger sells. Wha would sell more? The situation you described, or a 'killer' Elmo?
Which of the two is more dangerous? |
|
|
|
10/03/2007 09:55:36 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by kolasi:
Thanks for the insight on the process.
I just think that in the case of sub contracting (as in most thing you buy), if, for example, you buy copper wire at .10 per meter normally, and you switch to a supplier who is selling it for .01 per meter, you should know you are geting what you paid for. The company that sells the final product IS liable, as you said, but they are also unethical in doing this in the first place. I wouldnt be surprised if there was cost analysis weighing out the money saved on buying the parts vs. potential pay offs in lawsuits. (as was done with the Pinto car).
You also said that the publicity is done for political reasons, and I agree with that. Children in danger sells. Wha would sell more? The situation you described, or a 'killer' Elmo?
Which of the two is more dangerous? |
Typically, these defects are not intentional, they are a result of either miscommunication or some sort of incident (such as stopping and restarting a production line). Despite all of the safety checks, design analyses and testing, it's literally impossible to give the public totally safe products.
When switching to a lower cost supplier, the requirements don't change and procurement staff know about what something should cost. Usually, the cost savings are nowhere near the 90% you mention, but more like 1-5%, enough to justify the cost of switching and realize savings over some millions of units produced in a year.
In the case I mentioned, the potential consequence was a house fire.
The company I worked for was very conscious of product safety, not for legal and financial reasons, but primarily for ethical concerns. There was never any discussion of cost regarding product safety.
I'm sure there have been cases where products with known safety hazards have been sold to the public and those incidents are inexcusable. |
|
|
|
10/03/2007 10:04:59 AM · #9 |
Having been involved with subcontracting (AKA outsourcing) I can say that the fault in these issues lies 100% with the company that puts their name on the product.
Even if China did something wrong or underhanded, shame on Mattel or whoever for not having a system in place for catching the problems.
When you outsource, it's your responsibility to verify your subcontractors are performing to your standards.
|
|
|
|
10/03/2007 10:21:42 AM · #10 |
Keep in mind this is just another recall in a series of recalls over the past three or four months. Literally millions and millions of toys have been recalled. I don't know that enough attention has been brought to the situation -- political motivations or not.
I don't remember the exact number, but in one recent recall, a Diego (from Dora the Explorer) backpack was being recalled. The "accepted" level of lead in paint is something like 6 [whatever the name of the unit is] per million and the level in this backpack was in the thousands per million. (Disclaimor -- that number may be off; I'll try to research it more this afternoon, if work is slow).
From what I've read, Mattel contracted a company to do the products. They then subcontracted out the work, and so on and so forth. It isn't the primary company they contracted violating the standards, but some of the subs.
Still, I do think Mattel is responsible to a degree. They are a trusted name in children's toys, and this has seriously tainted that reputation. I know that when I'm Christmas shopping this year for my 5 and 2 yo, if it was made by Mattel, I will think twice. I sure I'm not the only one.
Maybe my kids would like some sharp sticks and rocks for Christmas. :) Actually, thinking about it, they would probably love it.
|
|
|
|
10/03/2007 12:02:19 PM · #11 |
Granted, my experience is with aircraft and automotive parts. However even with toys I would think you make sure the product meets your standards before putting your name on it. China is just the scapegoat.
I was the Quality Engineer in charge of our subcontractors years ago. My sole responsibility was to be sure this stuff didn't happen. I visited our suppliers, scheduled and unscheduled, to audit them. I inspected random lots of product. I'd even tested them by sending bad raw material to them to see if they would catch it. But most importantly, before ever doing business with a company I would do a detailed audit of them, their processes and their capabilities, even to the point of interviewing their management to make sure I was confident they would provide me quality product.
If the subcontractors did anything wrong it was my fault. If I blaimed a subcontractor for a problem I'm sure I'd have been fired. |
|
|
|
10/03/2007 12:16:15 PM · #12 |
| If it makes you feel any better, the executives on the Chinese side of these product recalls tend to kill themselves. |
|
|
|
10/03/2007 12:52:57 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Granted, my experience is with aircraft and automotive parts. However even with toys I would think you make sure the product meets your standards before putting your name on it. China is just the scapegoat.
I was the Quality Engineer in charge of our subcontractors years ago. My sole responsibility was to be sure this stuff didn't happen. I visited our suppliers, scheduled and unscheduled, to audit them. I inspected random lots of product. I'd even tested them by sending bad raw material to them to see if they would catch it. But most importantly, before ever doing business with a company I would do a detailed audit of them, their processes and their capabilities, even to the point of interviewing their management to make sure I was confident they would provide me quality product.
If the subcontractors did anything wrong it was my fault. If I blaimed a subcontractor for a problem I'm sure I'd have been fired. |
That's one reason why airplanes and their parts are so expensive. Would you pay $8000 for a safer talking Elmo?
It's all about the risk assessment. |
|
|
|
10/03/2007 12:54:14 PM · #14 |
| Before we're all so quick to blame the Chinese, I have to ask, why did Mattel apologize to them? |
|
|
|
10/03/2007 01:00:56 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Before we're all so quick to blame the Chinese, I have to ask, why did Mattel apologize to them? |
I do believe that Mattel came forth and put out a news release wherein the acknowledged the fact that the errors was theirs and NOT the chinese.
I am currently at work and cannot access the link in question, but if you Google Mattel apology you should be able to find it.
Hope this helps.
Ray |
|
|
|
10/03/2007 02:41:26 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
That's one reason why airplanes and their parts are so expensive. Would you pay $8000 for a safer talking Elmo?
It's all about the risk assessment. |
One person could easily check up on elmo manufacturing, and probably 100 other different toys. How many elmos do they make per year? Give the guy a $100K per year to live in China and insure quality on all china products, you're talking pennys per toy.
When I read Mattel's apology, reading between the lines I saw:
- We never specified what paint to use or not use
- We never asked what paint china used
that means, 100% Mattels fault.
Message edited by author 2007-10-03 14:42:03. |
|
|
|
10/03/2007 03:30:59 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
When I read Mattel's apology, reading between the lines I saw:
- We never specified what paint to use or not use
- We never asked what paint china used
that means, 100% Mattels fault. |
Yep, if Mattel didn't adequately spec their components, it's 100% their fault. |
|
|
|
10/03/2007 03:41:27 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
One person could easily check up on elmo manufacturing, and probably 100 other different toys. How many elmos do they make per year? Give the guy a $100K per year to live in China and insure quality on all china products, you're talking pennys per toy.
|
Hmm, so one guy responsible for all Mattel toys in China? I don't think one guy is gonna cut it. Each toy may have two dozen or more manufacturers making components and sub assemblies is he gonna check on those too? How about their suppliers? The raw material suppliers too? Multiply that by the thousands of different toys Mattel makes in China. Mattel makes about 650 million toys annually in China, or nearly 2 million toys each and every day. They would need an army of QC experts to monitor that on their own. The volume is just too much.
They have to rely on the QC staff at each plant and trust them to develop adequate QC plans. Even then, the QC plan is only going to evaluate the product vs. specified standards and criteria.
Message edited by author 2007-10-03 15:46:15. |
|
|
|
10/03/2007 05:07:33 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
One person could easily check up on elmo manufacturing, and probably 100 other different toys. How many elmos do they make per year? Give the guy a $100K per year to live in China and insure quality on all china products, you're talking pennys per toy.
|
Hmm, so one guy responsible for all Mattel toys in China? I don't think one guy is gonna cut it. Each toy may have two dozen or more manufacturers making components and sub assemblies is he gonna check on those too? How about their suppliers? The raw material suppliers too? Multiply that by the thousands of different toys Mattel makes in China. Mattel makes about 650 million toys annually in China, or nearly 2 million toys each and every day. They would need an army of QC experts to monitor that on their own. The volume is just too much.
They have to rely on the QC staff at each plant and trust them to develop adequate QC plans. Even then, the QC plan is only going to evaluate the product vs. specified standards and criteria. |
Coming from someone that has done that job I know they can easily do it for less then $1/toy. it might take an army of people with their quantities, but the cost per toy would be minimal. I had about 1000 part numbers spread over 80 suppliers and it was a part time job (I did other stuff too). I probably had about a million parts per year and they paid me far less then a million dollars per year!
I didn't inspect the parts, the subs do that. I just made sure they did inspect them and made sure they inspected them right. I'd take the inspector out to lunch without the boss and find out what happens when I'm not there. The owners/managers were always REALLY nice to me, so I'd get my friends jobs in their plants and wallah, I have a spy! When I came to visit I came in the back door and went out to the shop floor first. As long as you did your job and not give business to the sub that gives you a set of golf clubs it is pretty easy.
Message edited by author 2007-10-03 17:09:30. |
|
|
|
10/04/2007 02:08:23 PM · #20 |
dude....LOL! Originally posted by routerguy666:
If it makes you feel any better, the executives on the Chinese side of these product recalls tend to kill themselves. |
|
|
|
|
10/04/2007 02:48:14 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
One person could easily check up on elmo manufacturing, and probably 100 other different toys. How many elmos do they make per year? Give the guy a $100K per year to live in China and insure quality on all china products, you're talking pennys per toy.
|
Hmm, so one guy responsible for all Mattel toys in China? I don't think one guy is gonna cut it. Each toy may have two dozen or more manufacturers making components and sub assemblies is he gonna check on those too? How about their suppliers? The raw material suppliers too? Multiply that by the thousands of different toys Mattel makes in China. Mattel makes about 650 million toys annually in China, or nearly 2 million toys each and every day. They would need an army of QC experts to monitor that on their own. The volume is just too much.
They have to rely on the QC staff at each plant and trust them to develop adequate QC plans. Even then, the QC plan is only going to evaluate the product vs. specified standards and criteria. |
Coming from someone that has done that job I know they can easily do it for less then $1/toy. it might take an army of people with their quantities, but the cost per toy would be minimal. I had about 1000 part numbers spread over 80 suppliers and it was a part time job (I did other stuff too). I probably had about a million parts per year and they paid me far less then a million dollars per year!
I didn't inspect the parts, the subs do that. I just made sure they did inspect them and made sure they inspected them right. I'd take the inspector out to lunch without the boss and find out what happens when I'm not there. The owners/managers were always REALLY nice to me, so I'd get my friends jobs in their plants and wallah, I have a spy! When I came to visit I came in the back door and went out to the shop floor first. As long as you did your job and not give business to the sub that gives you a set of golf clubs it is pretty easy. |
At $1/toy, that works out to a $650 million/year expense. No company is going to spend 110% of their profit on that. To be anywhere near feasible, the cost needs to be in the $0.05/toy range and even then it will be expensive. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/27/2025 04:19:14 AM EDT.
