Business
Ynon Kreiz: The CEO Mattel (and Hollywood) needed in the darkest hour
The day “Barbie” hit theaters in July, Mattel Chief Executive Ynon Kreiz was in New York City visiting his oldest daughter and the pair decided to walk to a nearby theater for some real-time market research. Kreiz, who had been the driving force behind the decision to bring Mattel’s iconic doll to life on the big screen, loved the film, but with its fate now in the hands of the ticket-buying public, his opinion didn’t much matter. He wanted to see how people were reacting.
His answer came quickly. As he and his daughter approached, they found themselves walking among droves of people dressed in Barbie’s signature pink. And when they poked their heads into each of the five packed theaters showing the movie, they were met with roars of laughter. Some viewers were crying.
Discover the changemakers who are shaping every cultural corner of Los Angeles. This week we bring you The Disruptors. They include Mattel’s miracle maker, a modern Babe Ruth, a vendor avenger and more. All are agitators looking to rewrite the rules of influence and governance. Come back each Sunday for another installment.
“Feeling that reaction — that audience reaction — was very telling,” he said, “and very exciting.”
What happened after opening night is now the stuff of Hollywood legend. The Greta Gerwig-directed film became an instant hit at the box office, raking in more than $1.4 billion, and kicked off a cultural phenomenon. Less well known, though, is the role the film has played in the story of Mattel’s revival. It’s a story that was written in large part by Kreiz, 59, who took the reins when the El Segundo-based company was struggling and who over his roughly six years at the helm has orchestrated a remarkable turnaround, making Mattel into one of the biggest corporate success stories of recent years.
At the heart of his plan was a move that seemed obvious to him, but which previous leaders failed to execute: Mattel needed to make a splash in the film business. To Kreiz, Mattel’s intellectual property was a gold mine. The company had a roster of instantly recognizable characters beloved by children and adults alike that he was confident could become enormously lucrative if they were exploited wisely.
For skeptics, that remains a big if. Mattel, in need of a big win in a dark hour, understandably chose to come out of the gate with its most reliable brand. The question now is whether Barbie’s success earned the toy maker’s film division enough industry respect, and breathing room, for the studio to re-create last summer’s magic with other, less potent brands, such as Hot Wheels, Polly Pocket and the card game Uno. Complicating the already uncertain road ahead, earlier this year an activist investor began agitating for the company to jettison some of its key brands to boost its middling stock price.
“This is not a novel concept where you take a strong brand in one vertical and import it to others,” Kreiz said at a conference last fall. “At Mattel, we haven’t done it. … You have ‘Fast and Furious,’ 10, and Hot Wheels, zero.” He believes with certainty that there’s an audience for such a film. After all, Mattel already sells nearly 800 million of the die-cast cars a year.
Mattel’s consumers, Ynon Kreiz said, are more than just consumers — they are fans.
Kreiz, who gets up around 4:30 or 5 a.m. to kiteboard or get some other workout in before work, brings a similar intensity to the office. He stays impressively on message when talking about Mattel, with seemingly effortless sound bites ready at hand, barely breaking eye contact. Watch clips of his public speaking appearances and it becomes clear he repeats talking points, often word for word, his calm, personable demeanor disguising the discipline with which he approaches the CEO role.
When asked about the key to Mattel’s transformation under his leadership, Kreiz, unhurried and with animated hands, launched into a theory that he has often recounted in interviews. Mattel’s consumers, he said, are more than just consumers — they are fans.
“And when you have a lot of fans, you have an audience,” he said.
Kreiz became Mattel’s fourth chief executive in four years when he took charge, inheriting a company that needed a lifeline. He brought with him extensive experience in the entertainment industry, having made career stops at Fox Kids Europe, Endemol Group — the production company known for its unscripted programs, including “Deal or No Deal” and “Big Brother” — and Maker Studios, a short-form video studio that Disney acquired in 2014.
The once dominant toy maker had lost its way: Some of Mattel’s biggest brands were struggling, and toy sales had been steadily declining since 2013. Its market cap had dipped more than $5 billion below that of rival Hasbro. Its second-largest customer, Toys R Us, filed for bankruptcy protection in 2017. That same year, Mattel reported a fourth-quarter loss of $281.3 million.
Kreiz needed to stop the bleeding. He restructured the company’s supply chain, reduced the number of items it produces by 35%, and cut five factories from its manufacturing lineup. The company slashed more than 2,200 jobs, 22% of its global nonmanufacturing workforce. Mattel was starting to move away from manufacturing and focus on developing its intellectual property, Kreiz told reporters. Between 2018 and 2021, Mattel said it achieved cost savings of more than a billion dollars.
The Mattel of today looks much different from the company five years ago. The toy maker is now outpacing Hasbro and dominating in fast-growing toy categories, such as fashion dolls, which are more popular than action figures at the moment, said Linda Bolton Weiser, a managing director and senior research analyst at D.A. Davidson who tracks consumer goods.
Kreiz’s work at Mattel hasn’t gone unnoticed. With Barbie’s wild success, he and the turnaround he’d orchestrated became the talk of corporate Hollywood. Matt Belloni, an industry prognosticator, recently anointed Kreiz “the Hollywood hero of the year” and said he was an obvious choice to replace Bob Iger at Disney.
When the first draft of the “Barbie” script landed in Kreiz’s inbox, he read it twice back to back. The text felt unconventional and special, and he loved it right away. Kreiz isn’t shy with his praise of Gerwig, often calling her a “creative genius.”
Robbie Brenner, the head of Mattel Films, felt the same.
Kreiz ‘is going to be able to go out there and get the best partners in Hollywood to do these future projects.’
— Linda Bolton Weiser, a managing director and senior research analyst at D.A. Davidson
Brenner, a producer who was nominated for an Academy Award for “Dallas Buyers Club,” was one of Kreiz’s first hires after starting as CEO. The two met at the Polo Lounge at the Beverly Hills Hotel after an agent suggested they connect.
“I mean, we hired Greta Gerwig for a reason, and you don’t hire Greta Gerwig and then try to cut her legs off,” Brenner added. “I think that we wanted her to fly and to tell an authentic, amazing personal story that was unique and different and bold, and surprise people.”
The film was a hit beyond expectations, both financially and in the cultural consciousness. The “Barbenheimer” opening weekend brought crowds of people back into movie theaters in numbers unheard of since the pandemic. More than a dozen fashion brands launched “Barbie” collaborations, including Zara and Vans. Burger King in Brazil sold a hamburger doused in pink sauce and French fries called “Ken’s potatoes.” “Barbiecore” was everywhere.
The movie became the highest-grossing film of 2023, surpassing $1 billion at the global box office just 17 days after its release. At a conference in September, Anthony DiSilvestro, Mattel’s chief financial officer, said that the company expected $125 million in revenue related to the “Barbie” movie — including toy sales — with a profit margin of about 60%.
Mattel declined to comment on how much its cut of the box office revenue is, but industry analysts have said the company’s take-home pay from ticket sales is in the tens of millions. In addition, insiders with knowledge of the financial arrangement said that Mattel also will receive payments for owning the rights to Barbie’s intellectual property in addition to profits as a producer of the movie, the New York Times reported.
The toy aisle also felt the effects of “Barbie” mania. Mattel’s third-quarter performance beat estimates, with sales of Barbie dolls jumping 16%. The doll category as a whole was up 27% from the previous year.
The longer-term dividends the film will pay are harder to quantify but crucial to Mattel’s future.
“Barbie” has laid the groundwork for the future of Mattel’s entertainment sector, Bolton Weiser said. “[Kreiz] is going to be able to go out there and get the best partners in Hollywood to do these future projects. And it’s all good, you know? Very low risk for Mattel. They don’t take any big capital risks doing these entertainment events. So it all makes sense.”
Mattel Films now has 16 projects in development: A J.J. Abrams-produced Hot Wheels movie, Lily Collins and Lena Dunham signed on for Polly Pocket, and Vin Diesel as a partner for Rock ’Em Sock ’Em Robots, among others.
As the scale of “Barbie’s” success became clear, a question began to circulate: Can Mattel repeat this success story? Hollywood is a fickle beast, and the company’s use of its most resonant brand for its first act was a gamble.
“It’s difficult to imagine any other movie based on a toy ever reaching ‘Barbie’s’ heights,” Eliana Dockterman, who reviews TV and films for Time magazine, wrote in August. “Barbie is an icon. She has name recognition across the world equal to Mickey Mouse and Coca-Cola. And, sure, Hot Wheels may be popular, but won’t a Hot Wheels movie just be a racing movie, even if J.J. Abrams is at the helm as executive producer?”
Still, Dockterman admitted that she’s curious about Mattel’s next entertainment ventures, namely “Daniel Kaluuya’s involvement with what sounds like a very meta Barney movie (as in, yes, the big purple dinosaur); whether Lena Dunham can find a quirky take on Polly Pocket; and if a Magic 8 Ball horror movie can actually prove to be scary.”
Kreiz quickly brushed off concerns of “Barbie” as a one-hit wonder. “We’re not saying that every movie will be as successful as ‘Barbie,’” he said, “but we absolutely look to have the same approach in terms of attracting and collaborating with the talent, supporting and backing the talent,” and enticing Mattel’s built-in fan base to the theater.
“The idea is to create something unique in every movie,” he added. “Every project has a unique purpose, and will have a unique voice.”
While “Barbie” captured fans’ collective imagination last year, Mattel’s future is not tied exclusively to films. Company execs like to joke that the nearly 800 million Hot Wheels sold annually make Mattel the biggest auto manufacturer in the world.
In September, the company unveiled a two-story L.A. flagship store for American Girl at the Westfield Century City Mall. On opening day, a line of toddlers to tweens, with dolls clutched to their chests and their parents in tow, lined up in front of the store’s doors. Inside, the cafe serves doll-sized pancakes on tiered serving trays alongside plates of human-sized ones. A hair and nail salon styles dolls and their humans.
But Kreiz’s big bet on entertainment is never far off. Mattel announced in December plans to give the American Girl brand its own Hollywood treatment with a live-action movie directed by Lindsey Anderson Beer. Some of the American Girls have already starred in movies, mostly direct-to-DVD and made-for-TV films, but the company is aiming to go bigger.
Nostalgia, tapped effectively, can be a powerful force at the box office. There is a reason why studios keep reaching for reboots and reimaginings of beloved franchises — fans want to reconnect with characters with whom they have a history. But it can be a tricky business trying to nail the sweet spot of familiarity and freshness.
Kreiz thinks the company is up to the task.
“Play is our language,” he said. “This is how we start the journey. This is how we speak to our fans.”
Business
California crypto company accused of illegally inflating Katy Perry NFTs and fraud
Four years ago, California startup Theta Labs’ cryptocurrency was soaring, and its future appeared bright when it landed a partnership with pop star Katy Perry.
The Bay Area company had built a marketplace for digital collectibles known as nonfungible tokens, or NFTs, and had teamed up with Perry to launch NFTs tied to her Las Vegas concert residency. Its THETA token jumped by more than 500% in early 2021, reaching a peak of more than $15, making it one of the world’s most valuable cryptocurrencies. Later in the year, the spotlight shone on the company when it announced the Perry partnership.
“I can’t wait to dive in with the Theta team on all the exciting and memorable creative pieces, so my fans can own a special moment of my residency,” Perry said in a June 2021 news release.
Today, like many cryptocurrencies, THETA is 95% off its 2021 peak. It took a hit this week after former executives accused it of manipulating markets to dupe consumers into buying its products. On Tuesday, it was trading at less than 30 cents.
Two former executives from Theta Labs sued the startup, alleging in separate lawsuits that the company and its chief executive, Mitch Liu, engaged in fraud and manipulated the cryptocurrency market for his benefit. Liu retaliated against them after the employees refused to engage in deceptive business practices and raised concerns, the lawsuits say.
Some of the alleged misconduct involved placing fake bids on Perry’s NFTs, engaging in token “pump and dump” schemes and using celebrity endorsements and “misleading” partnerships with high-profile companies such as Google to deceive the public, according to the December lawsuits filed in Los Angeles Superior Court.
Perry is not accused of any wrongdoing in the suit, and Theta denies the charges.
The lawsuits against Theta Labs are the latest controversy to rattle an industry beset by scandals.
Cryptocurrency exchange FTX collapsed, and its founder, Samuel Bankman-Fried, was sentenced to 25 years in prison in 2024 after being found guilty of multiple fraud charges. Binance founder and former Chief Executive Changpeng Zhao also got prison time after he pleaded guilty to violating money laundering laws, but President Trump pardoned him this year.
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission previously charged celebrities such as Kim Kardashian, Lindsay Lohan, Jake Paul and Ne-Yo for promoting crypto without disclosing they were paid to do so.
Theta Labs created a network that rewarded people with cryptocurrency for contributing spare bandwidth and computing power to enhance video streaming and lower content delivery costs. The company describes Theta Network as a “blockchain-powered decentralized cloud for AI, media and entertainment.” The network has two tokens: THETA, used to secure the network, and TFUEL, used to pay users for services and power operations.
The whistleblowers suing Theta Labs are Jerry Kowal, its former head of content, and Andrea Berry, previously the company’s head of business development.
“Liu used Theta Labs as his personal trading vehicle, perpetrating fraud, self-dealing, and market manipulation,” said Mark Mermelstein, Kowal’s attorney, in a statement. “His calculated ‘pump-and-dump’ schemes repeatedly wiped out employee and investor value. This suit is about demanding accountability and proving no one is above the law.”
Theta, Liu and its parent company, Sliver VR Technologies, deny the allegations and “intend to prove with evidence the fallacy of the stories being told in the lawsuits,” according to Kronenberger Rosenfeld, the law firm representing the defendants. The lawsuits are an attempt to paint the company in a negative light in hopes of securing a settlement, a lawyer for the firm said.
Kowal has sued his former employers before. In 2014, he accused Netflix of spreading false claims that he stole confidential information and Amazon of wrongful termination.
The latest lawsuits allege that Liu profited from buying and selling THETA tokens using insider knowledge about partnerships with celebrities, studios and others in the entertainment industry.
“Liu’s true motive in pursuing such partnerships was not to develop a sustainable content business but to generate publicity that could be used to artificially inflate token prices for Liu’s personal gain,” Kowal’s lawsuit says.
Kowal worked for Theta from 2020 to 2025.
In 2020, Liu traded and sold tokens knowing that the company would close a content licensing deal with MGM Studios, according to the lawsuit. After the deal’s announcement, THETA token’s market capitalization increased by more than $50 million in just 24 hours, the lawsuit says.
When NFTs started to take off in 2021, Kowal closed deals with high-profile partners such as Perry, Fremantle Media and Resorts World Las Vegas for the startup’s NFT marketplace.
As part of the deal with Perry, the singer received $8.5 million and additional warrants for the right to license her image and likeness for the NFTs.
To inflate the price and demand for these digital collectibles, Liu allegedly made bids on NFTs and directed employees to do the same. This led to people overpaying for the Perry NFTs.
Representatives for Perry didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.
Multiple examples of alleged manipulation are outlined in the lawsuits. In one instance from 2022, the startup launched a new token called TDROP that employees also received as part of a bonus.
Liu gained control of 43% of the supply of the cryptocurrency, according to Kowal’s lawsuit. When the TDROP token reached a high, he then sold the token, and its price collapsed by more than 90% within months.
Berry’s lawsuit also alleges that Theta Labs announced “misleading” or fake partnerships with high-profile companies such as Google and entities including NASA to pump up the value of the THETA token. Theta paid for Google Cloud products but claimed it was a partner when it was a Google customer, according to the lawsuit.
Business
Courts rejects bid to beef up policies issued by California’s home insurer of last resort
Retired nurse Nancy Reed has been through the ringer trying to get insurance for her home next to a San Diego County nature preserve.
First, she was dropped by her longtime carrier and forced onto the state’s insurer of last resort, the California FAIR Plan, which offers basic fire policies — something thousands of residents have experienced at the hands of fire-leery insurance companies.
But what she didn’t expect was how hard it would be to find the extra coverage she needed to augment her FAIR Plan policy, which doesn’t cover common perils such as water damage or liability if someone is injured on a property.
She secured the “difference-in-conditions” policies from two insurers, only to be dropped by both before finally finding another for her Escondido home.
“I’ve lived in this house for 25 years, and I went from a very fair price to ‘we’re not insuring you anymore’ — and I’ve had three different difference-in-conditions policies,” said Reed, 71, who is paying about $2,000 for 12 months of the extra coverage. “And I’m holding my breath to see if I will be renewed next year.”
Now, a Department of Insurance regulation that would have required the FAIR plan to offer that additional coverage has been blocked by a state appeals court — leaving the plan’s customers to find that insurance in a market widely considered dysfunctional.
The court ruled earlier this month that the order would have forced the plan to offer liability insurance, which was not the intent of the Legislature when it established the plan in 1968 to offer essential insurance for those who couldn’t get it.
“We appreciate that the court confirmed the California FAIR Plan is designed and intended to operate as California’s insurer of last resort, providing basic property coverage when it cannot be obtained in the voluntary market,” said spokesperson Hilary McLean.
Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara said he is “looking at all available options” following the decision. “I’ve been fighting so people can have access to all of the coverage the FAIR Plan is required by law to provide,” he said in a statement.
Lara has faced criticism from consumer advocates who’ve called for his resignation over his response to the state’s ongoing property insurance crisis.
A FAIR Plan policy covers fires, lightning, smoke damage and internal explosions, as well as vandalism and some other hazards at an additional cost. But in addition to water damage and liability protection, it doesn’t cover such common perils as theft and the damage caused by trees falling on a house.
The demand for the additional coverage — commonly referred to as a “wrap-around” policy — has become even greater than in 2021 when Lara issued the order overturned on appeal.
The FAIR Plan at the time had about 160,000 active dwelling policies following a series of catastrophic wildfires, including the 2018 fire that nearly destroyed the mountain town of Paradise. By September, that number had grown to 646,000.
The insurance department lists less than two dozen companies that offer wrap-around policies, including major California home insurers such as Mercury and Farmers and a a number of smaller carriers.
Broker Dina Smith said that to find the coverage for her home insurance clients she needs to place about 90% of them with carriers not regulated by the state — with the combined coverage typically costing at least twice as much as a regular policy.
“The [market] is very limited,” said Smith, a managing director at Gallagher.
Safeco has not written California wrap-around coverage since the beginning of the year and will begin non-renewing existing policies next month. Smith also said carriers are being selective, with the ones that offer the coverage often demanding exclusions, such as for certain types of water damage.
“If I’ve got a newer home with no prior claims … for liability losses, it’s going to be easy to write. If I get a home that is built in the 1950s that might still have galvanized pipes … that’s going to be a tough one,” she said.
Attorney Amy Bach, executive director of United Policyholders, a San Francisco consumer group, said the difference-in-conditions, or DIC, market is getting just as problematic for homeowners as the overall market.
“The market is not as strong as it needs to be … given how many people are in the FAIR Plan, and there aren’t as many DIC options — with the DIC companies being just as picky as the primary insurers,” she said.
There is also confusion about the policies, she said. Her group is considering pushing for a law next year that would clearly label the coverage so consumers better understand what they are buying.
Business
Student Loan Borrowers in Default Could See Wages Garnished in Early 2026
The Trump administration will begin to garnish the pay of student loan borrowers in January, the Department of Education said Tuesday, stepping up a repayment enforcement effort that began this year.
Beginning the week of Jan. 7, roughly 1,000 borrowers who are in default will receive notices informing them of their status, according to an email from the department. The number of notices will increase on a monthly basis.
The collection activities are “conducted only after student and parent borrowers have been provided sufficient notice and opportunity to repay their loans,” according to the email, which was unsigned.
The announcement comes as many Americans are already struggling financially, and the cost of living is top of mind. The wage garnishing could compound the effects on lower-income families contending with a stressed economy, employment concerns and health care premiums that are set to rise for millions of people.
The email did not contain any details about the nature of the garnishment, such as how much would be deducted from wages, but according to the government’s student aid website, up to 15 percent of a borrower’s take-home pay can be withheld. The government typically directs employers to withhold a certain amount, similar to a payroll tax.
A borrower should be sent a notice of the government’s intent 30 days before the seizure begins, according to the website, StudentAid.gov.
The administration ended a five-year reprieve on student loan repayments in May, paving the way for forced collections — meaning tax refunds and other federal payments, like Social Security, could be withheld and applied toward debt payments.
That move ushered in the end of pandemic-era relief that began in March 2020, when payments were paused. More than 9 percent of total student debt reported between July and September was more than 90 days delinquent or in default, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. In April, only one-third of the 38 million Americans who owed money for college or graduate school and should have been making payments actually were, according to government data.
“It’s going to be more painful as you move down the income distribution,” said Michael Roberts, a professor of finance at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania. But, he added, borrowers have to contend with the fact that they did take out money, even as government policies allowed many to put the loans at the back of their minds.
After several extensions by the Biden administration, payments resumed in October 2023, but borrowers were not penalized for defaulting until last year. About five million borrowers are in default, and millions more are expected to be close to missing payments.
The government had signaled this year that it would send notices that could lead to the garnishing of a portion of a borrower’s paycheck. Being in collections and in default can damage credit scores.
The government garnished wages before the pandemic pause, said Betsy Mayotte, president of the Institute of Student Loan Advisors, which provides free advice for borrowers. But the 2020 collections pause was the first she was aware of, she said, and that may make the deductions more shocking for people who have not had to pay for years.
“There’s a lot of defaulted borrowers that think that there was a mistake made somewhere along the line, or the Department of Education forgot about them,” Ms. Mayotte said. “I think this is going to catch a lot of them off guard.”
The first day after a missed payment, a loan becomes delinquent. After a certain amount of time in delinquency, usually 270 days, the loan is considered in default — the kind of loan determines the time period. If someone defaults on a federal student loan, the entire balance becomes due immediately. Then the loan holder can begin collections, including on wages.
But there are options to reorganize the defaulted loans, including consolidation or rehabilitation, which requires making a certain number of consecutive payments determined by the holder.
Often, people who default on debt owe the smallest amounts, said Constantine Yannelis, an economics professor at the University of Cambridge who researches U.S. student loans.
“They’re often dropouts or they went to two-year, for-profit colleges, and people who spent many, many years in schools, like doctors or lawyers, have very low default rates,” he said.
This year, millions of borrowers saw their credit scores drop after the pause on penalties was lifted. If someone does not earn an income, the government can take the person to court. But, practically speaking, a borrower’s credit score will plummet.
Dr. Yannelis added that a common reason people default was that they were not aware of the repayment options. There are plans that allow borrowers to pay 10 percent of their income rather than having 15 percent garnished, for example.
The whiplash policy changes around the time of the pandemic were “a terrible thing from a borrower-welfare perspective,” Dr. Yannelis said. “Policy uncertainty is really terrible for borrowers.”
-
Iowa1 week agoAddy Brown motivated to step up in Audi Crooks’ absence vs. UNI
-
Maine1 week agoElementary-aged student killed in school bus crash in southern Maine
-
New Mexico1 week agoFamily clarifies why they believe missing New Mexico man is dead
-
Massachusetts1 week agoMIT professor Nuno F.G. Loureiro, a 47-year-old physicist and fusion scientist, shot and killed in his home in Brookline, Mass. | Fortune
-
Detroit, MI1 week ago‘Love being a pedo’: Metro Detroit doctor, attorney, therapist accused in web of child porn chats
-
Health1 week ago‘Aggressive’ new flu variant sweeps globe as doctors warn of severe symptoms
-
Maine1 week agoFamily in Maine host food pantry for deer | Hand Off
-
World5 days agoPutin says Russia won’t launch new attacks on other countries ‘if you treat us with respect’