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
In Los Angeles, Hotels Become a Refuge for Fire Evacuees
The lobby of Shutters on the Beach, the luxury oceanfront hotel in Santa Monica that is usually abuzz with tourists and entertainment professionals, had by Thursday transformed into a refuge for Los Angeles residents displaced by the raging wildfires that have ripped through thousands of acres and leveled entire neighborhoods to ash.
In the middle of one table sat something that has probably never been in the lobby of Shutters before: a portable plastic goldfish tank. “It’s my daughter’s,” said Kevin Fossee, 48. Mr. Fossee and his wife, Olivia Barth, 45, had evacuated to the hotel on Tuesday evening shortly after the fire in the Los Angeles Pacific Palisades area flared up near their home in Malibu.
Suddenly, an evacuation alert came in. Every phone in the lobby wailed at once, scaring young children who began to cry inconsolably. People put away their phones a second later when they realized it was a false alarm.
Similar scenes have been unfolding across other Los Angeles hotels as the fires spread and the number of people under evacuation orders soars above 100,000. IHG, which includes the Intercontinental, Regent and Holiday Inn chains, said 19 of its hotels across the Los Angeles and Pasadena areas were accommodating evacuees.
The Palisades fire, which has been raging since Tuesday and has become the most destructive in the history of Los Angeles, struck neighborhoods filled with mansions owned by the wealthy, as well as the homes of middle-class families who have owned them for generations. Now they all need places to stay.
Many evacuees turned to a Palisades WhatsApp group that in just a few days has grown from a few hundred to over 1,000 members. Photos, news, tips on where to evacuate, hotel discount codes and pet policies were being posted with increasing rapidity as the fires spread.
At the midcentury modern Beverly Hilton hotel, which looms over the lawns and gardens of Beverly Hills, seven miles and a world away from the ash-strewed Pacific Palisades, parking ran out on Wednesday as evacuees piled in. Guests had to park in another lot a mile south and take a shuttle back.
In the lobby of the hotel, which regularly hosts glamorous events like the recent Golden Globe Awards, guests in workout clothes wrestled with children, pets and hastily packed roll-aboards.
Many of the guests were already familiar with each other from their neighborhoods, and there was a resigned intimacy as they traded stories. “You can tell right away if someone is a fire evacuee by whether they are wearing sweats or have a dog with them,” said Sasha Young, 34, a photographer. “Everyone I’ve spoken with says the same thing: We didn’t take enough.”
The Hotel June, a boutique hotel with a 1950s hipster vibe a mile north of Los Angeles International Airport, was offering evacuees rooms for $125 per night.
“We were heading home to the Palisades from the airport when we found out about the evacuations,” said Julia Morandi, 73, a retired science educator who lives in the Palisades Highlands neighborhood. “When we checked in, they could see we were stressed, so the manager gave us drinks tickets and told us, ‘We take care of our neighbors.’”
Hotels are also assisting tourists caught up in the chaos, helping them make arrangements to fly home (as of Friday, the airport was operating normally) and waiving cancellation fees. A spokeswoman for Shutters said its guests included domestic and international tourists, but on Thursday, few could be spotted among the displaced Angelenos. The heated outdoor pool that overlooks the ocean and is usually surrounded by sunbathers was completely deserted because of the dangerous air quality.
“I think I’m one of the only tourists here,” said Pavel Francouz, 34, a hockey scout who came to Los Angeles from the Czech Republic for a meeting on Tuesday before the fires ignited.
“It’s weird to be a tourist,” he said, describing the eerily empty beaches and the hotel lobby packed with crying children, families, dogs and suitcases. “I can’t imagine what it would feel like to be these people,” he said, adding, “I’m ready to go home.”
Follow New York Times Travel on Instagram and sign up for our weekly Travel Dispatch newsletter to get expert tips on traveling smarter and inspiration for your next vacation. Dreaming up a future getaway or just armchair traveling? Check out our 52 Places to Go in 2025.
Business
Downtown Los Angeles Macy's is among 150 locations to close
The downtown Los Angeles Macy’s department store, situated on 7th Street and a cornerstone of retail in the area, will shut down as the company prepares to close 150 underperforming locations in an effort to revamp and modernize its business.
The iconic retail center announced this week the first 66 closures, including nine in California spanning from Sacramento to San Diego. Stores will also close in Florida, New York and Georgia, among other states. The closures are part of a broader company strategy to bolster sustainability and profitability.
Macy’s is not alone in its plan to slim down and rejuvenate sales. The retailer Kohl’s announced on Friday that it would close 27 poor performing stores by April, including 10 in California and one in the Los Angeles neighborhood of Westchester. Kohl’s will also shut down its San Bernardino e-commerce distribution center in May.
“Kohl’s continues to believe in the health and strength of its profitable store base” and will have more than 1,100 stores remaining after the closures, the company said in a statement.
Macy’s announced its plan last February to end operations at roughly 30% of its stores by 2027, following disappointing quarterly results that included a $71-million loss and nearly 2% decline in sales. The company will invest in its remaining 350 stores, which have the potential to “generate more meaningful value,” according to a release.
“We are closing underproductive Macy’s stores to allow us to focus our resources and prioritize investments in our go-forward stores, where customers are already responding positively to better product offerings and elevated service,” Chief Executive Tony Spring said in a statement. “Closing any store is never easy.”
Macy’s brick-and-mortar locations also faced a setback in January 2024, when the company announced the closures of five stores, including the location at Simi Valley Town Center. At the same time, Macy’s said it would layoff 3.5% of its workforce, equal to about 2,350 jobs.
Farther north, Walgreens announced this week that it would shutter 12 stores across San Francisco due to “increased regulatory and reimbursement pressures,” CBS News reported.
Business
The justices are expected to rule quickly in the case.
When the Supreme Court hears arguments on Friday over whether protecting national security requires TikTok to be sold or closed, the justices will be working in the shadow of three First Amendment precedents, all influenced by the climate of their times and by how much the justices trusted the government.
During the Cold War and in the Vietnam era, the court refused to credit the government’s assertions that national security required limiting what newspapers could publish and what Americans could read. More recently, though, the court deferred to Congress’s judgment that combating terrorism justified making some kinds of speech a crime.
The court will most likely act quickly, as TikTok faces a Jan. 19 deadline under a law enacted in April by bipartisan majorities. The law’s sponsors said the app’s parent company, ByteDance, is controlled by China and could use it to harvest Americans’ private data and to spread covert disinformation.
The court’s decision will determine the fate of a powerful and pervasive cultural phenomenon that uses a sophisticated algorithm to feed a personalized array of short videos to its 170 million users in the United States. For many of them, and particularly younger ones, TikTok has become a leading source of information and entertainment.
As in earlier cases pitting national security against free speech, the core question for the justices is whether the government’s judgments about the threat TikTok is said to pose are sufficient to overcome the nation’s commitment to free speech.
Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky, told the justices that he “is second to none in his appreciation and protection of the First Amendment’s right to free speech.” But he urged them to uphold the law.
“The right to free speech enshrined in the First Amendment does not apply to a corporate agent of the Chinese Communist Party,” Mr. McConnell wrote.
Jameel Jaffer, the executive director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, said that stance reflected a fundamental misunderstanding.
“It is not the government’s role to tell us which ideas are worth listening to,” he said. “It’s not the government’s role to cleanse the marketplace of ideas or information that the government disagrees with.”
The Supreme Court’s last major decision in a clash between national security and free speech was in 2010, in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project. It concerned a law that made it a crime to provide even benign assistance in the form of speech to groups said to engage in terrorism.
One plaintiff, for instance, said he wanted to help the Kurdistan Workers’ Party find peaceful ways to protect the rights of Kurds in Turkey and to bring their claims to the attention of international bodies.
When the case was argued, Elena Kagan, then the U.S. solicitor general, said courts should defer to the government’s assessments of national security threats.
“The ability of Congress and of the executive branch to regulate the relationships between Americans and foreign governments or foreign organizations has long been acknowledged by this court,” she said. (She joined the court six months later.)
The court ruled for the government by a 6-to-3 vote, accepting its expertise even after ruling that the law was subject to strict scrutiny, the most demanding form of judicial review.
“The government, when seeking to prevent imminent harms in the context of international affairs and national security, is not required to conclusively link all the pieces in the puzzle before we grant weight to its empirical conclusions,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority.
In its Supreme Court briefs defending the law banning TikTok, the Biden administration repeatedly cited the 2010 decision.
“Congress and the executive branch determined that ByteDance’s ownership and control of TikTok pose an unacceptable threat to national security because that relationship could permit a foreign adversary government to collect intelligence on and manipulate the content received by TikTok’s American users,” Elizabeth B. Prelogar, the U.S. solicitor general, wrote, “even if those harms had not yet materialized.”
Many federal laws, she added, limit foreign ownership of companies in sensitive fields, including broadcasting, banking, nuclear facilities, undersea cables, air carriers, dams and reservoirs.
While the court led by Chief Justice Roberts was willing to defer to the government, earlier courts were more skeptical. In 1965, during the Cold War, the court struck down a law requiring people who wanted to receive foreign mail that the government said was “communist political propaganda” to say so in writing.
That decision, Lamont v. Postmaster General, had several distinctive features. It was unanimous. It was the first time the court had ever held a federal law unconstitutional under the First Amendment’s free expression clauses.
It was the first Supreme Court opinion to feature the phrase “the marketplace of ideas.” And it was the first Supreme Court decision to recognize a constitutional right to receive information.
That last idea figures in the TikTok case. “When controversies have arisen,” a brief for users of the app said, “the court has protected Americans’ right to hear foreign-influenced ideas, allowing Congress at most to require labeling of the ideas’ origin.”
Indeed, a supporting brief from the Knight First Amendment Institute said, the law banning TikTok is far more aggressive than the one limiting access to communist propaganda. “While the law in Lamont burdened Americans’ access to specific speech from abroad,” the brief said, “the act prohibits it entirely.”
Zephyr Teachout, a law professor at Fordham, said that was the wrong analysis. “Imposing foreign ownership restrictions on communications platforms is several steps removed from free speech concerns,” she wrote in a brief supporting the government, “because the regulations are wholly concerned with the firms’ ownership, not the firms’ conduct, technology or content.”
Six years after the case on mailed propaganda, the Supreme Court again rejected the invocation of national security to justify limiting speech, ruling that the Nixon administration could not stop The New York Times and The Washington Post from publishing the Pentagon Papers, a secret history of the Vietnam War. The court did so in the face of government warnings that publishing would imperil intelligence agents and peace talks.
“The word ‘security’ is a broad, vague generality whose contours should not be invoked to abrogate the fundamental law embodied in the First Amendment,” Justice Hugo Black wrote in a concurring opinion.
The American Civil Liberties Union told the justices that the law banning TikTok “is even more sweeping” than the prior restraint sought by the government in the Pentagon Papers case.
“The government has not merely forbidden particular communications or speakers on TikTok based on their content; it has banned an entire platform,” the brief said. “It is as though, in Pentagon Papers, the lower court had shut down The New York Times entirely.”
Mr. Jaffer of the Knight Institute said the key precedents point in differing directions.
“People say, well, the court routinely defers to the government in national security cases, and there is obviously some truth to that,” he said. “But in the sphere of First Amendment rights, the record is a lot more complicated.”
-
Business1 week ago
These are the top 7 issues facing the struggling restaurant industry in 2025
-
Culture1 week ago
The 25 worst losses in college football history, including Baylor’s 2024 entry at Colorado
-
Sports1 week ago
The top out-of-contract players available as free transfers: Kimmich, De Bruyne, Van Dijk…
-
Politics1 week ago
New Orleans attacker had 'remote detonator' for explosives in French Quarter, Biden says
-
Politics1 week ago
Carter's judicial picks reshaped the federal bench across the country
-
Politics6 days ago
Who Are the Recipients of the Presidential Medal of Freedom?
-
Health5 days ago
Ozempic ‘microdosing’ is the new weight-loss trend: Should you try it?
-
World1 week ago
Ivory Coast says French troops to leave country after decades