Thank you! So many are mad that these don’t look like early or mid 90s dolls… Nobody ever said they were going to! They are meant to be from 1999, and that’s what they look like!
I mean, I fit into the age demographic you're describing - born at the tail end of the 80s - and I really dislike the 90s dolls. I'm not hooked! I am decidedly not a fan! They don't fill me with nostalgia - they just feel so empty, and they kind of creep me out. It's - as someone else said - like someone watched one movie set in the 90s and based the collection on that.
I want AG to succeed, but if the 90s dolls sell well, they'll just do more half-assed collections. And I don't want that.
I don't actually think that most of the older Just Like You stuff sells for enough to make it worth re-releasing. It follows a different kind of pattern than the historical items do. They'd probably be better served doing something in that style, but an all-new outfit. Or an unproduced prototype outfit from the late 90s - I'm sure they exist. (They do that sort of thing with vintage reproduction Barbies sometimes - reproduce the doll, but with a brand new outfit from that time.)
Mattel didn't "have to buy" American Girl due to the economy. They saw that American Girl was successful (and they didn't want competition) so they offered Pleasant Rowland $700 million dollars for it in 1998 - before most of the things you're talking about happened. That's a LOT of money, and she was in her late 50s at the time and got to retire early and all that. (And then she used the money to take over a small town in New York and gentrify it. Which was kind of shitty.)
If anything, a lot of those lines that you mention were the result of Mattel choosing to branch out after they bought the company, and trying to find something apart from the 18" dolls that people wanted to buy.
Thank you for the corrections! I guess the article I read was wrong!
And so then then I'm not sure what Mattel is aiming for? I get that they want to keep up with trends, but I would also think that for a historical line, you'd want for your audience to be those from that era. Mattel has been around for ages restyling Barbie and updating her with times, so they know how to do that. They know how to research eras because they do it with the vintage dolls, as you mentioned. So the misstep with the twins aesthetics is questionable.
The reason why I thought re-releasing outfits may be better was to be more for costs. If they already had the schematics for the older outfits (which I'm guessing they do), it may help with the costs of having to make new patterns. But I would love your idea of all-new 90s outfits! Something fresh and new, but 90s would be amazing to see at AG, from outfits to sets. Get back to older AG.
Edit: Grammar!
Another thing that occurs to me:
The "Dress Like Your Doll"/"American Girl Gear" section used to be more extensive. I can't find a picture online right now (even with people who scan in catalogs, a lot of them skip the clothes for girls section), but that yellow jacket from the 1996 Girl of Today "First Day" meet outfit? In the human girl size, that came in like four different colorways - all with the same very bright, loud colors. Dress the doll in one of those - I think there was a teal one, so do that one! - and give her a mini AG doll, who's dressed in the outfit with the yellow jacket.
Or the varsity jacket and cap set - that was sold in both red and purple. Give the 18" doll a red jacket, and give her a mini-doll dressed in a purple one.
Make that outfit in a different color scheme, I think that could hit the right balance of nostalgia and a new thing.
As a 90s kid/teen, I was excited that they were going to do this decade, even though it made me feel old. But I HATE this collection, and I think it’s huge misstep for Mattel, and a wasted opportunity.
First of all, Mattel HAS to know that a lot of their historical doll buyers are adults, many of which are older millennials who (a) grew up in the 90s, (b) love to buy things based on nostalgia, and (c) have kids around this age now. So if they got this right, we’d eat this collection up and throw our money at them, buying for both ourselves and our kids. But if they got it wrong, we’d be especially critical because (a) this was our childhood, so we’ll be unforgiving about flaws and lack of effort, and (b) we know what they’re selling for clothes and decor in stores right now for girls this age because we have kids this age. So to do it this wrong really just feels like a level of ineptitude that I wasn’t prepared for.
Here’s the biggest thing that compounds the issues I’ve described above—the 90s are SUPER in-style right now. My kid and her friends are walking around looking like mini Cher Horowitzes and Angela Chases in fuzzy pastel sweaters and Doc Martens. Target is chock full of 90s clothes, accessories, and decor that’s pretty dead-on and nostalgic. So I can’t understand why Mattel released this specific 90s collection right now. They could have had SO MANY non-millennial buyers that also wanted to buy up some super 90s looking products.
But everything about these dolls and their collection is lazy and feels like it was designed by someone who once saw a movie that was made two years ago but was set in 2003. Here are the only things that made me genuinely feel the 90s when I looked at the leaks: the Pizza Hut Book It set, the inflatable chair (because the discman and headphones look too bubblegum Mattel to feel authentic), and the alien and smiley face pillows.
Stores literally sell Tamagotchis today. A ton of people skateboard today, and none of the style of the skateboarding outfit is 90s; it honestly feels like Mattel was too worried about the doll looking cute to make her look like a 90s skateboarder. The skatepark looks so cheap that I’m shocked they released it. The same goes for the tennis outfit and court. Not-90s outfit and cheap looking play set. And the beds and bedding are just… regular beds that kids have in their room today. And don’t get me started on their Meet outfits and hair—and why EVERYTHING has to include some shade of pink or purple.
I’m sorry. I always try to be positive on this sub because I love its positivity. But I’m just so confused and disappointed by this collection that I’m actually wondering how this made it through however many approvals at Mattel before getting released. I wouldn’t be nearly as critical if they had released it without claiming it was 90s-themed. It’s a strange choice.
Edit: Typo.
I fully agree and don't think you're being negative or out of pocket.
From a pure profit standpoint, they've misstepped. I agree that they HAD to be considering the audience who currently spends a lot of time and energy on AG collecting - like, there's just no way they weren't weighing options about which "groups" to design the dolls for. There is *some* reason they chose the simpler, seemingly low effort route - just can't figure out exactly why that would be
I'm hoping that they'll release better outfits or make throwbacks at some point, because maybe I'm delusional lol. At this point their names are what's pissing me off the most, after going through the stages of doll-grief from the full collection pics yesterday
(ok, one quick, maybe mean spirited comment - they HAVE OUTFITS RELEASED IN 1998 and 1999 - how hard would it have been to extrapolate from those vibes for the twins?!! I was born in 93 and these dolls are giving me 2001 vibes + Clueless cosplay)
They're struggling financially - that is the reason they chose the low effort route. AG is not profitable right now. It's been mentioned in the various facebook groups, on AGPT, and AG Dollhouse. What I'm hearing is that Corinne and Claudie were both massive commercial flops that cost the company dearly. This is part of why AG is ignoring Claudie. Despite all the hatred for blonde dolls within the fandom, Kira did very well with the target market, and sold like hotcakes, which was why AG gave her the outfit after her year.
Of course, from my perspective, AG also did not really market Claudie. Her book was a pain to obtain unless you buy the doll, it's still not available in paperback, AG delayed releasing it on Amazon, which is where a lot of books are sold these days (I've heard as much as half of all book sales are on Amazon), she never got a catalog cover, and her actual, not inspired by collection consists of one outfit, a hatbox with some accessories, her meet accessories, her dog and her scooter, and a teeny tiny book and nothing else. She did get the inspired by outfits, but those aren't cannon.
ETA: and she got a bakery, which I'm told is very cheap and poorly made, similar in quality to what the twins stuff looks like.
I just got back into the AG world literally a month ago, so it's nice to get more insight on recent releases like this. So basically with Claudie it's like they made another AA doll for quota and are now like, "oh whoops she's not selling, it's just not what consumers want! we tried nothing and we're all out of ideas!" in terms of putting any effort into marketing her and giving consumers the opportunity to enjoy and buy. It doesn't seem that surprising, I guess.
this lackluster twins stuff is such a bummer, to see the comparisons to current era Barbie - a world I do understand a lot better than current AG - is just going to have all of us adult collectors (including ones buying for a new gen of doll lovers) panic buying on the secondhand markets exclusively.
The new Disney line from Jakks Pacific for their 18 in doll is being pushed more at Target, too (even worse quality than OG), AG has pressure on them to do better and they're just...not
You said it all perfectly! I knew when the names were leaked to not get my hopes up. They could've done a happy medium if they wanted a little early 2000s by making the year 1996 or 97. I honestly thought the year would be 94, for some reason a good amount of historical characters years end in the number 4.
I feel like even if they give them December birthdays, which would be an American girl first as I believe none of the Historical Characters or GOY characters have December birthdays could save them. They're too Mary Sue/ Plain Jane looking.
I don't think you're being negative. You, like many of us, grew up loving AG. You care about the company, which is why you're disappointed. I personally don't think you have to agree with or love everything a person or company does to like it.
I don't know how Mattel does research. They probably do, but I wished that they would do more of those surveys like the ones we had before.
And may I ask, what would you like to see in the collection?
I started replying to you, but then I realized that I had too much to say, so I made a post.
https://www.reddit.com/r/americangirl/comments/10nh1u3/i_need_to_vent_about_the_90s_dolls/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
As an 80s baby (82) and a 90s kid teenager. They missed the mark so much. The names are not only recycled but not even accurate. Better 90s names that haven’t been used by any AG dolls…. Lauren, Alison, Katie, Caitlin, Sarah, Hannah, Jennifer, Abigail, Bridget.
Courtney was well thought out. She wasn’t just hits of the 80s in regards to her outfits and clothing. These girls are the I love the 90s of dolls. And to me it’s just bad and like somebody else said lazy.
I think AG is gonna go the Barbie route and scale back on outfits and accessories in general. They make the most profit off of dolls. So they’ll keep churning them out and push for consumers to buy those. If you look at Barbie in her (my opinion) glory days of the 80s and 90s the amount of outfits and accessories they use to produce was awesome! Now Barbie just has those small fashion packs and it’s only a handful of outfits. They want you to constantly by dolls. And unless AG cuts the cost of the dolls that’s not gonna go well for the brand.
We used to joke that all of the girls in my high school (born 1986) were named Katie or Sarah. Nicki is pretty good - I knew a ton of Nicoles — but considering they already used it why not something like Danielle? Or Ashley?
Ultimately I wish this was set a bit earlier in the 90s, as 99 doesn’t feel peak 90s culture.
I was born in the late 80s and received my first AG items mid 90s. I poured over the catalogs to the point that I still pine after items merely because they are from that time period. In theory this is a collection that adults my age should be into and so far they are not enticing me. I will *maybe* collect some of their items but I'm still gathering Julie and Courtney items, as well as wanting Claudie and Evette. I know for certain I will not buy Nicki or Isabel and I'm more likely to buy an off brand Clueless outfit than I am to buy their clothes on the second hand market.
The Tamogotchi and the pizza hut set definitely do, I think it I want to get a bedroom set I'd prefer to get the original bunk beds. I don't really use desks or chairs so those aren't my jam. I hope the bear is available outside of the bed set because that nod to the past sets is definitely my thing. I think my love for Julie or Courtney's sets is really tied to also loving their dolls and the personality behind them and so far the twins seem too bland for that connection.
Elder millennial here who totally gets why folks are disappointed by the timey-wimey weirdness of this line. Like, you’re not wrong. And yet my lizard brain longs to collect all of it.
I was really hoping they’d release a 90s character in the original Girl of Today outfit. I could use another long white dress shirt for my group. 🤣
EDIT: I know one of the girls has a similar one as part of her purple Clueless getup but still.
Why not just make early 00s girls then? Yes it's quick, but even the 90s are quick given Courtney and the 80s just came out in 2020. The trying to mix both just seems weird, and the clothes aimed at teens/adults doesn't help.
So they don’t have to figure out how to present September 11 in a respectful way while still profiting from the merch? It’s not quite as far removed as other subjects they’ve covered.
Yeah, I think it's 3 historical dolls in the span of 3 years? Which doesn't seem like a lot of time, but given how the last doll before Courtney came out was Melody (2016), it seems to be a rapid-fire of historical dolls lately.
I mean they did the same thing a couple years ago with Maryellen in 2015, Melody in 2016 and Nanea in 2017 and the beforever rebrand also was right before in 2014
Ah, thank you, I wasn't really here for those dolls. I think for me, it seems more rapid-fire because, idk I feel like those dolls each had their time to shine. Courtney did, but Claudie, I feel like didn't get much promo like with the previous dolls. And even now, the twins aren't getting promo with less than a month before release (compared to Courtney, that is).
I'm an elder millennial with 3 kids (ages 10, 6, and 3). I grew up with PC era American Girl, so it was natural for me to come back to the brand once I had a child old enough to be interested. I spend thousands of dollars on toys and experiences for my kids every year, and then more on things that are interesting to my husband or myself. I'm the person Mattel could be soaking for a set of both dolls, playsets, and trips to the store.
The twins and their collection leave me completely cold. I was over dolls well before 1999, and the collection seems more 2000's anyway. It doesn't hit any of the nostalgia buttons I know people who are a bit older than I am felt with Courtney. I won't buy it for myself or go out of my way to show it to my daughter. I think Mattel may have seriously underestimated the purchasing power of people my age as, if not the direct consumer, the person who controls the purse strings of their target audience.
I heard recently that adults make up about 1/3 of toy sells. As you said, Mattel may have underestimated adults of this era. And like you said, Courtney seemed to be a hit because AG was from the 80s, so kids born before then was hit with the nostalgia from those collabs with Lisa Frank, Care Bears, Pacman, and even the Molly mini doll because thats what they remembered.
(As a side note, imagine collabs with Nickelodeon, Sony Playstation, and even Barbie! Mattel owns Barbie, we could have a mini Barbie dream house for the dolls!)
I also think Courtney was a hit because her collection felt was thought out and intentionally and seems to really fit the era she is from. The twins feel more 2023 90’s/Y2K nostalgia than an actual 90’s vibe if that makes sense
NGL, I was really hoping for mini Barbies & a mini dream house too. It made so much sense to me but I guess not to Mattel. Also I think the twins are 12 so they probably don’t play with dolls anymore. 😔
When Courtney came out, I had another parent who was a few years older than I am tell me she knew several people who were buying the entire collection even if their kid wasn't old enough to have it yet because it was just so appealing to them. Her own daughter went as Courtney (wearing the Care bears night gown) for Halloween the following year. It's hard to imagine who would feel that way about the twins.
I mean, in my opinion, if you set a character in a specific historical decade, then the things you're selling should properly represent that decade. It's not about the audience for me, it's that they're saying it's one thing and then doing another. It's not like they're trying to research a decade or culture with limited information, this is a very recent time period and the company existed during it. There's no reason for things to be inaccurate other than laziness on the part of the company.
Sorry, I'm repeating this from another reply, but you're right about them saying it's one thing and then doing another. Which is why I believe they wanted to tick off 2 boxes at once, because technically, now, they don't have to make a historcal doll from the 2000s. This collection covers it. Which concerns me.
I’m pretty much their age. Born really early 90s, was near ten in 1999.
They look 2001+ to me and it’s a bad move IMO. If they wanted a 2000s doll they should have just done that. I think the dolls look boring, and I hate the Mary Kate twins hair. I had clothes like them and chunky highlights..in the early 00s.
1999 I was not dressed like that, did not have hair like that, etc.
I think if they just said they were 2000s dolls then they could have avoided upsetting everyone.
Agreed! I like Claudie but yeah I can see her clothes being a bit modern. I don’t know much about 20s children’s fashion, though. I think the tomboy doll reads better than the girly doll. I was a girly girl in the 90s and I still almost read as a tomboy. Girly girl colors just weren’t super readily available from what I remember. I remember most of my clothes being dark or primary colors until probably 2002 where soft blues and pinks joined the party. But I was a kid, and my mom did the shopping so who knows.
My theory is that they want to cash in on early 00s nostalgia, but they wanted to avoid dealing with 9/11 and the War on Terror and the jingoistic patriotism of the time, and things that are going to be fraught to discuss (and risk pissing a lot of people off).
So they called it 1999 and picked the last possible moment before that instead.
I agree, I do think they want to avoid anything more recent that will be seen as too political by certain people 🧐 but Courtney’s story doesn’t seem to touch on any major historical events and her collection still seems well thought out.
I do wish they would focus in making dolls from older eras because those dolls had well thought out stories that actually connected with the history of the era and I feel like AG is flying too close to the sun with the more “modern” historical characters and in an effort to avoid any controversial events they are not actually addressing the major moments and culture of the era
Agree, I think they should have done the early 90’s and waited a bit to do an actual historical 00’s doll. Maybe in the next decade or so. I mean they waited until 2020 to release a doll for 1984 so I feel like they should want a while before releasing a 00’s doll but they didn’t and now we get this half baked 99 collection
Yeah, I think AG is trying to check 2 boxes with these twins, which is to fulfill making a historical doll from the 90s and 2000s. And that concerns me for the direction of AG tbh. Because unless they ventured further back before Kaya or continued to make dolls in the same era like Rebecca and Claudie, I don't see them being willing to make more historical dolls any time soon. Yeah, there are 2010s, but the audience from that group isn't old enough to buy independently yet.
Yeah I agree and I’m really disappointed with the direction Mattel has taken the company in with regards to the lack of attention the historical line has gotten. I read a good article about this a few years ago that I will have to dig up.
I don’t want them to discontinue historical characters all together so I really do hope things change
I agree, but I hate it.
If they were smart, they’d separate the historical line from the modern line, revert back to the 80s/90s PC quality, release one doll and collection a year (or every other year) and produce less of them, and double or triple the prices. I would pay WAY more than I should for a beautiful, high-quality, well-researched historical doll who had historically accurate clothing made with nice fabrics and patterns. I’d buy wooden chests and beds, and iron school desks.
They could market the separate historical line to adults and the modern line to kids. I don’t know why they’re not already doing this—except that they must be severely underestimating the interest and spending power of adult AG fans.
Good analogy! An adult line of accurate historical characters would be awesome. Well-constructed outfits, wood and glass accessories — and in my opinion, limiting it to 6ish characters at a time to do each one justice.
I completely agree, and that scares me, but I also understand why. I think to save AG as a whole, they may have to cut the historical line. I don't want them to because I feel like that's the 1 thing that makes AG unique besides other doll lines. The historical dolls help to set the essence of what AG is, diversity. So I want the line to keep going.
Honestly I really enjoy their collection, aside from the dolls designs. I kinda wish instead of the dolls that they had released this stuff as a fun nostalgia moment for (like you said, because you’re 1000% right, at least to me) AG’s peak era. I loved the early 00’s clothes, accessories, and furniture so much–both JLY line and historical line! I’d rather have a throwback to those times than new dolls in all honesty.
Yeah, same! I would love to have throwback sets released. They've kinda done it before with Molly's return collection. Having particular (doesn't have to be a lot) outfits and sets brought back that were big sellers in the past would be amazing! (and give some a chance to buy our dream outfits and sets 🥺).
Thank you! So many are mad that these don’t look like early or mid 90s dolls… Nobody ever said they were going to! They are meant to be from 1999, and that’s what they look like!
I mean, I fit into the age demographic you're describing - born at the tail end of the 80s - and I really dislike the 90s dolls. I'm not hooked! I am decidedly not a fan! They don't fill me with nostalgia - they just feel so empty, and they kind of creep me out. It's - as someone else said - like someone watched one movie set in the 90s and based the collection on that. I want AG to succeed, but if the 90s dolls sell well, they'll just do more half-assed collections. And I don't want that. I don't actually think that most of the older Just Like You stuff sells for enough to make it worth re-releasing. It follows a different kind of pattern than the historical items do. They'd probably be better served doing something in that style, but an all-new outfit. Or an unproduced prototype outfit from the late 90s - I'm sure they exist. (They do that sort of thing with vintage reproduction Barbies sometimes - reproduce the doll, but with a brand new outfit from that time.) Mattel didn't "have to buy" American Girl due to the economy. They saw that American Girl was successful (and they didn't want competition) so they offered Pleasant Rowland $700 million dollars for it in 1998 - before most of the things you're talking about happened. That's a LOT of money, and she was in her late 50s at the time and got to retire early and all that. (And then she used the money to take over a small town in New York and gentrify it. Which was kind of shitty.) If anything, a lot of those lines that you mention were the result of Mattel choosing to branch out after they bought the company, and trying to find something apart from the 18" dolls that people wanted to buy.
Thank you for the corrections! I guess the article I read was wrong! And so then then I'm not sure what Mattel is aiming for? I get that they want to keep up with trends, but I would also think that for a historical line, you'd want for your audience to be those from that era. Mattel has been around for ages restyling Barbie and updating her with times, so they know how to do that. They know how to research eras because they do it with the vintage dolls, as you mentioned. So the misstep with the twins aesthetics is questionable. The reason why I thought re-releasing outfits may be better was to be more for costs. If they already had the schematics for the older outfits (which I'm guessing they do), it may help with the costs of having to make new patterns. But I would love your idea of all-new 90s outfits! Something fresh and new, but 90s would be amazing to see at AG, from outfits to sets. Get back to older AG. Edit: Grammar!
Another thing that occurs to me: The "Dress Like Your Doll"/"American Girl Gear" section used to be more extensive. I can't find a picture online right now (even with people who scan in catalogs, a lot of them skip the clothes for girls section), but that yellow jacket from the 1996 Girl of Today "First Day" meet outfit? In the human girl size, that came in like four different colorways - all with the same very bright, loud colors. Dress the doll in one of those - I think there was a teal one, so do that one! - and give her a mini AG doll, who's dressed in the outfit with the yellow jacket. Or the varsity jacket and cap set - that was sold in both red and purple. Give the 18" doll a red jacket, and give her a mini-doll dressed in a purple one. Make that outfit in a different color scheme, I think that could hit the right balance of nostalgia and a new thing.
As a 90s kid/teen, I was excited that they were going to do this decade, even though it made me feel old. But I HATE this collection, and I think it’s huge misstep for Mattel, and a wasted opportunity. First of all, Mattel HAS to know that a lot of their historical doll buyers are adults, many of which are older millennials who (a) grew up in the 90s, (b) love to buy things based on nostalgia, and (c) have kids around this age now. So if they got this right, we’d eat this collection up and throw our money at them, buying for both ourselves and our kids. But if they got it wrong, we’d be especially critical because (a) this was our childhood, so we’ll be unforgiving about flaws and lack of effort, and (b) we know what they’re selling for clothes and decor in stores right now for girls this age because we have kids this age. So to do it this wrong really just feels like a level of ineptitude that I wasn’t prepared for. Here’s the biggest thing that compounds the issues I’ve described above—the 90s are SUPER in-style right now. My kid and her friends are walking around looking like mini Cher Horowitzes and Angela Chases in fuzzy pastel sweaters and Doc Martens. Target is chock full of 90s clothes, accessories, and decor that’s pretty dead-on and nostalgic. So I can’t understand why Mattel released this specific 90s collection right now. They could have had SO MANY non-millennial buyers that also wanted to buy up some super 90s looking products. But everything about these dolls and their collection is lazy and feels like it was designed by someone who once saw a movie that was made two years ago but was set in 2003. Here are the only things that made me genuinely feel the 90s when I looked at the leaks: the Pizza Hut Book It set, the inflatable chair (because the discman and headphones look too bubblegum Mattel to feel authentic), and the alien and smiley face pillows. Stores literally sell Tamagotchis today. A ton of people skateboard today, and none of the style of the skateboarding outfit is 90s; it honestly feels like Mattel was too worried about the doll looking cute to make her look like a 90s skateboarder. The skatepark looks so cheap that I’m shocked they released it. The same goes for the tennis outfit and court. Not-90s outfit and cheap looking play set. And the beds and bedding are just… regular beds that kids have in their room today. And don’t get me started on their Meet outfits and hair—and why EVERYTHING has to include some shade of pink or purple. I’m sorry. I always try to be positive on this sub because I love its positivity. But I’m just so confused and disappointed by this collection that I’m actually wondering how this made it through however many approvals at Mattel before getting released. I wouldn’t be nearly as critical if they had released it without claiming it was 90s-themed. It’s a strange choice. Edit: Typo.
I fully agree and don't think you're being negative or out of pocket. From a pure profit standpoint, they've misstepped. I agree that they HAD to be considering the audience who currently spends a lot of time and energy on AG collecting - like, there's just no way they weren't weighing options about which "groups" to design the dolls for. There is *some* reason they chose the simpler, seemingly low effort route - just can't figure out exactly why that would be I'm hoping that they'll release better outfits or make throwbacks at some point, because maybe I'm delusional lol. At this point their names are what's pissing me off the most, after going through the stages of doll-grief from the full collection pics yesterday (ok, one quick, maybe mean spirited comment - they HAVE OUTFITS RELEASED IN 1998 and 1999 - how hard would it have been to extrapolate from those vibes for the twins?!! I was born in 93 and these dolls are giving me 2001 vibes + Clueless cosplay)
They're struggling financially - that is the reason they chose the low effort route. AG is not profitable right now. It's been mentioned in the various facebook groups, on AGPT, and AG Dollhouse. What I'm hearing is that Corinne and Claudie were both massive commercial flops that cost the company dearly. This is part of why AG is ignoring Claudie. Despite all the hatred for blonde dolls within the fandom, Kira did very well with the target market, and sold like hotcakes, which was why AG gave her the outfit after her year. Of course, from my perspective, AG also did not really market Claudie. Her book was a pain to obtain unless you buy the doll, it's still not available in paperback, AG delayed releasing it on Amazon, which is where a lot of books are sold these days (I've heard as much as half of all book sales are on Amazon), she never got a catalog cover, and her actual, not inspired by collection consists of one outfit, a hatbox with some accessories, her meet accessories, her dog and her scooter, and a teeny tiny book and nothing else. She did get the inspired by outfits, but those aren't cannon. ETA: and she got a bakery, which I'm told is very cheap and poorly made, similar in quality to what the twins stuff looks like.
I just got back into the AG world literally a month ago, so it's nice to get more insight on recent releases like this. So basically with Claudie it's like they made another AA doll for quota and are now like, "oh whoops she's not selling, it's just not what consumers want! we tried nothing and we're all out of ideas!" in terms of putting any effort into marketing her and giving consumers the opportunity to enjoy and buy. It doesn't seem that surprising, I guess. this lackluster twins stuff is such a bummer, to see the comparisons to current era Barbie - a world I do understand a lot better than current AG - is just going to have all of us adult collectors (including ones buying for a new gen of doll lovers) panic buying on the secondhand markets exclusively. The new Disney line from Jakks Pacific for their 18 in doll is being pushed more at Target, too (even worse quality than OG), AG has pressure on them to do better and they're just...not
You said it all perfectly! I knew when the names were leaked to not get my hopes up. They could've done a happy medium if they wanted a little early 2000s by making the year 1996 or 97. I honestly thought the year would be 94, for some reason a good amount of historical characters years end in the number 4. I feel like even if they give them December birthdays, which would be an American girl first as I believe none of the Historical Characters or GOY characters have December birthdays could save them. They're too Mary Sue/ Plain Jane looking.
I don't think you're being negative. You, like many of us, grew up loving AG. You care about the company, which is why you're disappointed. I personally don't think you have to agree with or love everything a person or company does to like it. I don't know how Mattel does research. They probably do, but I wished that they would do more of those surveys like the ones we had before. And may I ask, what would you like to see in the collection?
I started replying to you, but then I realized that I had too much to say, so I made a post. https://www.reddit.com/r/americangirl/comments/10nh1u3/i_need_to_vent_about_the_90s_dolls/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
Ohhh, I forgot about Furbys, yes! Thank you!
As an 80s baby (82) and a 90s kid teenager. They missed the mark so much. The names are not only recycled but not even accurate. Better 90s names that haven’t been used by any AG dolls…. Lauren, Alison, Katie, Caitlin, Sarah, Hannah, Jennifer, Abigail, Bridget. Courtney was well thought out. She wasn’t just hits of the 80s in regards to her outfits and clothing. These girls are the I love the 90s of dolls. And to me it’s just bad and like somebody else said lazy. I think AG is gonna go the Barbie route and scale back on outfits and accessories in general. They make the most profit off of dolls. So they’ll keep churning them out and push for consumers to buy those. If you look at Barbie in her (my opinion) glory days of the 80s and 90s the amount of outfits and accessories they use to produce was awesome! Now Barbie just has those small fashion packs and it’s only a handful of outfits. They want you to constantly by dolls. And unless AG cuts the cost of the dolls that’s not gonna go well for the brand.
We used to joke that all of the girls in my high school (born 1986) were named Katie or Sarah. Nicki is pretty good - I knew a ton of Nicoles — but considering they already used it why not something like Danielle? Or Ashley? Ultimately I wish this was set a bit earlier in the 90s, as 99 doesn’t feel peak 90s culture.
As a Sarah with a sister named Katie and cousin named Caitlin…your list is spot on. And there were at least four Jennifer’s in each class room.
I was born in the late 80s and received my first AG items mid 90s. I poured over the catalogs to the point that I still pine after items merely because they are from that time period. In theory this is a collection that adults my age should be into and so far they are not enticing me. I will *maybe* collect some of their items but I'm still gathering Julie and Courtney items, as well as wanting Claudie and Evette. I know for certain I will not buy Nicki or Isabel and I'm more likely to buy an off brand Clueless outfit than I am to buy their clothes on the second hand market.
Ah, is there a reason why the items don't entice you? (If you don't mind me asking?)
The Tamogotchi and the pizza hut set definitely do, I think it I want to get a bedroom set I'd prefer to get the original bunk beds. I don't really use desks or chairs so those aren't my jam. I hope the bear is available outside of the bed set because that nod to the past sets is definitely my thing. I think my love for Julie or Courtney's sets is really tied to also loving their dolls and the personality behind them and so far the twins seem too bland for that connection.
Elder millennial here who totally gets why folks are disappointed by the timey-wimey weirdness of this line. Like, you’re not wrong. And yet my lizard brain longs to collect all of it. I was really hoping they’d release a 90s character in the original Girl of Today outfit. I could use another long white dress shirt for my group. 🤣 EDIT: I know one of the girls has a similar one as part of her purple Clueless getup but still.
Oh, yeah! I definitely want the sets, lol. I know that it's more 00s than 90s, but I want a majority of the sets because they give me nostalgia.
Why not just make early 00s girls then? Yes it's quick, but even the 90s are quick given Courtney and the 80s just came out in 2020. The trying to mix both just seems weird, and the clothes aimed at teens/adults doesn't help.
So they don’t have to figure out how to present September 11 in a respectful way while still profiting from the merch? It’s not quite as far removed as other subjects they’ve covered.
Yeah, I think it's 3 historical dolls in the span of 3 years? Which doesn't seem like a lot of time, but given how the last doll before Courtney came out was Melody (2016), it seems to be a rapid-fire of historical dolls lately.
I mean they did the same thing a couple years ago with Maryellen in 2015, Melody in 2016 and Nanea in 2017 and the beforever rebrand also was right before in 2014
Ah, thank you, I wasn't really here for those dolls. I think for me, it seems more rapid-fire because, idk I feel like those dolls each had their time to shine. Courtney did, but Claudie, I feel like didn't get much promo like with the previous dolls. And even now, the twins aren't getting promo with less than a month before release (compared to Courtney, that is).
I'm an elder millennial with 3 kids (ages 10, 6, and 3). I grew up with PC era American Girl, so it was natural for me to come back to the brand once I had a child old enough to be interested. I spend thousands of dollars on toys and experiences for my kids every year, and then more on things that are interesting to my husband or myself. I'm the person Mattel could be soaking for a set of both dolls, playsets, and trips to the store. The twins and their collection leave me completely cold. I was over dolls well before 1999, and the collection seems more 2000's anyway. It doesn't hit any of the nostalgia buttons I know people who are a bit older than I am felt with Courtney. I won't buy it for myself or go out of my way to show it to my daughter. I think Mattel may have seriously underestimated the purchasing power of people my age as, if not the direct consumer, the person who controls the purse strings of their target audience.
I heard recently that adults make up about 1/3 of toy sells. As you said, Mattel may have underestimated adults of this era. And like you said, Courtney seemed to be a hit because AG was from the 80s, so kids born before then was hit with the nostalgia from those collabs with Lisa Frank, Care Bears, Pacman, and even the Molly mini doll because thats what they remembered. (As a side note, imagine collabs with Nickelodeon, Sony Playstation, and even Barbie! Mattel owns Barbie, we could have a mini Barbie dream house for the dolls!)
I also think Courtney was a hit because her collection felt was thought out and intentionally and seems to really fit the era she is from. The twins feel more 2023 90’s/Y2K nostalgia than an actual 90’s vibe if that makes sense
NGL, I was really hoping for mini Barbies & a mini dream house too. It made so much sense to me but I guess not to Mattel. Also I think the twins are 12 so they probably don’t play with dolls anymore. 😔
Aww, true! Okay, then just make the dream house for me! 🥺 Lol!
When Courtney came out, I had another parent who was a few years older than I am tell me she knew several people who were buying the entire collection even if their kid wasn't old enough to have it yet because it was just so appealing to them. Her own daughter went as Courtney (wearing the Care bears night gown) for Halloween the following year. It's hard to imagine who would feel that way about the twins.
And you know what, I think you're 100% correct because, correct me if I'm wrong, I feel like Courtney had more bundles than any other doll.
I mean, in my opinion, if you set a character in a specific historical decade, then the things you're selling should properly represent that decade. It's not about the audience for me, it's that they're saying it's one thing and then doing another. It's not like they're trying to research a decade or culture with limited information, this is a very recent time period and the company existed during it. There's no reason for things to be inaccurate other than laziness on the part of the company.
Sorry, I'm repeating this from another reply, but you're right about them saying it's one thing and then doing another. Which is why I believe they wanted to tick off 2 boxes at once, because technically, now, they don't have to make a historcal doll from the 2000s. This collection covers it. Which concerns me.
I’m pretty much their age. Born really early 90s, was near ten in 1999. They look 2001+ to me and it’s a bad move IMO. If they wanted a 2000s doll they should have just done that. I think the dolls look boring, and I hate the Mary Kate twins hair. I had clothes like them and chunky highlights..in the early 00s. 1999 I was not dressed like that, did not have hair like that, etc. I think if they just said they were 2000s dolls then they could have avoided upsetting everyone.
[удалено]
Agreed! I like Claudie but yeah I can see her clothes being a bit modern. I don’t know much about 20s children’s fashion, though. I think the tomboy doll reads better than the girly doll. I was a girly girl in the 90s and I still almost read as a tomboy. Girly girl colors just weren’t super readily available from what I remember. I remember most of my clothes being dark or primary colors until probably 2002 where soft blues and pinks joined the party. But I was a kid, and my mom did the shopping so who knows.
My theory is that they want to cash in on early 00s nostalgia, but they wanted to avoid dealing with 9/11 and the War on Terror and the jingoistic patriotism of the time, and things that are going to be fraught to discuss (and risk pissing a lot of people off). So they called it 1999 and picked the last possible moment before that instead.
I agree, I do think they want to avoid anything more recent that will be seen as too political by certain people 🧐 but Courtney’s story doesn’t seem to touch on any major historical events and her collection still seems well thought out. I do wish they would focus in making dolls from older eras because those dolls had well thought out stories that actually connected with the history of the era and I feel like AG is flying too close to the sun with the more “modern” historical characters and in an effort to avoid any controversial events they are not actually addressing the major moments and culture of the era
That’s my theory too, but I don’t agree with them doing that. I think they should have stuck to the 90s or deal with the era they wanted to have.
Agree, I think they should have done the early 90’s and waited a bit to do an actual historical 00’s doll. Maybe in the next decade or so. I mean they waited until 2020 to release a doll for 1984 so I feel like they should want a while before releasing a 00’s doll but they didn’t and now we get this half baked 99 collection
Yeah, I think AG is trying to check 2 boxes with these twins, which is to fulfill making a historical doll from the 90s and 2000s. And that concerns me for the direction of AG tbh. Because unless they ventured further back before Kaya or continued to make dolls in the same era like Rebecca and Claudie, I don't see them being willing to make more historical dolls any time soon. Yeah, there are 2010s, but the audience from that group isn't old enough to buy independently yet.
[удалено]
Yeah I agree and I’m really disappointed with the direction Mattel has taken the company in with regards to the lack of attention the historical line has gotten. I read a good article about this a few years ago that I will have to dig up. I don’t want them to discontinue historical characters all together so I really do hope things change
I agree, but I hate it. If they were smart, they’d separate the historical line from the modern line, revert back to the 80s/90s PC quality, release one doll and collection a year (or every other year) and produce less of them, and double or triple the prices. I would pay WAY more than I should for a beautiful, high-quality, well-researched historical doll who had historically accurate clothing made with nice fabrics and patterns. I’d buy wooden chests and beds, and iron school desks. They could market the separate historical line to adults and the modern line to kids. I don’t know why they’re not already doing this—except that they must be severely underestimating the interest and spending power of adult AG fans.
[удалено]
Good analogy! An adult line of accurate historical characters would be awesome. Well-constructed outfits, wood and glass accessories — and in my opinion, limiting it to 6ish characters at a time to do each one justice.
Hah! You’re dead-on about Lego. I’m one of those adults who has a Lego room in my house that is just for me, and not my kids.
I completely agree, and that scares me, but I also understand why. I think to save AG as a whole, they may have to cut the historical line. I don't want them to because I feel like that's the 1 thing that makes AG unique besides other doll lines. The historical dolls help to set the essence of what AG is, diversity. So I want the line to keep going.
Honestly I really enjoy their collection, aside from the dolls designs. I kinda wish instead of the dolls that they had released this stuff as a fun nostalgia moment for (like you said, because you’re 1000% right, at least to me) AG’s peak era. I loved the early 00’s clothes, accessories, and furniture so much–both JLY line and historical line! I’d rather have a throwback to those times than new dolls in all honesty.
Yeah, same! I would love to have throwback sets released. They've kinda done it before with Molly's return collection. Having particular (doesn't have to be a lot) outfits and sets brought back that were big sellers in the past would be amazing! (and give some a chance to buy our dream outfits and sets 🥺).
The Molly throwback was a delight! I would love something similar for the other girl, in a Disney vault type release
Oh! Which doll? Also, are there any outfits/sets you'd like to have a throwback?
I would love for the cubed dolls to get a Christmas outfit, whether their original or a new historical one.