Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
MGMT 524
Winter 2011
March 14, 2011
Gautam Aggarwal
Vivek Durairaj
Alex Jukl
David McCullough
Melissa Revenaugh
Melodie Shimomura
Ashish Yajnik
1
Executive Summary
LeapFrog Enterprises, Inc. is an educational game company that develops learning toys
for infants and children. Since launching its award-winning LeapPad in 1999, LeapFrog has
served a niche market in the toy industry, a segment in which leading competitors Mattel and
Hasbro have not fully delved into. LeapFrog utilizes its core competencies, such as the Anoto
optical reader technology and proprietary software that integrates with its Learning Path
behavior and an overall age compression phenomenon in children, LeapFrog has reorganized its
structure and strategy to operate more efficiently over the long-term. A critical element to its
success hinges on the Learning Path system, which functions as a technology base for
LeapFrog’s most popular toys. Learning Path is a key differentiator for LeapFrog, allowing
parents the capability to track their child’s educational progress through LeapFrog games and
make incremental improvements and reduce operating costs to try and sustain profitability
over the longer-term, or it can attractively position the company for acquisition by a leading
competitor in the short-term. Our research favors the latter. Among its competitors, LeapFrog
would most strategically fit with Hasbro; LeapFrog’s competence in educational toys would
expand Hasbro’s product breadth with the least amount of redundancies, since Hasbro
2
Table of Contents
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 5
Industry Analysis ....................................................................................................................................... 5
Competitors .............................................................................................................................................. 6
Firm Analysis ................................................................................................................................................. 7
High Level Strategy.................................................................................................................................... 7
Corporate Culture ..................................................................................................................................... 9
Financials....................................................................................................................................................... 9
Cost Controls ........................................................................................................................................... 10
Value Chain Analysis ............................................................................................................................... 10
Research & Development ................................................................................................................... 10
Manufacturing .................................................................................................................................... 11
Marketing & Distribution ........................................................................................................................ 12
Design Strategy ....................................................................................................................................... 13
Products & Pricing Strategy ........................................................................................................................ 13
Learning Path .......................................................................................................................................... 14
Learning toys ........................................................................................................................................... 14
Interactive reading systems .................................................................................................................... 15
Educational gaming systems ................................................................................................................... 15
Web-based products ............................................................................................................................... 16
Core Technology Competencies ................................................................................................................. 16
Hardware................................................................................................................................................. 16
Software .................................................................................................................................................. 17
Innovation Audit ......................................................................................................................................... 17
Technological leadership ........................................................................................................................ 17
Competitor and Trend Analysis Competencies....................................................................................... 19
Structural and cultural impact on innovation ......................................................................................... 20
Issues ........................................................................................................................................................... 20
Recommendations ...................................................................................................................................... 21
Implementation .......................................................................................................................................... 22
3
Cost Reduction ........................................................................................................................................ 22
Cut the development of low margin toys ........................................................................................... 22
Decrease R&D ..................................................................................................................................... 22
Decrease inventory costs .................................................................................................................... 23
Value Creation......................................................................................................................................... 23
Expand and deepen software products .............................................................................................. 23
Transition Learning Path into a subscription-based service ............................................................... 24
EXHIBITS ...................................................................................................................................................... 25
Exhibit 1: Toy and Games Sales by Type 2009 ........................................................................................ 25
Exhibit 2: Traditional Toys and Games Global Values Sales by Sector.................................................... 25
Exhibit 3: Toys and Games Company Shares by Value 2004 – 2008....................................................... 26
Exhibit 4: Toys and Games Industry Overview........................................................................................ 26
Exhibit 5: Competitive Positioning .......................................................................................................... 27
Exhibit 6: SWOT Analysis ......................................................................................................................... 28
Exhibit 7: High Level Strategy.................................................................................................................. 29
Exhibit 8: Business Strategy .................................................................................................................... 29
Exhibit 9: LeapFrog Timeline: Repositioned for Growth ......................................................................... 30
Exhibit 10: Key Financial Data ................................................................................................................. 30
Exhibit 11: Comparison of R&D Expenditure .......................................................................................... 32
Exhibit 12: LeapFrog’s Product Mix......................................................................................................... 33
Exhibit 13: Learning Path Ecosystem ...................................................................................................... 34
Exhibit 14: Product Life Cycle .................................................................................................................. 35
Exhibit 15: Product Pricing ...................................................................................................................... 36
Exhibit 16: Children’s Expectations of Technology, 2005 vs Present...................................................... 37
Exhibit 17: Product Technology Matrix ................................................................................................... 38
Exhibit 18: New Product Launch and Milestones ................................................................................... 39
Exhibit 19: Possible Disruption................................................................................................................ 40
Exhibit 20: Technology Portfolio ............................................................................................................. 40
Exhibit 21: Comparison of Competitive Educational Toy Products ........................................................ 41
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................ 42
4
Introduction
company that develops innovative technology-based learning platforms and related proprietary
content for infants and children. LeapFrog’s product portfolio encompasses learning toys,
interactive reading systems and books, and educational gaming systems and software. At
LeapFrog’s inception, the company vision was to enter the toy industry by developing and
producing educational-based toys targeted to a niche market. In 1999, LeapFrog launched the
LeapPad, its first technology-based educational platform, targeting parents of children ages 4 to
8. Through its use of custom-designed integrated circuits (ASICs), built-in speakers, innovative
software, and proprietary intellectual property, the LeapPad sought to change the way children
learned to read. This was one of the first products that demonstrated the core value that
LeapFrog has continued to provide to its customers: to change the way learning happens
Industry Analysis
The toys and games industry is viewed by most analysts as being recession-proof.
Euromonitor states “the traditional toys and games market has been less affected by the
financial crisis that hit the US at the end of 2008 than the video games market.”1 2011 will likely
prove to be good for the toy and games industry as the economy improves. Toy and game sales
by product type are shown in Exhibit 1. Despite declining birth rates in several key markets, pre-
school toys and games have continued to do well over the past ten years with global unit sales
increasing by 7.7% between 2004 and 2009 alone (Exhibit 2). In 2009, North America had the
1
From Euromonitor “Toys and Games – USA” Report
5
greatest share of the global toys market with $50 billion in sales. Software-based video games
and console hardware sales increased by approximately 12% in the same period.
As competition in the toys and games industry grows and the phenomenon of “age
compression” (where children begin to act older sooner) impacts the market, hardware and
content providers will have to find new ways of creating value for customers. As parents
become more familiar with newer technologies and look to interactive toys to improve their
child’s learning process, the interactive toys market is forecasted to exhibit a strong growth
Competitors
LeapFrog’s primary competitors are Fisher-Price (Mattel), Playskool (Hasbro) and Vtech
Kids (Vtech Holdings Ltd). These competitors are comparatively bigger and financially strong,
but aside from Vtech Kids, have very few (or zero, in Playskool’s case) products in the high tech
educational toys market. Vtech offers close substitutes of LeapFrog’s most popular products,
but lacks web integration and suffers from a smaller content library. However, Vtech features
lower pricing on its Tag competitor equipment and books, parity pricing on games, and a higher
price on its Leapster competitor.2 From our research, it appears as though Vtech is a ‘fast
follower’ of LeapFrog in the high-tech educational toys market; the company has been present
in the educational toys market since 2001 with toys on par with LeapFrog’s Scout.3 Although
building up a respectable library of games featuring licensed franchises, it may still lack the
brand equity of LeapFrog in this space although it appears to be successful in securing shelf
2
VTech website (www.vtechkids.com)
3
“VTech's new variety of learning products”. Playthings; Feb2001, Vol. 99 Issue 2, p120
6
space in toy stores. As a subsidiary of Vtech Holding Company, little information on Vtech Kids
is publically available.
From 2004 to 2008, LeapFrog lost nearly 1% in marketshare as customers shied away
from premium products like those developed by LeapFrog (Exhibit 3). To increase sales,
LeapFrog introduced the Scout line of products at lower price points in 2009, helping the
company regain some of its lost market share. According to Euromonitor’s 2010 Toys and
Games report4, LeapFrog has moved up to the 7th position relative to its competitors (0). The
Firm Analysis
In the early 2000s, LeapFrog’s focus was to create a bottom-up strategy with LeapPad as
the base. Though successful at the onset, this strategy could not sustain LeapFrog’s rapid
At the end of 2006, LeapFrog realized that a change was needed to compete effectively
in the toy industry. Upon assessing its strengths and weaknesses (Exhibit 6), top management
devised a plan to improve operations, referred to as “Fix, Reload and Grow”.5 From a strategic
perspective, LeapFrog’s management believed that the company needed to first recognize and
fix its existing structural and operational problems that had led to decreased sales. The next
phase would be to release new products to strengthen LeapFrog’s exposure and expand its
4
From Euromonitor “Toys and Games – USA” Report
5
From the Leapfrog Enterprises, Inc. Form 10-K (2007) filed 3/13/2008
7
product lines. Once the core issues were resolved and new products were developed and
introduced to the market, management believed the company would be able to grow
sustainably and maintain profitability. LeapFrog created its corporate building blocks of brand
this improved top-down strategy. With the introduction of Learning Path, an online content
management system (CMS) that offers proprietary curriculum and technology to foster better
customer engagement, LeapFrog’s brand image improved, allowing the company to focus on
incremental innovation that would further strengthen its position in consumers’ minds. The
success of this top-down strategy is dependent on strong brand image, effective channels,
strong customer mind share and streamlined production to customer supply chain (Exhibit 7).
(Exhibit 8). LeapFrog’s target is to be ranked within the top 3 in all product categories; if a
product is not one of the market leaders, it is either phased out or more features are added on
to make it a hit. In light of LeapFrog’s weakening market share in the reading space, the
company is trying to regain its position by leveraging the brand’s strength in all other learning
products through the Learning Path system to make parents aware of the strengths of the
company’s reading products. This reveals LeapFrog’s integrative approach at building customer
share across segments. Exhibit 9 shows LeapFrog’s strategic evolution to position itself for
growth.
LeapFrog is also trying to increase its presence in multiple geographical markets like the
United Kingdom, Canada, France, Mexico, China, Australia, Germany, Japan, and Korea. These
8
global markets offer new opportunities for LeapFrog, as electronic-based educational toys are
not yet adopted in these markets. By developing these new markets LeapFrog can cultivate a
Corporate Culture
LeapFrog’s success depends greatly on the innovation of its learning products. Well
aware of this fact, the company encourages entrepreneurial behavior and innovative ideas by
offering commissions and monetary incentives to engineers who come up with new ideas.
Business unit and product managers are also compensated for new ideas and products coming
out of their group, giving them incentive to promote and support engineers in their respective
groups to develop new concepts and build upon them. Additionally, stock options are granted
to managers with delayed vesting timelines that incentivize them to stick around and
sees the company doing its greatest work when a flexible work atmosphere is permitted.
Restrictive bureaucracy is seen as the biggest threat to the company’s growth, with red-tape
Financials
Fluctuating Revenue
Revenue picked up in 2001-2002 and peaked in 2003 at $681 million when LeapPad was
launched into the market; however, revenue has since declined to $433 million for FY 2009. No
major jumps in revenue are expected in 2011. An important contributor to this is increased
competition and a generally soft toys and games market going forward. Revenue from
9
international markets is also weak, with less than 20% of revenues coming from international
markets. This is part of the reason the company is looking to make an aggressive push into new
foreign markets.
Net Income
Net income has generally been negative for most of the company’s history.
Aforementioned cost reductions were the main drivers for positive net income in 2010. Modest
revenue growth in 2010 also helped to increase net income (Exhibit 10).
Cost Controls
In order to improve its financials, LeapFrog began implementing multiple cost controls
from 2007. In 2008, LeapFrog experienced inventory management problems due to sudden
decreases in demand caused by the recession. To improve cash flow and inventory
management, the company has continued to work on lowering the direct cost of product
materials and components and reducing overhead costs, which, for LeapFrog, is primarily
warehousing and logistics costs. The company has consolidated contract manufacturers and
vendor logistics in order to simplify its supply chain. Inventory levels and turns have improved
significantly as a result. LeapFrog also announced a 10% reduction in force in 2008. All of these
aggressive cost reductions have led to reduced SG&A (selling, general and administrative)
expenses.
LeapFrog designs its hardware platforms and related software-based content using in-
house R&D. Since 2007, the company has sought to decrease its R&D overhead through
10
increased value realization from outside consultants. Through outsourcing, the company is able
to utilize engineering talents from all over the world with diverse backgrounds, without having
to take on the burden of hiring a large R&D group. LeapFrog also licenses technologies like Flash
from Adobe Systems and optical pattern recognition hardware and software from Anoto Group.
LeapFrog embeds its proprietary pedagogical approach and uses licensed characters from
Disney and other studios to create popular software titles. From 2007 to 2009, the company
was able to reduce R&D outlays by nearly $30 million in total, or half of the R&D budget alone
in 2007, freeing up resources for the company to focus more on improving distribution
channels (Exhibit 11). LeapFrog holds a number of patents at home and abroad; the business
does not rely on these patents in its marketing strategy, but rather on the quality and breadth
Manufacturing
LeapFrog outsources nearly all hardware manufacturing activities to bring down costs
and capital investments. As concerns over child safety and overall quality increase (i.e. lead
content, quality of plastics), the company has taken great precautions to align itself with a
strong and capable supplier base in China that meets all international safety standards.
LeapFrog’s management has mandated that its Chinese suppliers follow stringent safety
standards, based on those adopted by Europe and America. This is not just limited to product
manufacturing, but also includes packaging design and manufacturing, encompassing the final
and performance, LeapFrog has a team in China that regularly audits suppliers to ensure
11
consistency in output. LeapFrog also takes a very strict position in vetting out suppliers, only
partnering with those that have demonstrated superior technological capabilities and
specialization strengths. Given prices of raw materials such as petro-based plastics and
electronic components composed of copper wiring are constantly fluctuating, LeapFrog works
closely with suppliers to hedge against such fluctuation by guaranteeing orders throughout the
year and locking in rates. This allows the company to safeguard itself against variable cost
Marketing and distribution are addressed here together as a great deal of LeapFrog’s
marketing strategy is integrated with its distribution strategy. The effectiveness of the
company’s direct marketing campaign rests firmly on the quality of relationships it develops
with channel partners. LeapFrog has created “learning centers” within retail outlets, which are
select areas of a store that are built around LeapFrog product offerings wherein customers can
come and try out LeapFrog products. The Learning Path system has also allowed the company
to speak directly to the vast online customer base, allowing easy plug-and-play marketing of
new products and features, while providing a fluid channel for feedback to the company.
Retailers can purchase directly from LeapFrog’s manufacturing plants in China, which is
already integrated with most retailers’ existing supply chains. This allows for consolidation of
shipments, and hence, reduced freight burden. LeapFrog also keeps short-term forecasted
stock in warehouses throughout the U.S.to meet any spikes in short-term demand that retailers
may be subject to. LeapFrog has a no-return policy with retailers except for manufacturing
defects in the products. The company uses both brick-and-mortar store channels and online
12
retail channels. Amazon, Kmart, BestBuy, Toy-R-Us, Walmart, Target, and Barnes&Noble are
Design Strategy
LeapFrog’s design methodology is to make interactive learning toys that look and feel
like toys, but place the greatest possible emphasis on being valuable educational tools. As a
company in the highly competitive toy market, LeapFrog designers discovered “the 7 second
rule”: if the user does not engage with audio and video in the first seven seconds, they will
never engage.6 If the product does not make a good instant impression on children, they are
very likely to discard it for something else, which oftentimes carried no educational value. To
test out the effectiveness of designs, LeapFrog uses both children and parents in its focus
groups during the design phases of its products. LeapFrog employees experts in early childhood
development in its product design process in order achieve effective hardware and software
LeapFrog designs its toys to “hook” children by closely mimicking products that they
already consider entertaining and desirable; LeapFrog products are thus intuitive for children to
use. The Tag, for example, is shaped like a giant pencil, and requires children to point at words;
Leapster products look and feel like handheld gaming systems from Nintendo.7
Toddler Toys (12 to 36 months), Preschool Toys (3 to 5 years), Kids’ Toys (5 to 8 years), and Toys
(8+). Since 2007, the company has sought to increase its product offerings by shifting R&D and
6
“LeapFrog’s Great Leap Forward”. By: Breen, Bill. Fast Company, Jun2003, Issue 71, p88-9
7
Ibid
13
marketing resources from the age six and younger segment to grade school children. Emphasis
products to the web. LeapFrog has mostly followed an incremental innovation process to refine
and extend its established designs. See Exhibit 12 for LeapFrog’s product mix.
Learning Path
Learning Path is an online content management system (CMS) that guides parents
through their child’s development with activity suggestions and new LeapFrog product
referrals. LeapFrog had originally developed Learning Path within its School House business unit
to help teachers assess their students’ learning abilities. The modified consumer version
provided value to parents by allowing them to customize educational skills and track learning
progress while using web-enabled LeapFrog products. It also differentiated LeapFrog from the
competition and created direct relationships with parents, thereby allowing the company to
gain timely insight to its customers, communicate directly with them, and market the right
products at the right time. Learning Path is currently used as a technology base for all of the
major electronic products within its four existing product categories (Exhibit 13).
Learning toys
With products designed for infants and children up to age three, these toys are
strategically priced at lower price points than competitors, making them more accessible to a
wider range of consumers and creating a gateway for further adoption. Learning toys fall
within the growth stage of the product life cycle (PLC), primarily due to the recent introductions
of new product lines such as the Scout collection, which have been designed to integrate with
Learning Path (Exhibit 14). There are, however, a range of learning toys that are not connected
14
to Learning Path, such as the Fridge collection, Everyday Play Toys, and the Learn and Groove
collection. Promotion of learning toys has relied on traditional forms of advertising versus the
direct marketing strategy used with Learning Path, as this category is the main entry point to
the LeapFrog brand and requires a wide adoption rate to achieve company goals.
Reading has always been a primary emphasis for LeapFrog’s R&D. With the launches of
Tag and Tag Junior interactive reading systems, LeapFrog phased out its LeapPad line and
introduced the next generation of reading products which integrates optical pattern reading
hardware, and leverages LeapFrog’s stable of licensed characters and educational design. The
Tag systems are both web-enabled to integrate with Learning Path, further enhancing
LeapFrog’s product portfolio. The optical pattern reading hardware and software are exclusively
licensed from Anoto Group, but competitors like VTech are able to imitate with similar
products.
LeapFrog’s secondary emphasis has been in hardware and software that cleverly
embeds educational content within a gaming context to make learning fun. LeapFrog has
expanded this category from its popular Leapster platform to incorporate different products
designed for different age groups. With the introduction of Leapster2 in 2008, and the third-
innovations that improve its existing platforms while aligning its educational gaming systems
with its overall business strategies. LeapFrog takes the razor-and-blade selling model with this
line - LeapFrog sells the core hardware console for a low $50 price and proceeds to sell
15
inexpensively manufactured game cartridges for $20 each. See Exhibit 15 for pricing for
Web-based products
LeapWorld, launched in 2010, is an online learning center that allows children to link
their offline play on their web-enabled LeapFrog products, such as Leapster Explorer handheld
gaming systems, with online play. LeapFrog’s web-based products currently take advantage of
only one of LeapFrog’s four lines of distribution – direct to consumers, either directly to
children within the interface itself or to parents through the Learning Path system. As LeapFrog
continues to build out this category, senior management should be aware of how these
products fit into the organization’s existing strategies and exploit core competencies where
applicable.
Hardware
combined a 4MB ATI (graphics chip), a custom integrated circuit with an ARC Tangent CPU
running at 96MHz that supports Adobe Flash, and a 160px by 160px CSTN with touch screen.8
The Leapster Explorer, with 3D graphics, may have slightly higher specs in terms of the GPU
and CPU. For the Tag family of products, LeapFrog uses Anoto optical reader technology.This
product audibly reads letters directly from the page, plays sounds, and initiates games when
the appropriate software for the book is pre-loaded onto the Tag.9 Tag systems also include
8
“LeapFrog Leapster 2 Learning Game System”. LeapFrog Learning Games forum.
www.leapfroglearningfungame.com. Retrieved February 2011.
9
“Tag”. www.LeapFrog.com. Retrieved January 2011.
16
32MB of onboard storage for digitally downloaded book content and for progress files.
LeapFrog is highly dependent upon very few suppliers for these materials in its hardware and its
ability to substitute these suppliers is questionable. The core electronic hardware is mainly
Software
LeapFrog has developed a proprietary software platform running Flash content for its
Leapster-series.10 Leapster and Leapster2 games can be played on Leapster Explorer. However,
games could feasibly be run on any PC or smart phone supporting Flash. Given that Leapster
games are programmed in an open source language, LeapFrog’s core competencies in software
are not in the actual language or engine, but in the quality of actual content being produced. In
this regard, they are similar to game development studios. Exhibit 17 shows the Product
Innovation Audit
Technological leadership
successful in introducing several innovative products and has received numerous industry
design awards.11 LeapFrog has done a good job leveraging its web based Learning Path and
learning model across its portfolio. With innovative products like the Tag reading system,
Learning Path, LeapWorld, and Leapster, LeapFrog has introduced technologies that have
created a paradigm shift in how educational toys are used in the household.
10
“Adobe Success Story”. www.adobe.com. Retrieved February 2011.
11
“LeapFrog Reports Knowledge Universe Distributes 73% of Its LeapFrog Holdings”. LeapFrog Investor Relations:
Press Release. 5/1/2003. www.leapfrog.com
17
However, Leapfrog is threatened by children's growing expectations of technology. Per
Exhibit 16, Leapfrog's products in 2005 were mostly able to meet children's expectations until
they approached the age of 10, at which point they became familiar with using computers and
the internet. In 2011, we predict that this technological expectations curve will shift to the left
and become steeper. 80% of children under the age of 5 are on the internet at least weekly.12
As a result of earlier experience with the web, and exposure to smart phones and tablets, we
believe that Leapfrog will face even stiffer expectations from children older than 4 years of age.
These expectations may reduce product adoption, and make Leapfrog products look less
LeapFrog has been successful in launching a new innovative product almost every year,
with mostly incremental product innovations in recent years (Exhibit 18). This continuous
innovation for more than a decade has made it a leader in the electronics educational toys
segment. Aside from product innovation, LeapFrog adopted the Inshore Delivery Center model,
procurement. Product innovation and innovation in its value chain has created a competitive
LeapFrog has been investing considerably in R&D as a percentage of net sales compared
to its competitors, even though it has been decreasing this investment since 2007 due to cost
12
“Always Connected: The new digitial media habits of young children”. Aviva Lucas Gutnick et al. March 2011.
www.joanganzcooneycenter.org
18
reduction initiatives and greater outsourcing efficiency. Exhibit 11 compares the R&D
Recognizing the competition from other handheld gaming consoles like the Nintendo
DS, LeapFrog launched Leapster, a handheld educational device in 2003 which became an
instant success. Compared to its competitors, LeapFrog has more innovative products in the
own products. In response, LeapFrog management used the Learning Path strategy to provide
immediate brand differentiation on store shelves. With the customization of curriculum and its
proprietary pedagogical approach, LeapFrog has created greater value for its customers than its
competitors have.
Capacity to adapt
Mobile platforms like iOS and Android are becoming more popular, with a robust
gaming gaining in massive popularity on these mobile operating systems. LeapFrog responded
to this trend with the launch of its third generation Leapster handheld gaming console, the
Leapster Explorer. With the convergence of multiple platforms such as TV, mobile and web,
LeapFrog has been successful in creating an integrated learning platform that leverages its
proprietary curriculum along with the web connected Learning Path and its innovative
products. However, LeapFrog must still address the convergence of content consumption
devices and the overall push toward developing applications agnostic to LeapFrog devices.
19
Structural and cultural impact on innovation
All design and critical development of product is done in the U.S. This centralization
aides in the learning of newer technologies and creates important component links in products
that are quicker and more efficient. This centralization of R&D also enables LeapFrog to bring
people with different disciplines and expertise in child development, learning systems, software
engineering, and hardware engineering together to work under one roof to develop superior
educational products. This increases the cohesiveness and efficiency with which product
Issues
Until now, Leapfrog has developed its games and content within a closed ecosystem.
However, this closed system might not be enough to maintain sales with the changing
competitive landscape and the proliferation of a variety of methods to consume digital content.
With the tablet and Smartphone industry growing aggressively, and the accompanying app
markets continuing to expand with forays into educational games and content, LeapFrog is
beginning to be threatened in the area it once dominated. Earlier in the decade, LeapFrog met
the user expectations for fun to use, easy to use educational toys for the kids but with the
developments in multi touch, accelerometer, ARM processor and other mobile technologies,
the mobile devices (including tablets) which were once not considered for a child’s educational
needs, now have become a viable substitute. Exhibit 19 shows how mobile devices could be
educational applications for the dominant mobile eco-systems, would be highly capital
intensive.
20
In response to this threat, Leapfrog should reposition itself as a software company that
is platform agnostic. To do this, the company would need to reduce its emphasis on hardware,
and maximize deployment of its unique and successful learning model through software.
LeapFrog will need to jump a major hurdle in this transformation – studios from which LeapFrog
licenses characters are developing their own apps for mobile devices, and are in turn refusing
to allow other developers from using their brands in these app markets. Due to the decreasing
technological importance of its hardware competencies, LeapFrog should “cash in” on software
Recommendations
We recommend that LeapFrog concentrate on decreasing its costs and increasing its
cash position and profits in order to make itself an attractive acquisition target within two
years. We propose that LeapFrog be open to acquisition by a larger company in the toy industry
where LeapFrog’s core competencies and products would provide a unique and non-redundant
strategic fit. Leapfrog’s new CEO, John Barbour, has previous experience in the turnaround of
Toy R Us and its sale to private equity firm KKR, and has also held senior-level positions at
Hasbro and Russ Berrie (makers of Russ stuffed animals).13 Barbour’s experiences in the
Of all the big-name potential buyers, Hasbro seems to have the least redundancy in the
educational toy market. Hasbro’s subsidiary Playskool has been a competitor to LeapFrog, but
has been more focused on lower-end play toys rather than educational products. Exhibit 21
compares the product portfolio of Leapfrog against its main competitors. We believe that
13
“LeapFrog names ex-Toys R Us exec Barbour as CEO”. Bloomberg Businessweek. February 28, 2011.
www.businessweek.com
21
LeapFrog can fit into Hasbro’s corporate structure as an independent business unit, thereby
Implementation
To make itself an attractive acquisition target, LeapFrog should focus on cost reduction
Cost Reduction
LeapFrog should cease the development of its low-margin learning toys introduced in
2009. Low-margin, low-technology products like Scout and the Fridge collections do not fit well
with Leapfrog’s product portfolio and offer little differentiation when compared to similar
products offered by its competitors. By concentrating on its core products and streamlining its
product lines, LeapFrog should be able to build its cash position and improve profits.
Furthermore, LeapFrog could feasibly continue to extract profit from these toys without any
Decrease R&D
LeapFrog’s current R&D expenses are approximately 8% of sales, while Hasbro and
Mattel’s R&D expenses are 4% and 3%, respectively (Exhibit 11). LeapFrog should decrease its
R&D to be in line with its competitors. This would save the company about $17 million per year.
LeapFrog can achieve this by keeping R&D focused only in its core competencies and high
margin products, such as by developing game software and new Tag books.
22
Decrease inventory costs
LeapFrog had inventory control problems during the recession, which led to the
company becoming unprofitable. LeapFrog has indicated that its inventory levels are high,
which might affect sales growth in the first half of 2011.14 LeapFrog should invest in better
inventory control systems and consider delivering orders directly to its customers from the
Value Creation
LeapFrog should continue to invest in book content for its Tag interactive reader and
downloadable game content (AKA “Leaplets”) for its Leapster Explorer. LeapFrog has a
demonstrated track record of understanding the delicate marriage between fun and education;
learning games and content are what differentiate and set LeapFrog apart. As such, LeapFrog
should continue to invest in these areas of its business with new offerings, and if possible,
To keep children engaged with the learning content, LeapFrog should also more fully
leverage the web connectedness of its devices. Currently, the Leapster appears to unlock new
content in the freely provided LeapWorld, but, as of yet, it does not appear that the Tag can
unlock new content on the Leapster. We propose that LeapFrog implement cross-platform
opportunities with each completed activity. These improvements would also create explicit
demand for LeapFrog products from the children themselves. For instance: a new “WALL-E”
14
Leapfrog 2010 10K Report filed 2/22/2011
23
mini-game on Leapster can only be unlocked and played if the “WALL-E” Tag book is logged as
complete in the Learning Path system. Leapfrog currently gives children codes to unlock
As previously noted, Learning Path not only tracks a child’s development, but also
provides parents with coaching and activity ideas. LeapFrog is not recognizing the deeper value
in this tool. Rather than simply augmenting its products, Learning Path can become a stand-
LeapFrog should charge an annual subscription fee (such as $19.99 per year) to parents
who want to provide new opportunities for their children to learn, but who are also hesitant to
purchase a Leapfrog product. This subscription could provide all the perks of Learning Path,
and may even be able to mimic some of the tracking functionality (such as through manual
entry of a child’s progress on worksheets and checklists provided by Leapfrog, in online games
in LeapWorld). Parents who may otherwise ignore Leapfrog products would benefit by
receiving guidance from a company that has demonstrated a track record of helping children
have fun while learning. LeapFrog would benefit from subscription fees and additional
opportunities to market and sell parents on the benefits of the Leapfrog products and libraries.
Because some of the content that would be leveraged for a subscription already exists within
Learning Path and the rest can be developed and delivered digitally through the Learning Path
CMS, this model would provide a low-cost method to generate additional revenue, and
24
EXHIBITS
25
Exhibit 3: Toys and Games Company Shares by Value 2004 – 2008
Table 4 Toys and Games Company Shares by Value 2004-2008 % retail value rsp
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Nintendo of America Inc 3.8 3.8 4.7 11.5 12.1
Mattel Inc 13.2 13.1 12.9 10.9 9.5
Microsoft Corp 2.4 3 7.2 7.5 8.8
Sony Corp of America 7.6 8.5 9.1 9.6 6.9
Hasbro Inc 8.7 7.7 7.5 7.1 6.5
Electronic Arts Inc 5 5.1 3.8 3.8 4.6
Activision Inc 1.5 1.6 1.6 2.8 2.7
MGA Entertainment Inc 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.9
JAKKS Pacific Inc 1.7 1.8 2 1.9 1.7
LEGO Group 1.2 1.3 1.5 1.4 1.4
Bandai America Inc 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.6 1.3
Take-Two Interactive Software Inc 1.2 0.4 1.1 1.2 1.3
LeapFrog Enterprises Inc 2.1 2.1 1.7 1.2 1.1
THQ Inc 1.5 1.6 1.2 1.3 1
RC2 Corp 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.3 1
Vtech Holdings Ltd 0.5 0.8 1 1 1
Ubisoft Entertainment SA 0.3 0.9 0.9 1.1 0.8
Vivendi Universal SA 0.9 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.7
Konami Corp 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4
LucasArts 0.6 1 0.5 0.3 0.3
Private Label 6.2 6.1 6.1 5.5 4.9
Others 35.9 35.1 31.2 26.3 30
Total 100 100 100 100 100
Description Market Cap P/E ROE % Debt to Equity Price to Book Net Profit Margin (mrq)
Consumer Goods 73440.94B 24.565 18.944 78.391 0.448 8.296
Toys & Games 15.96B 34.8 10.7 65.162 5.87 4.7
Mattel Inc. 8.44B 12.626 26.148 42.541 2.958 15.453
Hasbro Inc. 6.08B 15.56 28.455 101.403 4.09 11.815
JAKKS Pacific, Inc. 465.88M 13.389 9.379 21.698 1.116 11.575
RC2 Corp. 427.08M 15.585 10.93 15.003 1.548 9.624
LeapFrog Enterprises Inc. 259.52M 28.511 5.376 NA 1.46 11.445
Kid Brands, Inc. 196.08M 8.004 27.411 69.36 1.869 5.567
Gaming Partners International 52.18M 10.192 12.689 0.119 1.239 6.146
Mad Catz Interactive Inc. 46.28M 7.304 68.575 364.983 3.907 3.015
GameTech International Inc. 4.63M NA -121.231 282.336 0.467 -52.734
26
Exhibit 5: Competitive Positioning
Entertainment
PlaySkool
Educational
27
Exhibit 6: SWOT Analysis
STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES
- In-house concept designs - Perception of high retail prices
- Learning Path tracks child’s progress – creating a - Heavy reliance on 3 main customers (Walmart, Toys
direct relationship with parents R Us, Target) (Source: LeapFrog 10K)
- Inshore strategic sourcing – agile development - Concentration of suppliers in China (Source:
LeapFrog 10K)
- Brand recognition
- Weak business model
- Software utilizes popular licensed content (e.g.
Disney, Star Wars) - Fewer number of proprietary characters – mostly
licensed
- Core technology: Optical pattern reading HW & SW
- Connected, engaging learning platform
- Proprietary curriculum developed
by education experts
LeapFrog
SWOT Analysis
OPPORTUNITIES THREATS
- International expansion - Threat of imitation
- Lower tier of market- more affordable products - Recession= low sales
- Increasing investment in mobile applications - Seasonality of business
- Cloud based games and applications - Increasing direct and indirect competition (e.g.
- Expansion of Learning Path as subscription service lower price points) – other gaming systems available
to non-buyers - High threat of rivalry – main competitors have
enough technology, marketing and financial resources
- Patent Infringements
- Age Compression - changing preferences
28
Exhibit 7: High Level Strategy
Mass Hasbro
Mattel
Niche LeapFrog
Vtech
29
Exhibit 9: LeapFrog Timeline: Repositioned for Growth
Invest in connected
strategy
30
Net Income
$100,000
$50,000
$0
($50,000)
($100,000)
($150,000)
($200,000)
Revenue Plot
$800,000
$700,000
$600,000
$500,000
$400,000
$300,000
$200,000
$100,000 Revenue Plot
$0
31
Exhibit 11: Comparison of R&D Expenditure
In millions of US Dollars
LeapFrog 2010 2009 2008 2007
Sales 380 459 442
R&D 35 48.5 59.4
% 9% 11% 13%
32
Exhibit 12: LeapFrog’s Product Mix
Product Online Tools Learning Toys Reading Systems Educational Web-Based
type Gaming Systems Products
Toys Learning Path Scout, Zippity, Tag, Tag Junior Leapster, LeapWorld
Learn & Groove, Leapster 2, Didj,
Clickstart, My Crammer,
Own Leaptop Leapster
Explorer
Description Online tool Products Pen-based Learning skills Online learning
allowing parents developed to reading system embedded in center for
the ability to help increase games, often children.
monitor & track motor skills, featuring
child’s learning sound & color licensed content.
progress based recognition.
on LF’s web-
connected
products.
Details: Proprietary Customer entry Utilizes optical Have expanded Functionality:
curriculum & point to pattern reading from Classic online games,
technology LeapFrog brand. HW & SW Leapster to access new
combined w/ Products (technological Leapster2 & Didj content, view
web capabilities. “designed to ‘age competence). (web- demos,
Major up’ with our Connects to connected), customize offline
component of child end users.” Learning Path CrammerStudy gaming.
LF’s product Scout, Zippity, online. (study device
strategy. and My Own targeted to older
Leaptop kids), and
products connect Leapster
to Learning Path Explorer (web-
online. connected).
Age range Ages infant – 9 Ages infant – 5 Tag: Ages 4 – 8 Leapster2: Ages Ages 4 – 9
Tag Jr: Ages 2 – 4 4–8
Leapster
Explorer: Ages 4
–9
Didj: Ages 6 – 10
Crammer: Ages 8
– 12
Price N/A $ - $$$$ $$ $$$ - $$$$ N/A
Source: LeapFrog Annual Report 2009
33
Exhibit 13: Learning Path Ecosystem
34
Exhibit 14: Product Life Cycle
Interactive Reading
Systems
Gaming Systems
Sales
Learning Toys
LeapWorld
35
Exhibit 15: Product Pricing
Learning Toys
ClickStart $59.99
Reading Systems
Leapster2 $49.99
Didj $89.99
CrammerStudy $59.99
36
Exhibit 16: Children’s Expectations of Technology, 2005 vs Present
14
12
Technolkogy Complexity
10 2005 Expectations of
Technology
8
2011 Expectation of
6 Technology
4 LF Product
0
0-2 2-4 4 -6 6-9 10+
Age Range
37
Exhibit 17: Product Technology Matrix
Main Product\ Pattern Phonics Software/ Proprietary Hardware/ Learning Path/ Web Connect
Technology Recognition Game Curriculum Asic Chip Learning Tracking
Titles system
Leapster2 x x x x
Leapster Explorer x x x x x
Leappad x X x x
Tag Junior X x x x x
Aplhabet Explorer x x x
Leaptop x x x x
Didj x x x x
Fusion Pentop x x x
Clickstart x x x
38
Exhibit 18: New Product Launch and Milestones
1999 Leapad Learning system Phonics Learning system wins Design of Decade
award from Business Week
2000 SchoolHouse
2006 Leapster TV learning system and Learn and FLY Pentop Computer gets top Toy of the Year
Groove collection award
2007 3 new platforms – FLY fusion Pentop – Clickstart earns Outstanding Products Award,
Computer, Clickstart My first computer and MOM-Tested Toys of the Year Award
WordLaunch Learn to Read System
2009 Tag Junior,My Pal Scout,My Pal Violet and Tag Reading System wins Educational Toy of the
AlphaPet Explorer, Text&Learn and Year award
Scribble&Write
39
Exhibit 19: Possible Disruption
Performance
Performance – “Ease of Use and Fun to use for kids”
Mobile
User Expectations
Leapfrog Products
Launch of iPhone
Educational Software
Mobile (iOS, Android)
titles, Propreitary Content
BET DRAW
High Low
40
Exhibit 21: Comparison of Competitive Educational Toy Products
41
REFERENCES
“Toys and Games 2010: Trends, Developments and Prospects”. Euromonitor International. December
2009
“VTech's new variety of learning products”. Playthings; Feb2001, Vol. 99 Issue 2, p120
“LeapFrog’s Great Leap Forward”. By: Breen, Bill. Fast Company, Jun2003, Issue 71
“LeapFrog Leapster 2 Learning Game System”. LeapFrog Learning Games forum. Retrieved February
2010. http://www.leapfroglearningfungame.com/LeapFrog-Leapster-2-Learning-Game-System.html
“LeapFrog Reports Knowledge Universe Distributes 73% of Its LeapFrog Holdings”. LeapFrog Investor
Relations: Press Release. 5/1/2003. http://www.leapfroginvestor.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=131670&p=irol-
newsArticle&ID=408038&highlight=
“LeapFrog names ex-Toys R Us exec Barbour as CEO”. Bloomberg Businessweek. February 28, 2011.
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9LLT41O0.htm
“Always Connected: The new digitial media habits of young children”. Aviva Lucas Gutnick et al. March
2011. http://joanganzcooneycenter.org/Reports-28.html
42