Comments from Revell at pre-IHOBBY interview

[Exotics_Builder]

MCM’s pre-IHOBBY interview with Revell covered 1^st quarter 2015 releases and what’s on the horizon. At the close of the meeting, a discussion ensued on some message board threads/comments. Revell wanted to try and get some things clear. They said I could post this separately.

First, they do spend time reviewing the message boards and social media comments. They take constructive criticism and ideas very seriously. But, they do not have the resources to post in these threads and carry out conversations. The days of being able to do that given their product lines and customer bases are long past.

Second, there are several steps in the process where misinterpretation can creep in and an error occurs. When discovered, whatever way, it is noted and an evaluation of potential fixes is done. Again, resources come to bear as to how and when a correction can be made. If there is extensive time before any correction is made, it does not mean they are insensitive to the modeling community. They are a business and need to consider many things.

Third, there appears to be a misconception that they are not taking advantage of new technology in the design/development process. That is not the case. Evaluation and use of 3D scanning/printing technologies is underway, but the low cost versions will not cut it and the size of the 1:1 prototypes really raises the price points. The day of light weight portable and affordable scanning wand is not here yet. Believe it or not, they do not get CAD drawings from the manufacturers for every vehicle detail.

The auto manufacturers today are not as forthcoming as in the past with vehicle data, causing a lot of field work. Ford was an exception with the 2015 Mustang model. But for the C7 Corvette, Revell had to get out in the field to get the design info needed for the upcoming model.

Finally, Revell has several different market segments to satisfy. An objective they have across some segments is to increase the number of younger people introduced to the hobby. That means simplified kits such as snaps as well as prepainted. These will be part of their “garage” along with more offerings that will appeal to the experienced modeler. They will continue to do the best job they can offering all new models, conversions and reissues.

Edited September 23, 2014 by Exotics_Builder

[DrKerry]

Thanks for the info Gerry!!!!

[Kennyboy]

X2

I think that if it would increase the amount of kits available (and a MORE diverse selection) then why wouldn't we be behind Revell to come out with more "curbside" kits to speed up the time it takes to manufacture molds and get these new offerings to market. I, for one, wouldn't mind this because it is easy enough to cut open a hood and add an engine and driveline.......they could even add engine kits to the market you could buy seperately (LSX, HEMI's, but not just V8's, perhaps 2JZ, RB25DETT, SR20DET, etc) Just a thought.

[unclescott58]

Sound reasonable to me. I like what they are doing and look forward to more of their stuff in the future.

Scott

[Len Woodruff]

Good information Gerry.

[LDO]

X2

I think that if it would increase the amount of kits available (and a MORE diverse selection) then why wouldn't we be behind Revell to come out with more "curbside" kits to speed up the time it takes to manufacture molds and get these new offerings to market. I, for one, wouldn't mind this...

You and me both, but oh boy, you should have been here when Tamiya released their Aston Martin without a complete engine. Lack of an engine apparently broke a bunch of people's legs AND picked their pockets.

[Danno]

Good common sense and excellent business sense.

Those who blindly criticize the loudest have likely never had to consistently meet a payroll.

[Art Anderson]

Gerry heard some pretty sound stuff, and rather candid, frankly. Something else to consider as well:

There's not a model kit manufacturer on the planet that is as large as say, Ford, GM, Chrysler, Toyota or Nissan--most any mass-production automaker is so exponentially larger than any of the companies producing plastic model kits of cars, that they do as much business in less than a day than some model companies do in a year or so.

Another thought here: No matter what any model company produces in cars, be they full-detail w/all manner of PE parts and the like, just a plastic full detail kit, a curbside glue kit, or a snapper, they are going to please those on one side of the street, upset those on the opposite sidewalk, with some in the middle who will go either way. Thus, the question becomes: "Who do they make happy enough to buy lots of that new kit without completely "turning off" the enthusiasm of others? That is almost always the question in product planning and development, no matter what the product line or market is. It only makes sense, from a business point of view, to please the most people most of the time, so they will spend their dollars to buy what any company sells--no sales, no business, no business, no model company, plain and simple.

Art

Edited September 23, 2014 by Art Anderson

[Harry P.]

Second, there are several steps in the process where misinterpretation can creep in and an error occurs. When discovered, whatever way, it is noted and an evaluation of potential fixes is done. Again, resources come to bear as to how and when a correction can be made.

Obviously it's going to cost $$$ to fix mistakes after the fact, because that means altering the tooling.

The real question (at least the one I would ask), is how are so many mistakes making it all the way to production, and only then being discovered? Why aren't these mistakes caught before the tooling is cut? Why aren't the masters given a critical overview before they are committed to tooling? And if they are given a critical overlook, how is it that so many obvious mistakes keep getting through?

[ianguilly]

So did they say anything about 2015 releases?

[Rob Hall]

So did they say anything about 2015 releases?

The first sentence indicated that...MCM is probably under an embargo until some date..

[Brett Barrow]

Obviously it's going to cost $$$ to fix mistakes after the fact, because that means altering the tooling.

The real question (at least the one I would ask), is how are so many mistakes making it all the way to production, and only then being discovered? Why aren't these mistakes caught before the tooling is cut? Why aren't the masters given a critical overview before they are committed to tooling? And if they are given a critical overlook, how is it that so many obvious mistakes keep getting through?

Check out the thread on Moebius' Ford pickup. See how much different the first test shot looks from the tooling mockup. Mistakes crept in there from somewhere that weren't on the masters. Sometimes they make changes to accommodate the molding process (things like draft angles so the parts don't get trapped in the mold, or thicknesses of parts so the plastic flows and cools properly and doesn't cause shrink marks) sometimes there are changes that are just plain headscratchers.

[mikemodeler]

Thanks Gerry, appreciate the time you took to gather the information and share it with the forum. Glad to hear that Revell is lurking and listening, hopefully they will fix whatever problems they encounter through that monitoring of customer feedback.

I agree with Harry that it would benefit them greatly to spend the time BEFORE a kit is released to ensure glaring issues are caught. I am sure they are like most companies today that are doing more with less but somehow I think they could find a couple of knowledgeable people to help them with final test shots. These could be local people with a 1:1 to compare it to or known model industry people who can research the subject for accuracy.

[Harry P.]

Sometimes they make changes to accommodate the molding process (things like draft angles so the parts don't get trapped in the mold, or thicknesses of parts so the plastic flows and cools properly and doesn't cause shrink marks)

I don't buy that. If Johan could get it right 50 years ago, model manufacturers should be able to get it right today, Molding a gas tank backwards, just as one example, has nothing to do with "draft angles" or any other technicality. Getting the curve of a windshield so wrong that they are forced to go back and recut the tooling had nothing to do with draft angles or the molding process. There are dozens more examples, from several different manufacturers. It's not only Revell.

[Brett Barrow]

I don't buy that. If Johan could get it right 50 years ago, model manufacturers should be able to get it right today, Molding a gas tank backwards, just as one example, has nothing to do with "draft angles" or any other technicality. Getting the curve of a windshield so wrong that they are forced to go back and recut the tooling had nothing to do with draft angles or the molding process. There are dozens more examples, from several different manufacturers. It's not only Revell.

Again, you take what I say out of context, or fail to comprehend what I wrote. "SOMETIMES". I was just pointing out that even with a correct master, changes could be made during tooling for various reasons.

I've seen the Trumpeter car kit tooling mockups with my own eyes and held them in my own hands. The kits that Trumpeter produced were not faithful to those master patterns. I don't know why, but they just aren't. Sometimes there are technical reasons, and sometimes they just @%$! up.

Edited September 25, 2014 by Brett Barrow

[clovis]

I've spent the majority of my life in the printing business.

Even though comparing the printing trade to model development may be a bit simplistic, no matter how hard you try, sometimes those mistakes do creep into projects.

I've had jobs that were proofread 100 times, signed off on by the customer, sent to print, and came back with glaring problems. I once had an order for 300 t-shirts for a flooring company. I was thrilled to have this order from a flooring company. The art was created and proofed, and just before it went to print, some second shift dude wanting to make a name for himself decided that the art was totally wrong, and believed the company was deed and title company, so he took the liberty of changing the artwork from "Tile" to "Title", without consulting anyone, and printed the entire order that way.

You might be surprised how many production people in the printing trades feel like they have the right to change work orders to their suiting, even though the customer has signed off on a job for the final time. It is like they fully believe that they should have full creative control over a job, even though their job is to print the job...it really is amazing!!!!!!

In 20 years, I think that I've heard it all at some time or another.

"I thought it would look better that way."

"No one said, so I made it darker."

"Yeah. I couldn't get it to print that way, so I changed it."

"I could have done it that way, but it would have taken me a lot longer to do it."

"I got it done. The customer won't care how it is done."

"That is just too much work. I changed the job so it would be easier."

I have heard all of those things from production employees, all of them working 2nd and 3rd shifts (when management was away) for $7 an hour.

I can't even imagine what it must be like in the model business...

[Exotics_Builder]

Obviously it's going to cost $$$ to fix mistakes after the fact, because that means altering the tooling.

The real question (at least the one I would ask), is how are so many mistakes making it all the way to production, and only then being discovered? Why aren't these mistakes caught before the tooling is cut? Why aren't the masters given a critical overview before they are committed to tooling? And if they are given a critical overlook, how is it that so many obvious mistakes keep getting through?

I agree with you there. I have my perceptions on that, mainly related to staffing levels. When I visited Revell at their old Morton Grove location in the mid-90's there seemed to be a much larger staff (disregarding the manufacturing part) than I observed in the last couple of visits (disregarding the manufacturing part). I cannot claim that is an issue, just a perception on my part.

As stated above about the printing process, things creep in even with multiple reviews. I was in the software development business and no matter how many design reviews, testing cycles (including negative testing) and user testing; things crept through. In the majority of cases, these were not obvious flaws, but a few were.

I know that the photos of I took of the S&H Torino and the feedback are known to them. A couple Revell employees are members of model car clubs I belong to in the area. And I know the feedback is given there as well. The ones I know personally, at least, are honest and sincere people. Let's hope the quality improves. I did like the C7 snap test shots I saw, so there is that.

[Harry P.]

Again, you take what I say out of context, or fail to comprehend what I wrote.

I comprehend perfectly and took nothing out of context.

In response to my comment regarding mistakes that make it through to production, and why that is so, you answered that sometimes they make changes to accommodate the molding process... your implication being that errors or inaccuracies in the kit might be due to those changes.

And I said that there are mistakes made that have nothing to do with the molding process.

[Art Anderson]

Obviously it's going to cost $$$ to fix mistakes after the fact, because that means altering the tooling.

The real question (at least the one I would ask), is how are so many mistakes making it all the way to production, and only then being discovered? Why aren't these mistakes caught before the tooling is cut? Why aren't the masters given a critical overview before they are committed to tooling? And if they are given a critical overlook, how is it that so many obvious mistakes keep getting through?

Harry, you make this sound as though any new model kit is full of mistakes?

Art

[Harry P.]

Harry, you make this sound as though any new model kit is full of mistakes?

Art

I never said all. But enough that it's become somewhat of a common occurrence these days. Or at the very least, it's happening way too often.

[Art Anderson]

I never said all. But enough that it's become somewhat of a common occurrence these days. Or at the very least, it's happening way too often.

I'd love to see the plastic model car kit that is completely free of even little niggles. frankly. Simply put, I submit that would be darned near impossible.

Art

[Luc Janssens]

Obviously it's going to cost $$$ to fix mistakes after the fact, because that means altering the tooling.

The real question (at least the one I would ask), is how are so many mistakes making it all the way to production, and only then being discovered? Why aren't these mistakes caught before the tooling is cut? Why aren't the masters given a critical overview before they are committed to tooling? And if they are given a critical overlook, how is it that so many obvious mistakes keep getting through?

I remember a conversation I had with friends; who almost 10 years ago, owned a large mail-order/distributor/aftermarket company in MO, in which they said, that when calling Revell-Monogram for orders etc, one could hear the machines and handing of tools in the tool-shop, later when tooling went Orient the phone line was static free.

With that I wish to say, that it's much easier to follow up on something that's done in house, then when sending a box stuffed with drawings and photographs to a vendor a few thousand miles away,

Sidenote: If i would sent the recipe to make Belgian chocolate to a Chinese food factory, will they be able to create those delicious Belgian Chocolates and sell them in Belgium by the truckloads?)

Maybe in time with raising labor costs in China, plus the shipping factor (cost and lost time) and also the advancement of 3D scanning and rapid prototyping technology, this part of R&D could be ready for in-sourcing again, but the question then is do we still have craftsmen who can do the job and if so, can a small niche the hobby industry is, attract such people, when there's much more earnings to be found, in industrial applications, so who knows maybe some Chinese craftsmen will have to come stateside and be part of the American dream, just as the Chinese railroad-workers many generations ago...

I have a dream...Ha!

R&D nothing as exiting but also nerve-wrecking

;^)

Edited September 25, 2014 by Luc Janssens

[Harry P.]

Are the masters and the tooling created by Americans or by Chinese?

I realize that the actual manufacturing of the kits is done overseas, but what is the source of the initial kit design, engineering, and tooling?

[Harry P.]

I'd love to see the plastic model car kit that is completely free of even little niggles. frankly. Simply put, I submit that would be darned near impossible.

Art

Seriously... you're not going to recycle that old line again, are you?

We all know there will never be a perfect kit. That isn't even the question under debate.

And we're not talking about "little niggles" anyway, but glaring and visually very obvious mistakes. Like for example, the Lindberg Impala whose windshield opening was so grossly misshapen and wrong that, if I remember correctly, they went back and recut the tooling to fix it. Or the Nova that had the gas tank molded backwards. That sort of thing.

If we can see them, why can't the manufacturers see them?

[Chuck Kourouklis]

I'm just diggin' on this whole notion of "blind criticism". That's a new one.

Prob'ly 'cause the inherent screaming oxymoron is just a wee too ear-splitting for most anyone else to drop it.

And another company may scoop you on CAD data from a given manufacturer's current models. And you may have a payroll to meet. And you may have to cut tooling in a blizzard uphill, both ways.

And you might throw a tantrum 'cause a published review wasn't the free advertising you thought it should be. And despite your attitude of an entitled executive who needs a b-smacking back into adulthood, at least in that moment, I might even yet contrive a fair amount of sympathy for you and the hurdles you face.

In the end, what's off in your product is NO LESS SO for all of that. Can't handle the blowback, you're in the wrong effin' bidness.