>>8481449It's also the fact that theyre one of the only fashion dolls, at a playline level, that focuses on fashion right now. The heads might be ugly but the ability to own a bunch of fashions that look good in miniature is an aspect of dolls other companies seem to ignore nowadays. Like Barbie's fashions amount to one or two pieces, but an Lol Omg doll's outfit is often layered and mimicks how real clothing is constructed (like a jacket being a separate piece instead of Barbie having a jacket stitched onto a half shirt with printed buttons). Fashion dolls are often a child's only way of experiencing modern fashions, and LOLOMG seems to be the only playline doll that still focuses on that aspect of play.
Like you hear about fashion designers who say toys were the first real way of experiencing fashion for them as kids, and MGA taps into that in a way Barbie doesn't.
And the tiny babies are just an evolution of that, since the 2000s had the Polly Pocket dolls with the swappable rubber clothes, the 90s had Kelly dolls, the 80s had Strawberry Shortcake dolls, the 70s had Dawn dolls and the 60s had Liddle Kiddles. Kids just love a jointed little doll they can swap clothes around in and also get a shoebox's worth of dolls. Like it's incredibly satisfying having a miniature and being able to say it's functional or that all the pieces can come off.
It's also a case of marketing. If you look at how MGA markets their brands it feels incredibly modern and relevant to kids, and kids wanna feel popular and cool.
Compare that to Barbie who's marketing feels aimed towards parents and it's super cold and suburban.
I also do think the ugly ass faces are a good marketing trick as it absolutely distinguishes the dolls from Barbie.
But yeah, I don't like mga's brands but I can see why they're so popular. They tap into how a child plays with dolls and they aren't strangers to cultivating controversy and marketing to get kids to pay attention.
